The URL can be used to link to this page

12/05/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION December 5, 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 Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Board of Canvassers & Formal Meeting Room 315 (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: 15:28:16 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. 20 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: Planning Director’s Local Historic District Report ~ 2:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Local Historic District Designation report. The proposed boundaries of the Upper Yale Local Historic District are approximately 1800 East to 1900 East along Yale Avenue. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council in order to continue the designation process. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Resolution: Recertifying the Salt Lake City Justice Court ~ 2:40 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution requesting the recertification of the Justice Court of Salt Lake City in order to provide for the Court's continued operation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 ~ 3:00 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.3 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. 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 four new full-time paramedic employees in the Fire Department's Medical Response Team, creation of a Legislative Division with four new full-time employees in the City Attorney's Office, over $6 million of additional transportation impact fees for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business district and the 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project among other items. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 5.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment ~ 3:45 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments. The proposed amendments would seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposal would also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user-friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 6.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Matt Gray ~ 4:10 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Matt Gray prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 7.Board Appointment: Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) – J. Clair Baldwin ~ 4:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview J.Clair Baldwin prior to considering appointment to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee for a term ending December 5, 2027. This is a Council-appointed position, therefore an Administrative Recommendation letter is not included. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Standing Items 8.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 9.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: •Approval of the 2024 Annual Meeting Calendar; and •Scheduling items. 10.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 2:30 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 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 December 5, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlacePublic Lands •Steenblik (D1) Phase 1 engagement done. SLC Public Lands staff have analyzed the results of the first phase of community engagement. To read what we heard, click the link to the project page https://www.slc.gov/parks/steenblik-park- reimagine-neighborhood-park/ •North Gate Park Warm Springs Park (D3) Phase 1 engagement beginning with Indigenous & Native American community groups in December. •Allen Park (D7) Public engagement for the three proposed concept designs recently closed. A virtual open house to reveal the final recommended concept design for the park will be held on December 11 from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Register for the Zoom meeting at: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZIodOGgqjgpGdaL2J5vPHqq3z8kTSC0c8c8 Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceTransportation Techlink TRAX Study (citywide) •UTA has launched the TechLink TRAX Study to improve east-west, downtown Salt Lake City, and regional TRAX connectivity in Salt Lake City. https://www.techlinkstudy.com/ 1300 East Construction (D7) •1300 East construction has been bumped to 2025. The 1100 East project began in mid-June and was initially scheduled to complete in late 2023 but has been pushed to 2024. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office The 2023 Winter Clothing Drive will take place December 11 - 15. The primary drop off point for new and gently used items will be located on the 2nd Floor of the City & County Building. Items will be accepted from 8 a.m.- 6 p.m. Priority need: Snow pants, thermals, and sleeping bags. Gently used pants and outerwear encouraged. Socks and undergarments must be new! Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office VISIT https://www.slc.gov/mayor/community-office-hours/ for updates on December dates. COMMUNITY OFFICE HOURS! Please visit the Mayor’s team of community liaisons out in your neighborhood for discussions on your needs, feedback for the Mayor, or help navigating the City. The Liaison team is available at any time for appointments and community conversations. If you are a business, non -profit, or other community gathering place interested in hosting our liaison team please reach out as well! Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: 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 Homeless Resource Center Utilization: •99% Full- Base Shelter Capacity •Has been code blue bed availability Encampment Impact Mitigation: •RMP Property - Industrial Area •RIT- Cottonwood Park/ Jordan River Temporary (Micro) Shelter Community •Switchpoint- Operator •Opening ASAP- December •50 residents Medically Vulnerable Population (MVP) •The Road Home/ 4th Street Medical Clinic •Ribbon-cutting Dec. 9 •Opening for up to 165 residents ASAP - January Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: 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 Code Blue: •Temps (incl. windchill) <15 degrees F •Declared by State DHHS for counties •Text & Email notifications •24 hrs (8am-8am) duration •Opens additional shelter beds/ night •SL County, 2nd & 2nd Coalition, HRC's •Offers additional basic needs/services •Limits City enforcement of no camping (if no shelter beds are available) during and after event for 48hrs •State Shelter Capacity Dashboard •Testing dashboard shortly •12pm daily updates Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: 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 Sales Tax Revenue Bond+ CEMETERY IRRIGATION AND ROADWAYS URBAN WOOD REUTILIZATION 4 PIONEER PARK PHOTO: SALT LAKE TRIBUNE A. GLENDALE PARK 9 B. LIBERTY PARK PLAYGROUND 11 C. ALLEN PARK 12 D. FOLSOM TRAIL COMPLETION & LANDSCAPING 13 E. PUBLIC SPACE AT FLEET BLOCK 14 F. FAIRMONT PARK 15 G. REIMAGINE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, TRAILS, OR OPEN SPACES G. REIMAGINE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, TRAILS, OR OPEN SPACES STEENBLIK PARK DISTRICT 1 STEENBLIK PARK DISTRICT 1 WARM SPRINGS & NORTH GATEWAY PARKS DISTRICT 3 TAUFER & RICHMOND PARKS DISTRICT 4 DONNER TRAIL PARK DISTRICT 6 H. JORDAN RIVER CORRIDOR H. JORDAN RIVER CORRIDOR Website: www.SLCParksBond.com www.SLCPublicLands.com Email: ParksBond@slcgov.com Social: @SLCPublicLands 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:December 5, 2023 RE: Planning Director’s Report to the City Council on the Proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District in the Yalecrest Neighborhood PLNHLC2023-00571 The Council will be briefed about the initiation of proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest neighborhood, the Planning Director’s reports, and the LHD creation process. Boundaries of the proposed LHD are approximately 1800 East to 1900 East on Yale Avenue. It should be noted that the proposed Laird Heights and Princeton Heights LHDs presented to the Council in May 2023 are separate from this one. They are located between 1300 East and 1500 East on Laird and Princeton Avenues. Existing Harvard Park and Princeton Park LHDs are near the proposed Upper Yale LHD as shown in the map below. 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 the proposed LHD. 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) •Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and requirements. Item Schedule: Briefing: December 5, 2023 Set Date: N/A Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: N/A Page | 2 •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 Upper Yale Local Historic District shaded in yellow 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 the proposed LHD, with 70% (17 out of 24) of the property 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 LHD 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. The Planning Director’s report found the proposed LHD is generally consistent with criteria for designation, is 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 Page | 3 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 Upper Yale local historic district designation process continue? LHD Designation Process Flowchart Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Yalecrest – Upper Yale – Local Historic District (LHD) Director’s Report | Historic Preservation Program Yalecrest – Upper Yale Yalecrest – Upper Yale Yalecrest – Upper Yale •Yalecrest National Historic District –Highest concentration of Period Revival houses in Utah. •24 homes and 24 properties. •19 of the 24 (79%) homes in the proposed Local Historic District (LHD) are considered contributing. –State Historic Preservation Office recommended that 3 additional homes (91%) in the proposed LHD would qualify as contributing. Director’s Report – City Council Role •The role of the City Council at this stage is to make a decision as to whether the Planning Division has the capacity to administer an additional Local Historic District in terms of available resources (staff and funding) and to state its intent to either move forward with the process or to discontinue. The submitted Director’s Report indicates that the Planning Division has the capacity to administer the proposed district. Thank you! For more information: www.slcgov.com/historicpreservation Nan Larsen nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 | Historic Preservation Program ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received:_______________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 17, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods ______________________ SUBJECT: Proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District Designation (Petition PLNHLC2023-00571) STAFF CONTACT: Nan Larsen, Senior Planner (801) 535-7645, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Planning Director’s Report to the City Council of Proposed Local Historic District RECOMMENDATION: The Council to state its intent to “accept” the report to move forward with the local historic designation process BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: On January 22, 2023, Patricia Goede submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Upper Yale Local Historic District are approximately 1800 East to 1900 East along Yale Avenue. rachel otto (Oct 17, 2023 11:39 MDT)10/17/2023 10/17/2023 Figure 1. Proposed Upper Yale 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 (May 25, 2023) • Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district (June 12, 2023) • Application submitted (July 18, 2023) • Notice of application letter mailed (August 11, 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 UPPER YALE 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 24 principal structures, 19 are rated as contributing (79%), with a total of 5 noncontributing structures. On June 8th, 2023, State Historic Preservation Office staff, along with Planning Staff, evaluated the proposed local historic district and confirmed that the 19 structures listed in the 2005 RLS retain their contributing status. It was also found by the State Historic Preservation Office staff that along with the other structures that retain their contributing status, 3 structures that were not previously listed as contributing to the historic character of the neighborhood would now be considered contributing. 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. 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). Proposed District Boundaries Approximately 1800 East to 1900 East Yale Avenue. Total Properties 24 principal structures are included in the designation. 24 total parcels. Zoning All residential zoned (R-1/7,000) Support Forms 17 of 24 property owners signed in support of submitting the application for designation (70%) – 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 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. There is also a pending application for Princeton Heights; the Planning Division estimates the cost of processing that petition will be approximately $3,408.00 for 45 parcels. The Planning Division estimates the cost of processing the Upper Yale petition will be approximately $1,817.76 for 24 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 Upper Yale petition is approximately $291.06. 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 public engagement funds to help pay for these types of applications. Administering the Historic Preservation Program Of the 24 staff planners within the Planning Division, 11 staff planners are skilled to 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, which include Laird and Princeton Heights, the number of designated properties in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Salt Lake City would increase by 133 properties (or 2.6%) to 5,078 properties. On an annual basis, historic preservation applications consist of approximately 34% of all applications the Division receives, 367 preservation related applications and 701 all other applications. Most of the preservation 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 Upper Yale 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 local 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, 17 of 24 property owners signed in support of submitting the application for designation (70%) 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 August 11, 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 enclosed map). 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: City Planning Staff will prepare a report that identifies initial information about the request and present it 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: 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. 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 “Upper Yale” 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, Nan Larsen, Senior Planner (801) 535-7645 nannette.larsen@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-Upper Yale 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 ................................................................... 9 Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling and Association 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 13 4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History 13 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies ........................................... 24 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation .................... 27 B. Photographs (attached separately) ........................................... 29 C. Research Materials ..................................................................... 29 D. Landmark Sites ........................................................................... 29 E. Boundary Adjustment ................................................................ 29 Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 2 of 34 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Original Plat of Yalecrest and Upper Yale 3rd addition Subdivision within Yalecrest ........................................................................ 31 2. Upper Yale Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood .......................................................... 32 3. Expanded street map view of proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD boundary ............................................................ 33 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS .......................................... 34 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD (original vs. 2023) .......................................................................... 35 See photos in a separate attached document D. Research Materials (References) .................................................. 36 Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 3 of 34 A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal 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. Alice Felkner owned the land that was platted as Upper Yale Addition (Feb 1926, Lot 6, Block 28, 58 parcels) and Upper Yale 2nd Addition (Apr 1927 Pt Lot 7, 30 Parcels) and Upper Yale 3rd addition (current proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD, in July 1928, Lot 17, Block 28, 24 parcels). Alice Felkner was prominent in Utah mining and industrial pursuits. She was born in 1854 in Indiana and moved to Idaho with her brother, William H. Felkner, in 1886 to engage in stock, mercantile and mining businesses. The siblings moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and lived on 270 East South Temple Street. At the time of her death in 1937 she was a director of the Consolidated Music Company, a large stockholder of the Silver King Coalition Mines Company, and director of several large mining companies. The Upper Yale Additions extend along the north and south sides of Yale and Herbert Avenues from 1700 East to 1800 East. Houses were constructed in the late 1920s and 1930s. IN the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD, Philip Biesinger and Herbert Biesinger, two well-known and admired Yalecrest Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 4 of 34 builders built 11/24 houses. Six subdivisions were platted in the 1930s. 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-Upper Yale 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. Fifty-one duplexes are original to the Yalecrest neighborhood: there is one duplex in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD, located at 1884-88 E Yale Ave on the corner of 1900 East. 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 (teardowns) or complete removal of an existing house above and below ground (demolition) and replaced with new construction of out-of-size, mass, scale and material incompatible housing (the often referred to described, “McMansion”). Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 5 of 34 The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2023) aims to increase multifamily housing citywide independent of proximity to transportation corridors. To erect multifamily housing in fully-established neighborhoods will require demolition of current housing. Demolition will be automatically approved over-the-counter approval of any existing house whether “historically contributing” or “historically contributing” in areas listed on the National Register of Historic Places, since that federal honor status provides no protection from local zoning codes. In contrast, local historic districts provide some local protection by limiting demolitions of historically contributing” houses, but not “historic noncontributing” houses. Nonetheless, any new construction in a local historic district must be reviewed and approved for compatibility in mass, scale and material by the Historic Landmarks Commission. Further complicating the potential destruction of the city’s historic neighborhoods is the proposed re-assessment of all structures for “historic noncontributing status” in the text- modification of Historic District Designation in city’s code (PLNPCM2023-00123 Overlay District : 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District). Depending on the criteria established for “historic noncontributing” assessment, previous historic neighborhoods designated as local historic districts and those listed on the National Register of Historic Places may lose their “historic” status if the percent of ‘historic contributing” houses fall below 75%. Without a reasonable period of time for homeowners to rehabilitate their houses to re-establish their “historic contributing” status, many current protected local historic neighborhoods and those listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be lost and not able to apply for a local historic district designation in the future. With the proposed over-the-counter demolition approval of “historic noncontributing” dwellings in currently established local historic districts or any house (historically contributing or not) on the National Register of Historic Places, Salt Lake City will lose all historic neighborhoods. Designation of a local historic district is the only current legal option to minimize demolition in historic single-family houses and insure if demolition does occur, that new construction must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission in an established, mature and historic neighborhood. Yalecrest remains a desirable residential area with mature street trees and well- maintained historic houses and yards. It has a significant concentration of historic houses, fifty-nine percent of which are period revival cottages, built by prominent architects and developers in subdivisions from the 1910s through the 1940s with some infill and development in the 1950s. Its historic houses retain their historic integrity to a remarkable degree, ninety-one percent (91%) and contribute to the historic association and feeling of the area In the spring of 2007. The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block 30 and encompasses 24 of the following properties; 12 properties on the North side of the 1800 block of E Yale Ave (1802-1884/88 E) and 12 properties on the South side of 1800 block of E Yale Ave Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 6 of 34 (1803-1885), (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 23 single- family houses and 1 two-family duplex (1884-1888 Yale Ave) are contained within the 24 property parcels of the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. Nineteen of the 24 dwellings or 79.1% are “historically contributing”. Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) were assessed as either /significant and eligible contributing (A), and 2 of 24 (8.3%) were considered eligible and contributing (B) for a total of 19/24 or 79.1% contributing houses. Five houses (20.8%) are nonhistorically contributing (C). The contributory status of other properties in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD were partially reviewed by Planning before submitting the current LHD application, but some properties may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. The garages in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD are primarily detached and located behind the houses. Houses that may no longer have contributory status are listed in APPENDIX C. 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-Upper Yale Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1928 (1802 and 1813 E Yale Ave) and extending through 1939 (1836 and 1850 E Yale Ave) in the historic era. The 1940 and 1950 Censuses list the professions of property owners which include physicians, business merchants, law (attorney), Insurance and investments. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. Developers, Builders and Architects The street Yale Ave is part of 5 different subdivisions in Yalecrest including 1 unincorporated subdivision area (1300-1400 E Yale Ave on the north side of the street plus 1300-1500 E Yale Ave on the south side). The Ashton-Jenkins Company, one of the largest real estate and mortgage banking companies in Utah, recorded three subdivisions in the survey area: Yale Park (1400-1500 E Yale Ave) in 1913, Yale Park Plat A in 1915 and Upper Yale Park (1500-1700 E Yale Ave), in 1924. Yale Park was heavily promoted in the newspapers and attracted prominent homeowners. Upper Yale Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 7 of 34 2nd Addition (1700-1800) and the Upper Yale 3rd addition (1800-10900 E Yale Ave) were developed in 1927-28. Alice Felkner owned the land that was platted as Upper Yale Addition, Upper Yale 2nd Addition and Upper Yale 3rd addition in 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively. Alice Felkner was prominent in Utah mining and industrial pursuits. She was born in 1854 in Indiana and moved to Idaho with her brother, William H. Felkner, in 1886 to engage in stock, mercantile and mining businesses. The siblings moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and lived on 270 East South Temple Street. At the time of her death in 1937 she was a director of the Consolidated Music Company, a large stockholder of the Silver King Coalition Mines Company, and director of several large mining companies. The Upper Yale Additions extend along the north and south sides of Yale and Herbert Avenues from 1700 East to 1800 East. Houses were constructed in the late 1920s and 1930s, primarily by Philip Biesinger, another Yalecrest builder and developer. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD contains 24 property parcels. A number of notable Salt Lake builders were responsible for building exceptional houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. Notable Builders in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Notable Builders TOTAL Phillip Biesinger 8 Herbert Biesinger 3 AE Jorgenson 1 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, Princeton Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park- I, outlined in blue. It will join two additional LHDs currently being in the City process (Princeton Heights and Laird Heights) for historical district designation outlined in red. The proposed Upper Yale Heights LHD outlined in purple is the only street amongst the 1800-1900 blocks of Yalecrest with sufficient “historically contributing” status to be considered for an LHD. To date no other sections of Yale Ave are protected by LHDs. Further, it is the only street in the 1800-1900 blocks of Yalecrest that has not experienced the extensive demolition or original housing and replacement by new, larger “McMansion” replacement construction. A map of the 56 completed demolitions and 2 pending demolition permits approved in Yalecrest can be seen below. The red backhoe icons represent demolitions of “historically contributing” houses and replacement with new, incompatible construction. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 8 of 34 Demolition Map of “Historically Contributing” houses in Yalecrest Designating the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights as a Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (57 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued the Yalecrest neighborhood in recent years. The 1800 block of Yale Ave is one of the last remaining intact “historically contributing” streets in this area of Yalecrest. 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-Upper Yale 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. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research One property, 1802 E Yale Ave built in 1928 was identified in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey for further intensive research citing “unusual two-story period revival style” Significant Persons in the Area See pp14-22 of this document to read more about notable builders and property owners of these houses. Keep Educating and Encouraging Preservation of YalecrestYalecrest National Historic District | Salt Lake CityTEARDOWN MAPTeardowns, Pop-Tops and More This map tracks the rising trend of tear-downs and rebuilds in Yalecrest since 1998, and also includes some extreme or insensitive second- story additions (house icon) that raised the rooﬂine on the front facade and also may have removed privacy and sunlight from their neighbors, as well as destroyed the historic streetscape. It’s a work in progress and not a complete compilation. (https://keepyalecrest.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2014/12/red-wrecker-e1419992797724.png)Depicts tear-downs (https://keepyalecrest.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2014/12/house-icon-sm.png) Reﬂects pop-tops and other insensitive additions Yalecrest Teardowns Map data ©2019 Google Terms 500 ft Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 9 of 34 Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method Of Construction Houses within the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD are primarily Colonial Revival (29%), English Tudors (25.0%), English Cottages (25.0%) and constructed mainly in brick; either striated (50.8%) or regular (30.8%) over the time period 1928- 1939. 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. Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest and specifically the proposed Upper Yale Heights LHD contains many fine examples 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-Upper Yale Heights LHD; business persons, lawyers, physicians, bankers, merchants, and builders. A number of notable professional people lived in Yalecrest-Upper Yale 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. 1. Physical Integrity The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights 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, and Colonial Revival architecture by many famous builders in 1920-30’s of Salt Lake City. Contributing Status of houses in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (%) are eligible/significant (14/24= 70.8%) and eligible contributing (2/24= 8.3%)1 for a total of 79.1% historically contributing houses. There are 5 “C” or ineligible/noncontributing structures (5/24 =20.8%) and No “D”’ or “X” structures in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD boundaries listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The number of contributing and noncontributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 10 of 34 Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHDa,c Street Ab Bb Cb Db Xb Total 1800-1900 E Yale Ave 17 2 5 0 0 24 % Total 70.8% 8.3% 20.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100%a aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 23 single family and 1 duplex residential structures included in this analysis. The contributing status listed reflects assessment in 2005. bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c1928 plat of Upper Yale 3rd addition lists 24 properties. 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 facades including; windows, dormers, 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 Upper Yale 3rd Addition subdivision in particular, attracts home buyers that stay in residence for extended periods of time. Many have lived in these houses for over 20-30 years. This continuity lends consistency, character and stewardship to the area. The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD has a variety of trees planted in the park strip of the vast majority (19/24) of property parcels. Some property parcels park strips have 2 trees. Only 5 parcels have NO park strip trees. Tree genus species include a variety of Maples, London Plane, Black locust, and Japanese lilac tree. The largest diameter trees (>20”) and therefore the oldest trees, are primarily the original Norway Maples planted on the street. The majority of those trees have been replaced with smaller diameter and maximal height trees over the last 1-15 years. Tree-lined streets with streetlights provide shade, shelter and safety in the neighborhood. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 11 of 34 Tree Speciesa in Upper Yale Heights Park Strips Genus species Common Name Diameter 1-4” Diameter 5-10” Diameter 11-20” Diameter >20” TOTALb Acer platanoides Norway Maple 1 1 8 2 12 Acer campestre Field Maple 3 0 0 0 3 Acer grandidenatum Big tooth Maple 2 0 0 0 2 Plantanus acerifolia London Plane 4 4 1 0 9 Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 2 0 0 0 2 Syringa reticulata Japanese Lilac tree 2 0 0 0 2 Nonec No tree 5 TOTAL 14 5 9 2 30 aaccording to the Urban Forestry website, bsome parcels have 2 trees of the same genus species type in the parkstrip csome parcels have 0 trees 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-Upper Yale 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. Building dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD were built from the late 1920’s through late 1930’s in the current historic era. The 23 single-family and 1 duplex residences in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD according to the Salt Lake County Assessor website were built in the late 1920’s (25%) and 1930’s (75%). The distribution of single family and duplex built dates in the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 12 of 34 Construction Yearsa of Original Residences in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHDa Street 1920’s 1930’s Total Single Family 6 17 23 Duplex 0 1 1 Total 6 18 24 % Total 25% 75% 100% aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) Architectural Types Houses of the Upper Yale Heights LHD contain a large variety of architectural style types including 7 main styles with other variations: Neoclassical (25.0%), English Tudor (20.8%), English Cottage (16.7%), Colonial Revival (16.7%), Period Revival (0.8%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (0.8%) and Neo-eclectic (0.4%). Tabulation of the various house styles with their combinations within the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is shown below. Architectural Types in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Residential Structuresa Architectural Type Number TOTAL %TOTAL Neoclassical 1 6 25.0% +Dutch Colonial Revival 1 +English Tudor 1 +Colonial Revival 3 English Tudor 4 5 20.8% +Jacobethan Revival 1 English Cottage 3 4 16.7% + English Tudor 1 Colonial Revival 4 4 16.7% Period Revival 2 2 8.3% Minimal Tradition 2 2 8.3% Neo-eclectic 1 1 4.2% TOTAL 24 24 100% aaccording to RLS 2005. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 13 of 34 Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily brick: striated brick alone (SB, 16.7%), or with other materials - half timbering (SBHT, 16.7%), with asbestos or other material (SBA or SBO, 12.5%), clapboard (SBCP, 8.3%), and regular brick alone (RB, 16.7%), and with other materials - half timbering (RBHT, 16.7%), asbestos or other material (RBA, 4.2%), stucco/paster (4.2%). The distribution of the various exterior construction materials on dwellings is tabulated below. Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa a2005 RLS assessment basbestos is likely a different siding material 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, Neoclassical, Colonial Revival, Minimum Traditional/ Early Ranch and Neo- eclectic. In addition, these homes were built by well-known builders in Yalecrest and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to the business, medicine, law, education. 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 Type Number Total %Total Striated Brick 8 16 66.7% +Half Timbering 4 + other 1 +clapboard 2 +asbestosb 1 Regular Brick 4 7 29.2% +Half timber 2 +asbestos sidingb 1 Stucco/Plaster 1 1 4.2% TOTAL 24 24 100% Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 14 of 34 search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Office. Notable Houses, builders and their owners in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD (from The State Historic Preservation Office files) Well-known builders Phillip Biesinger built 8 houses (1802, 1814, 1821, 1827, 1828,1833,1854,1884-1888 duplex E Yale Ave) and his brother, Herbert Biesdinger built 3 houses (1803, 1813, and 1820 E Yale Ave), for a total of 11/24 residences or 45.8% of all dwellings in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. AG Jorgensen, another notable builder, built 1880. E Yale Ave in the proposed LHD. Domestic Servants Seven houses whose owners were employed in the Retail business, Banking, Insurance, Law Attorney and Investment Companies professions cited onsite domestic servants in the 1940 census; 1802, 1820, 1827, 1833, 1866, 1880, and 1884 in their residences. The birth states associated with the domestic help was five in UT, one in WY, and one in Germany. No domestic servants/maids were cited on the 1800 block of Yale Ave in either the 1930 or 1950 census. Notable Owners 1802 E Yale Ave (1928, Colonial Period Revival “A”) William Firmage, James Gibb, Ph.d. This regular brick Colonial Period Revival styled house was built in 1928 and the first (along with 1813 E Yale Ave) houses built on the 1800 block of Yale Ave. It is cited in the application for National Register of Historic Places for its “unusual architecture type” and suggested for additional research. The house is a Colonial Period Revival in regular brick built by noted local Yalecrest builder, Phillip Biesinger. The front façade has two matched Palladian windows. The original owner listed in the Polk Directory for Salt Lake City was Edward J Ellison, who lived here 1929-1933. William Hoag Firmage (1914-1947), his wife Georgia, 2 daughters and a “servant” are listed as occupants (1940 census) from 1937-1948. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 15 of 34 1814 E Yale Ave (1929 English Tudor, “A”) Dallin H Oaks The beautiful striated brick and half-timbered English Tudor was built in 1929 by Peter Biesinger. It vacant until 1931, when it was first occupied y was first occupied by C Gordon Douglas in 1933-1938 then purchased by a variety of owners in 4-5 yr intervals. Dallin H Oaks, lived in the house from ~2008-2012., The entry door glass panel is etched with the first letter of his last name,”O”. He is the current first counselor in the First Presidency and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (2018). He graduated from Brigham Young University (1954) and of the University of Chicago Law School (1957). He practiced law and taught law in Chicago. He was president of Brigham Young University from 1971 to 1980, and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court from 1980 until his resignation in 1984 to accept his calling to the apostleship. He is an officer or member of the Mr Firmage was a merchant of a shoe retail store and died at the age of 33 yo from a myocardial infarction / cardiovascular disease. He is buried in Mt Olivet Cemetery. Mr Firmage was a merchant of a shoe retail store and died at the age of 33 yo from a myocardial infarction/cardiovascular disease. The family lived in the house for 12 yrs. James Wooley Gibb, Ph.d. his wife LaVon and 2 children lived in the house from 1970-201 7. After the Canadian from Magrath, Alberta completed post-doctoral work at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesa, MD, the family moved to Utah where he joined the faculty of the Colleges of Pharmacy and Medicine at University of Utah in 1968. He later served as Chair of the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology. They resided in this house for 47 years. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 16 of 34 board of many business, educational, and charitable organizations. He is the author or co-author of many books and articles on religious and legal subjects. In May 2013, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him the Canterbury Medal for “courage in the defense of religious liberty.” 1828 E Yale Avenue (1938 Period Revival, “C”) Huron R Free The original 1930 striated brick Period Revival house built by Phillip Biesinger, had a 2nd story addition added in 1956 and is currently “historically noncontributing”. Huron R Free owned the house from 1933-1949. Mr Free was vice-president of a refrigeration company, Hygeia in Sugarhouse, originally located west of Redman storage on 2100 S. Hygeia was the place Salt Lakers got their ice. Roy Free started the ice- making business, and his son, (Huron) Ray, delivered ice via a horse-drawn wagon at a time when refrigerators weren't common. Built in 1912 by J. Roy and Huron Free, the Hygeia Ice Company became a major producer of ice, with the nation’s largest storage locker facility. The name Hygeia stood for the ancient goddess of purity and cleanliness. At first known as Hygeia Ice and Coal, it was one of the first businesses on the block and was located on the north side of Parleys Creek where the hotel now stands. Four wells on the property provided water for Hygeia Ice Company and later for Carbo Chemical Company, which produced carbon dioxide for manufacturing dry ice. In 1948, Hygeia Iceland opened at 1208 E. 2100 South in Sugar House during the record-cold winter of 1948. It was a Utah favorite place. Hygeia Iceland and later addition Swimland relied on materials and compressors used in the ice business to become Utah's first ice rink and to create one of its first heated pools. For many years, the Olympic-size swimming pool, built in the late 1950s, was the only heated pool in the valley open for public use. Later, the family put a slick cement surface on the rink for summer roller-skating. At one point, there also was a miniature golf course on the site. As late as the 1950s, a 500-pound block of ice cost $2.50, and lasted weeks. The Hygeia Iceland became the place you just had to go. They put in a warming hut, with a fireplace. And they had lots of popcorn. Outdoor Skating was big, all across the nation. Baby boomers had many of their first booms on ice. It was the perfect place and parents would just come and drop off their kids. It eventually became a race against warm weather. Once the ice melted in the summer it became Hygeia Swimland. Later they enclosed it and hockey became standard fare. But today… it is still a parking lot on 1200 block of 21st Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 17 of 34 South. (“Ice-making business cooled the rink in winter and heated its summertime partner, Swimland”, by Tom Wharton, SLTribune December 9, 2015. Hygeia Ice Wagon 1912 Hygeia Ice Co Factory Photos courtesy from the Sugarhouse Community Council December 2015 1836 E Yale Ave (1939 Period Revival, “A”) Dr. Hyrum Reid Reichman (1908-1967) This 1930 striated brick Period Revival ”A”-“historically contributing” house is a Colonial Revival/Neoclassical architecture type constructed in striated brick and “asbestos siding” as listed in the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey. The asbestos siding requires affirmation. The house was owned by Hyrum Reid Reichman as a physician/surgeon in private practice. He, his wife Virginia, 2 daughters lived in the house for almost 40 years, from 1938-beyond 1975 according to the Polk directories over that time period. Virginia Stevens Reichman’s obituary is below Virginia Stevens Reichman Obituary, SL Tribune Jan 1, 1990 age 81 died January 26 1990 at home in Salt lake City. Born September 1, 1908 In Ogden Utah, a daughter of Stingam A and Beatrice Farley Stevens. She is a descendent of Utah Pioneers and a member of the LDS Church. Mrs Reichman was an accomplished pianist and accompanist. In her earlier years she was the organist in her LDS ward. She graduated from the University of Utah and taught elementary school before her marriage to Hyrum R Reichman, January 1, 1932 in the Salt Lake City LDS temple. She and Dr. Reichman lived in Evanston, Illinois for 5 years before returning to live in Salt Lake City. He preceded her in death in 1967. She is survived by their four children: Ann Reichman, Salt Lake City, Lane S Reichman, Gillette, New Jersey, Carol R Gray, Wakefield, Rhode Island, Richard C Reichman, Rochester, NY, six grandchildren and a brother, Robert S Stevens, Los Angeles, California. Mom was a wonderful example of a wife mother, grandmother and homemaker. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 18 of 34 Family life was always her priority. We will remember her love, her thoughtfulness and her understanding that one is never too old to learn something new. Travel was a constant in Mom’s life. She enjoyed seeing new and revisiting familiar places. Consequently, she has many friends and acquaintances throughout the country who remember her kindness and her friendship. Funeral services will be held Wednesday January 31st 12 Noon in the Larkin Mortuary Chapel, 260 East South Temple where friends may call from 11:30am-12 noon. Interment Salt Lake City Cemetery. The family suggests a contributing to the American red Cross, 1391 South Park Street SLC, UT 84105 or friends of the Library, U of U Libraries, University & 200 South, SLC, UT 84112 1841 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical, “A”) Angus Cannon Kirk (1895-1973) This house is built in the Neoclassic architecture style, characterized by grandeur of scale, simplicity, geometric forms, dramatic use of columns, and a preference for blank walls (Britannica.com,: Neoclassical architecture). Angus C Kirk was born 1895 in Salt Lake City. As a boy he worked as a cash boy at the Auerbach Department Store, a newspaper carrier. He worked as an office clerk at Utah Power and Light Co, as well as a book keeper at Utah Railroad and at I Cline & Bros Wholesale as an accountant. Her served in WWI. After military service in the army, he was associated in business with the AJ Kirk and Co, a wholesaler business of dry goods and notions. Kirk family trip to New York May 20, 1926, Family search.org 1842 E Yale Ave (1939 Neo-eclectic, “C”) Elias Arnold Goff (1908-1975) The original 1939 house was remodeled in 1985 and currently considered “historically noncontributing, C”. The current architectural style is a Neo-eclectic The original owner, Elias Arnold Goff (1908-1975) was an Assistant Secretary at the Beneficial Life Insurance Company for 42 years, retiring in 1973, He worked there as Treasurer, Director and Office Manager for 27 years. He retired after developing spinal meningitis, s, underwent 2 spinal surgeries and lived in a wheelchair from 1946-1973. lived here with his wife Hazel, son and 2 daughters and 1 son from 1939-beyond 1975. He served in WWI (Sons of Utah Pioneer Article May-June 1965) Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 19 of 34 1847 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical Dutch Colonial Revival, “A”) Stanley Newton Child (1899-1989) This house is designed in the Neoclassic/Dutch Colonial Revival architectural style with striated brick. It was owned by Stanley N Child, a brick mason. He served in WWI (1919). Stanley, his wife Elsie, 2 sons and daughter lived here for years, from 1939-1975. Stanley N Child was elected 1935-196 to the Utah House of Representative and served for two years. He sponsored the first occupational health bill ever offered in Utah and sponsored the legislation creating the Utah Philharmonic Orchestra which we now know as the Utah Symphony Orchestra. He later served eight years (1939-1946) in the Utah State Senate where he was chairman of the Utah Educational Survey Committee. The efforts of this committee culminated in a complete reform of both higher education and the school systems of Utah and was instrumental in obtaining major funding for educatio). Stanley N Child also devoted his life to his trade, mason contracting. Many great buildings have been constructed by him. These include: the Greek Orthodox Church in Salt Lake, the Ogden High School, the original Student Union Building at the University of Utah, LDS Idaho Falls Temple, Ogden Temple, Los Angeles Temple, Relief Society Building, Temple Square Visitors Center, many chapels, Prudential Life Insurance Building in Los Angeles, and many more (Family Search.org obituary) He was the Champion of the Utah State Amateur Golf Tournament in 1944 and 1945. He also won the SLC Amateur Golf Tournaments in 1938, 1945 and 1946. He, his wife Lucy Rowland (1911-1998) their two sons Rowland and Richard and their ward Patricia Pike. He lived at 1842 E Yale Ave for 37 years, from 1938-1975 Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 20 of 34 Stanley N Child Elise and Stanley N Child, 1950’s Family Search.org 1855 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical Colonial Revival “A”) Milo Scoville Marsden, (1905-1985) The house was built in the Neoclassical Colonial Revival architecture style in striated brick. Milo Scoville Marsden (1906-2009) a buyer/ treasurer for a wholesale wool company, lived in the house with wife Elaine Rampton, son Milo Jr and daughter Linda for 36 years, from 1939-1975. He registered for WWII draft in 1940. Milo Scoville Marsden Milo Scoville Marsden, center in tan suit, (familysearch.org) 1863 E Yale Ave (1937 Colonial Revival “A”) William Ernest Frank (1912-1999) A Colonial Revival architecture built with “asbestos siding” and assessed as “A”- historically contributing” according to 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. William E Frank was a lumber salesman for a wholesale and detail lumber company (1940 US Census). He lived here with his wife Zelma, daughter and son for 40+ years, documented from 1935-1975. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 21 of 34 1866 E Yale Ave (1938 Colonial Revival, “A”) This 1938/1978 remodeled 1.5 story Colonial Revival architectural style was built in striated brick and is assessed as “A”-historically contributing and significant” according to the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Survey. Richard L Jensen is listed as a notable person for this address, but the 1940 census has him living at 1957 E Yale Ave at that time and employed as a home building contractor, manager of a brick factory. It is assumed that he is the builder of this house. Alfred Newton Catrow (1905-1981) Alfred N Catrow, his wife Dorothy and 2 sons lived at 1866 E Yale Ave for 23 yrs (1941-1964). He was the son of Henry Catrow, notable Utah mining company owner. 1872 E Yale Ave: (1938, English Cottage “A”) This 1938 1 story English Cottage built in striated brick is assessed as “historically contributing, A”. Daniel L Wolstenholme (1902-1971) Daniel his wife, Bertha and 2 sons lived here in 1940 census. They or his widow lived at 1872 E Yale Ave for a period of 36 + years from 1939-1975 or longer. Daniel Archer Wolstenholme was a salesman in a retail furniture business. 1875 E Yale Ave: (1938 Minimal Traditional “A”) This Minimum Traditional architectural style house built with regular brick is “historically contributing, “A as cited in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. In that Survey James R Jensen, cited with this house is likely the builder, as no evidence of James Jenson was found in any Polk Directory 1928-1975 associated with this address. Alfred Newton Catrow was president of Catrow Finance Co (1939-1969) and worked in Catrow Insurance until 1976. He graduated from East High School (1923) University of Utah (1927) and was active in the Kiwanis Club, President of Utah Consumers Finance Association, member of the University of Utah Club Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 22 of 34 A Pratt Kesler (1905-1964) This Minimal Traditional architectural style house built with regular brick is “historically contributing “A” is “historically contributing “A” (2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey). Alonzo Pratt Kesler, his wife Ellen, daughter and son lived at 1875 E Yale Ave for 33 yrs from 1941-1964. A Pratt Kesler (1905-1964) was a lawyer who worked in the State and Federal Judicial departments. A Pratt Kesler became only the second person in Utah history to serve as both U.S. Attorney from the District of Utah and as Utah Attorney General, as well as the only former U.S. Attorney to return later in his career to work for a substantial period as an Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Dwight D Eisenhower Administration. He graduated from the University of Utah with an AB degree in 1930, and from the University of Utah Law School with a JD degree in 1933. After two years in private practice, he was appointed as Salt Lake City Prosecuting Attorney (1935-40) and subsequently served as Assistant Salt Lake City Attorney (1940-53). He was active in the county, state, and national bar associations, and was active in a broad range of civic and political spheres. He was Republican State Chairman in Utah from 1950 until his appointment as U.S. Attorney, and had been a member of the Republican National Committee, 1952-53. Kesler was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Eisenhower, confirmed by the Senate, and took office in May, 1953. He was sworn in at an official ceremony on Friday, May 22, at 10:00 a.m. in Judge Willis Ritter’s courtroom, with Court Clerk Oliver K. Clay administering the oath. Kesler was elected Utah Attorney General in 1960 and left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in early 1961. A. Pratt Kesler died at age 79 on October 13, 1984, in Salt Lake City, of cardiac arrest (History Of The District Of Utah's U.S. Attorney's Office, Justice.gov). 1885 E Yale Ave: (1938 Minimal Traditional “B”) This 1938 Minimum Traditional architecture-styled house built with regular brick is cited in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey for “exquisite brickwork” and assessed as “historically contributing, B” Thomas B Child, Jr, masonry contractor The masonry contractor credited with this house is Thomas Battersby Child, Jr (1889- 1963), the proprietor in a building masonry contracting business (1940 census). He lived at 452 S 800 E with his wife Bertha and daughter. He is credited as the foremost masonry contractor in the Mountain West and is responsible for the exquisite masonry associated with this house. He worked with stone as well, creating “This is the Place Monument and LDS temples in Los Angeles and Idaho Falls, He learned the masonry trade from his father, with whom he co-owned the masonry contracting business. Together they are cited as having done brick work in every Salt Lake City block (Hortense Child Smith his secretary, Mormonwik.com). He Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 23 of 34 is also the creator of Gilgal Garden, a “visionary art environment” in Salt Lake City. “One of the most important artistic innovations in Gilgal Garden was Child’s use of an oxyacetylene torch, like those used to cut steel, for cutting stone. The heat of the torch removed the waste rock and fused the surface of the remaining stone, giving it a polished sheen. Child’s son-in-law and assistant, Bryant Higgs, was a skilled welder and pioneered this sculpting method. Higgs taught well- known Utah sculptor Maurice Brooks to sculpt with the torch. Following Child’s careful instructions, Brooks carved features on several of Child’s works, including The Sphinx, The Monument to the Trade, Daniel II, Malachi, and The Last Chapter of the Book of Ecclesiastes.” gilgalgarden.com). The garden contains twelve original sculptural arrangements and over 70 stones engraved with scriptures, poems, and philosophical texts. Child died in 1963. His neighbor Grant Fetzer bought the property and the Fetzer family maintained the garden for 35 years, opening it briefly on Sundays for tours. A non-profit group, Friends of Gilgal Garden, was formed in 1998 with Hortense Child Smith leading the effort to raise money and purchase the garden, which they did in 2000. Gilgal Park is a city park open to the public. Restoration of Child’s sculptures continue. (Mormonwiki.com) George William (Bill) Shipler, (1906-1956), owner George William (a.k.a. Bill) Shipler (1906-1956), wife Irene and daughter owned this house for 16 years (1940-56). George William (Bill) Shipler (1906-1956), was the father of William Hollis Shipler (1929-2010), son of Harry Shipler (1878-1961)/Jessie Smith and grandson of James William Shipler (1849-1937). All were involved in photography and father-son partners in a photographic supplies business over 3 generations. They were famous for their glass plate negative photography of areas throughout the developing intermountain west (Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming in the early 20th century. The Shiplers were master photographers who practiced their craft with skill and style. The glass plate negative images in this collection, especially during the initial years when they used large negative format (mostly 8 x 10), are among the finest found anywhere. George William Shipler capture many photographs of Yalecrest as it developed in early 20th century. His photograph collection (100,000 photo negatives) is housed in the UU Marriot Library Digital Collections Section in the Utah State Historical Society repository (history.utah.gov). Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 24 of 34 1884-1888 E Yale Ave: (1930 English Cottage,”A) This two-family residency (duplex) English Cottage architectural style house was built in 1930 by noted local Yalecrest builder Philiip Biesinger (1882-1937) with striated polychrome brick (a combination of gold green, dark brown, red brown bricks). Polychrome brick is highly admired and used in a number of fine houses in Yalecrest. The house is assessed as “historically contributing, A”. Carl E Lind was a film salesman who worked with a ‘moving picture” company lived in the 1888 side of the duplex in the 1940 census with his wife, Virginia, a daughter and a sister. This duplex has a continuous list of renters from 1930 to the current historic era. 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: 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 Guthrie Bicycle store located at 333 South Main Street in Salt Lake City. SHIPLER COLLECTION, UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 25 of 34 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 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 –Upper Yale Heights 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 Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 26 of 34 - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, the Yalecrest neighborhood 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. 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-Upper Yale 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, Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 27 of 34 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 20114. 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-Upper Yale Heights LHD (Appendix A) represents the 1800 block of Yale Ave located in the north/south midsection between Sunnyside Ave and 1300 S and the Eastern most boundary (1900 East) of the Yalecrest, neighborhood, also known as the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision. Yalecrest was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation is consistent with the City's preservation goals. 2. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation The Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision. It is located in the midsection of Yalecrest neighborhood on the 1800-1900 block of Yale Ave. It contains 24 single-family property parcels with 1 duplex on Yale Ave at 1900 East Property parcels are 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). 6. Public interest in Proposed LHD Designation To date, 17/24 or 70.8% of the single-family and duplex home owners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Upper Yale 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 70.8%, 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-Upper Yale Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Petition Signaturesa % Support 1800-1900 E Yale Ave 24a 17 70.8% aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature for Trusts on associated property parcels. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 28 of 34 Designating the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights as a Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (57 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued the Yalecrest neighborhood in recent years. The 1800 block of Yale Ave is one of the last remaining intact “historically contributing” streets in this area of Yalecrest. The red backhoe icons represent demolitions of “historically contributing” houses and replacement with new, incompatible construction. Demolition Map of “Historically Contributing” houses in Yalecrest 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-Upper Yale 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-Upper Yale 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, English Tudor/Jacobethan Revival, Colonial Revival, Neoclassical, Dutch Colonial Revival and Minimal Traditional architectural styles. In addition, 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 (85-95 yrs), the successful Keep Educating and Encouraging Preservation of Yalecrest Yalecrest National Historic District | Salt Lake City TEARDOWN MAP Teardowns, Pop-Tops and More This map tracks the rising trend of tear-downs and rebuilds in Yalecrest since 1998, and also includes some extreme or insensitive second- story additions (house icon) that raised the rooﬂine on the front facade and also may have removed privacy and sunlight from their neighbors, as well as destroyed the historic streetscape. It’s a work in progress and not a complete compilation. (https://keepyalecrest.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2014/12/red-wrecker-e1419992797724.png)Depicts tear-downs (https://keepyalecrest.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2014/12/house-icon-sm.png) Reﬂects pop-tops and other insensitive additions Yalecrest Teardowns Map data ©2019 Google Terms 500 ft Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 29 of 34 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-Upper Yale 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 of residential dwellings were collected by Lynn K Pershing, 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, and was awarded that distinction 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/146 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision located at the midsection of the eastern most boundary (1900 East) of Yalecrest. This new LHD in Yalecrest contains the highest percent of “historically contributing” houses than any other street on the 1800 block. The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD containing 24 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1800 East East boundary is 1900 East Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 30 of 34 North boundary contains the north side of Yale Ave containing the odd numbered houses, 1803 E to 1885 E Yale Ave. South Boundary contains the south side of Yale Ave with the even numbered houses, 1802-1888 E Yale Ave. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 31 of 34 APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Yalecrest and Upper Yalecrest 3rd Addition July 1928, Pr. Lot 17, Block 28 Alice Felkner The Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is the Upper Yale 3rd addition subdivision in the midsection of the eastern most boundary of Yalecrest (1800-1900 East on Yale Ave). The LHD and subdivision is outlined in purple. Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 32 of 34 APPENDIX A-2 Upper Yale Heights LHDs with Other LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood 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 (pending) outlined in blue Upper Yale Heights (proposed) outlined in purple DOUGLAS PARK NORMANDY CIRCLE HARVARD HEIGHTS UPPER HARVARD YALE PARK PLAT A HARVARD PARK PRINCETON PARK WESTMORELAND PLACE EXCHANGE PLACEAVENUESSOUTH TEMPLECAPITOL HILLCITYCREEK UNIVERSITY CENTRAL CITY 900 S 1300 S 300 W 800 S 700 S 200 S 300 S 600 S 200 W 700 E 200 E 300 E 500 E 800 E 900 E 100 S 1300 E State St 400 S Main St J St F St 1st Ave G St 600 E H St 3rd Ave 2nd Ave 1200 E D St B St 500 S 11t hAve 2100 E 1100 ECanyonRdN St 1700 E Victory Rd 1000 E 13th Ave 1800 EEmerson Ave Virginia S t Sunnyside Ave Major St Fo ot h ill D r C h a n d l e r Dr 1600 E MarioCapecch i D r 18th Ave 400 N SouthCa m p u s D rAlta St TomahawkDr Wasatch Dr North Temple St 1400 E600 N Roberta St Cortez St DorchesterDr Guardsman Way 1900 E Harris Ave Yale Av e Michigan Ave 1500 E MEDICALEASTDrConnecticut Dr 100 S 1100 E 500 S 1000 E ° SALT LAKE CITYLOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 33 of 34 APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD boundary Outlined in purple Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 34 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) 1842 E Yale Ave 1847 E Yale Ave 1872 E Yale Ave 2. Possible changes in house contributing status that need to be confirmed by State Historic Preservation Office, National Register of Historic Places Administrator, Mr. Corey Jensen. 1803 E Yale Ave 1813 E Yale Ave 1836 E Yale Ave Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Page 36 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. United States Census, 1930, 1940 and 1950. 6. Family Search app online 7. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials, original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor RACHEL Ono, CHIEF OF STAFF CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL DATE RECEIVED: ____ _ KATHERINE LEWIS Office of the City Attorney DATE SENT TO COUNCIL:----- TO: Salt Lake City Council Darin Mano, Chair DATE: _____ _ FROM: C l em~ke City Justice Court -Presiding Judge ~ (signature) SUBJECT: Recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court STAFF CONTACTS: DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution Clemens Landau -Presiding Judge, clemons.landau@slcgov.com Curtis Preece -Court Administrator, Cu1ii s.preece@ lcg ov.com Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney, jaysen.o ldroyd @s lcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council pass this resolution asking the Utah Judicial Council to recertify the Salt Lake City Justice Court (the "Court") in order to provide for the Court's continued operation. BUDGET IMPACT: The resolution seeking the recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court would simply allow the City to maintain the status quo. Consequently, passing this resolution would not create any significant budget impacts. In contrast, electing not to pursue the recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court would significantly impact the budget by severely impairing, if not entirely eliminating, the justice court's ability to perform its governmental functions . BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Every four years, the Salt Lake City Justice Court must be recertified by the Utah Judicial Council in order to continue operations pursuant to Utah Code§ 78A-7-103. As part of that recertification process, the City is required to submit a duly passed resolution of the City Council that requests recertification of the Justice Court. Other components of the recertification process include a signed affidavit from the Presiding Judge of the Salt Lake City Justice Court ("Affidavit") and an opinion letter from the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office ("Opinion Letter"). Signed copies of the Affidavit and the Opinion Letter are included as part of this transmittal for the City Council's consideration. Judge Clemons Landau, Curtis Preece, and Jaysen Oldroyd could be available to be at the table during the work session . A clean copy (approved as to form) of the proposed resolution is included with this transmittal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 5osA P.O. BOX 145478, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5478 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7788 FAX 801-535-7640 rachel otto (Nov 21, 2023 12:27 MST)11/21/2023 11/21/2023 11/21/2023 RESOLUTION NO. ______ OF 2023 REQUESTING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE JUSTICE COURT OF SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, the provisions of Utah Code § 78A-7-103, require that Justice Courts be recertified at the end of each four-year term; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation has received notification from the Administrative Office of the Courts that in order for the Salt Lake City Justice Court to be recertified, an application must be returned to that office by December 15, 2023; and WHEREAS, the members of the Salt Lake City Council have received an opinion letter from Senior City Attorney Jaysen R. Oldroyd which sets forth the requirements for the operation of a justice court, states that the Salt Lake City Justice Court meets such minimum requirements and opines that it is legally feasible for the City to maintain a justice court; and WHEREAS, the members of the Salt Lake City Council have determined that it is in the best interests of Salt Lake City to continue to maintain a justice court; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: Section 1: The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah hereby requests recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court by the Board of Justice Court Judges and the Utah Judicial Council; and Section 2: The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah hereby affirms its willingness to continue to meet all requirements set forth by the Judicial Council for 2 continued operation of the Salt Lake City Justice Court for the next four-year term of court, except as to any requirements waived by the Utah Judicial Council. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By_____________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: 11/20/2023 Sign: Print: Jaysen Oldroyd ERIN MENDENHALL KATHERINE LEWIS Mayor Office of the City Attorney 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505A WWW.SLCGOV.COM P.O. BOX 145478, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5478 TEL 801-535-7788 FAX 801-535-7640 November 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Recertification of Salt Lake City Justice Court Dear Council Chair Mano and Council Members, Every four years, the Salt Lake City Justice Court must be recertified by the Utah Judicial Council in order to continue operations pursuant to Utah Code § 78A-7-103. As part of that recertification process, I have been asked to provide an opinion letter addressing whether all requirements for the operation of a justice court have been met by Salt Lake City and whether it remains legally feasible to maintain a justice court. Statutory Requirements The Utah Code requires that certain standards be met in the operation of a justice court. These statutory requirements include: 1. All official court business shall be conducted in a courtroom or an office located in a public facility which is conducive and appropriate to the administration of justice (Utah Code §78A-7-213). 2. Each court shall be open and judicial business shall be transacted every day as provided by law (Utah Code Section 78A-7-213), although the judge is not required to present during all hours that the court is open. 3. The hours that the court will be open shall be posted conspicuously at the court and in local public buildings (Utah Code §78A-7-213). 4. The clerk of the court and the judges of the justice court shall attend the court at regularly scheduled times (Utah Code §78A-7-213). Council Chair Mano November 20, 2023 Page 2 5. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide and compensate judges and clerical personnel to conduct the business of the court (Utah Code §78A-7-206 and Utah Code §78A-7-207). 6. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall assume the expenses of travel, meals, and lodging for the judges of that court to attend required judicial education and training (Utah Code §78A-7-103). 7. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide sufficient clerical personnel to serve the needs of the justice court and shall assume the cost of travel and training expenses of such clerical personnel at training sessions conducted by the Judicial Council (Utah Code §78A-7-103). 8. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide a sufficient staff of public prosecutors to attend the court and perform the duties of prosecution (Utah Code §78A-7-103). 9. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide adequate funding for attorneys where persons are indigent as provided by law (Utah Code §78A-7-103). 10. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide sufficient local peace officers to provide security for the court and to attend court when required (Utah Code §78A-7- 103). 11. Witnesses and jury fees as required by law shall be paid by the municipality maintaining the justice court (Utah Code §10-7-76). 12. Any fine, surcharge, or assessment which is payable to the State shall be forwarded to the State as required by law (Utah Code §78A-7-120 and Utah Code §78A-7-121). 13. Every municipality maintaining a justice court shall pay the judge of that court a fixed compensation, within the range provided by statute (Utah Code §78A-7-206). 14. Court shall be held within the jurisdiction of the court, except as otherwise provided by law (Utah Code §78A-7-212). 15. All required reports and audits shall be filed as required by law or by rule of the Judicial Council pursuant to Utah Code §78A-7-215. 16. All justice courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting system as specified by the Judicial Council (Utah Code §78A-7-213). Council Chair Mano November 20, 2023 Page 3 17. All justice courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (Utah Code §78A-7-103). 18. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide adequate courtroom and auxiliary space for the justice court, which need not be specifically constructed for or allocated solely for the justice court when existing facilities adequately serve the purposes of the justice court (Utah Code § 78A-1-103). 19. The municipality maintaining the justice court shall provide each judge of its justice court with current copies of the Utah Code, the Utah Court Rules Annotated, the justice court manual published by the state court administrator, the Motor Vehicle laws of the State of Utah, the state laws affecting local governments, local ordinances, and other legal reference materials as determined to be necessary by the judge (Utah Code § 78A-7-103). Judicial Council Requirements In addition to those requirements directly imposed by statute, Utah Code §78A-7-103 directs the Judicial Council to promulgate minimum requirements for the creation and certification of justice courts. Pursuant to statute, the Judicial Council has adopted the following additional minimum requirements which can be found in Appendix B of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration: 1. That a clerk shall be available for at least one hour each day the court is required to be open and during court hearings, as required by the judge. These hours shall be posted on the court’s website. 2. The judge shall be available to conduct court business as needed, performing all duties required and exercising ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice as an independent branch of government. 3. All court hearings shall be conducted in a designated courtroom, including remote transmission, as permitted by the Judicial Council, or in another location authorized by the Presiding Judge. 4. The minimum furnishings for a courtroom shall include: a desk and chair for the judge (on a riser at least six inches above the well), a desk and chair for the court clerk, chairs for witnesses, separate tables and appropriate chairs for plaintiffs and defendants, a Utah State flag, a United States flag, a separate area and chairs for at least four jurors, a separate area with appropriate seating for the public, an appropriate room for jury deliberations, and an appropriate area or room for victims and witnesses that is separate from the public, as well as a judicial robe, a gavel, and necessary forms and supplies. Council Chair Mano November 20, 2023 Page 4 5. Appropriate office space must be provided for the judge and clerk. This office space may be shared under certain circumstances, but if shared the judge and clerk must have priority to use the space whenever needed. The office space shall include a desk for the judge and a desk for the clerk, secure filing cabinets for the judge and the clerk, a telephone for the judge and a telephone for the clerk, appropriate office supplies to conduct court business, a cash register or secured cash box for each clerk performing cashiering duties, a computer with word processing software, and access to a scanner and copy machine. 6. The court shall provide interpreters are required by Rule 3-306.04 of the Code of Judicial Administration. 7. A clerk must be present during the time the court is open each day and during court sessions, as required by the judge. 8. The court must have at least one peace officer (which may be contracted). 9. A court security plan must be submitted and approved as required by Rule 3-414 of the Code of Judicial Administration. 10. Each court must have at least one computer with access to the internet, and appropriate software and security/encryption technology to allow for electronic reporting and access to Driver License Division (“DLD”) and the Bureau of Criminal Identification (“BCI”), as defined by the reporting and retrieval standards promulgated by the Department of Public Safety. In addition, all justice courts must use the CORIS case management system. 11. Each court shall report required case disposition information to DLD, BCI and the Administrative Office of the Courts electronically, as described in the foregoing Subparagraph 10 above. 12. Clerks’ education hours shall be reported to the Administrative Office of the Courts on an annual basis. 13. The appointment of the clerks assigned to serve the court shall be subject to the judge’s approval, who may participate in the interview and personnel evaluation process for the clerks at his or her discretion. 14. Court staff shall be certified as contemplated by Rule 3-303 of the Code of Judicial Administration. 15. Any interlocal agreement relating to court operations, as amended to date, shall be provided to the Justice Court Administrator. Council Chair Mano November 20, 2023 Page 5 16. The court shall accept credit and debit cards through a system that integrates with CORIS. 17. The Court shall have access to UCJIS. 18. An audio recording system shall maintain a digital recording of all court proceedings. For Class I and Class II Justice Courts, the system must: i. be stand-alone unit that records and audibly plays back the recording; ii. index, back-up and archive the recording and enable the record to be retrieved; iii. have at least four recording channels; iv. have a one-step “on” and “off” recording function; v. have conference monitoring of recorded audio; vi. have external record archiving from the unit with local access; vii. be capable of being integrated with the court’s public address system; In establishing minimum requirements, the Judicial Council has determined that justice courts with higher case filings require greater support services. The Salt Lake City Justice Court is a Class I Court, which designation applies to courts having an average monthly filing of more than 500 cases. According to an affidavit executed by Clemens Landau, the presiding judge of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, the average monthly filing for the Salt Lake City Justice Court for fiscal year 2022 - 2023 was approximately 2,188 cases. In addition to the minimum requirements set forth above, a Class I Court must have at least one full-time judge and at least three clerks – at least one of whom is available during regular business hours; it must have a courtroom which is dedicated for the exclusive use as a court that meets the master plan guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council; and the judge's chambers and clerk's office cannot be shared by another entity. The State Legislature has provided that any justice court which continues to meet the minimum requirement for its class is entitled to be recertified. However, the Judicial Council also has authority to waive any minimum recertification requirement imposed by rule of the Council rather than by statute. Waiver is at the discretion of the Judicial Council and will be based upon a demonstrated need for a court to conduct judicial business and upon public convenience. Any waiver will generally be for the entire term of the certification. A waiver must be obtained through the Judicial Council each time a court is recertified and, the fact that a waiver has been previously granted, will not be determinative on the issue of waiver for any successive application. Council Chair Mano November 20, 2023 Page 6 There is a great diversity in the needs of the Justice Courts. The needs of a particular court are affected by the type of cases filed (some courts have a high percentage of traffic matters, while others handle significant numbers of criminal and small claims matters), the location of the Court, the number of law enforcement agencies served, the policies and procedures followed by each judge with respect to the operation of the Court, and many other factors. Clerical resources and judicial time are particularly sensitive to local conditions. In order to adequately function, it is anticipated that some courts will exceed minimum requirements for clerical resources and judicial time. Similarly, the particular circumstances of a court may allow it to operate efficiently with less than the minimum requirements in the4 above areas; in such circumstances a waiver may be requested. The Utah Code also provides that the Judicial Council may grant an extension of time for any requirement which is not specifically required by statute. An extension may be granted at the discretion of the Judicial Council where individual circumstances temporarily prevent the entity from meeting a minimum requirement. An extension will be for a specific period of time and the certification of the court will terminate at the end of the extension period. In order for the court to continue to operate beyond the extension period, the court must be certified as meeting all requirements, obtain an additional extension, or obtain a waiver as provided above. As part of the recertification process established by the Judicial Council, the city must also submit a sworn court certification affidavit from the judge of the justice court. Judge Clemens Landau, who is presiding judge of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, has prepared this affidavit indicating that the court meets the minimum statutory and Judicial Council recertification requirements. It is the opinion of this office, based upon Judge Landau’s affidavit and our familiarity with the operations of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, that (i) the court continues to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for a Class I justice court, (ii) is entitled to recertification, and (iii) that it is legally feasible for Salt Lake City to continue operating a justice court. If you have any questions or if I can provide you with any additional assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Jaysen R. Oldroyd Senior City Attorney COURT CERTIFICATION AFFIDAVIT Justice Court: Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge: Clemens Landau, Presiding Judge Address: 333 South 200 East Salt Lake City, UT. 84111 Telephone: 801-535-6300 Court's Website: _sl~c"""'.g""'o~v~/c~o_u_r~ts""'"/ ________________ _ Level of Court (Circle one): ! Average Case Filings Per Month: 2188 (Includes Traffic, Criminal. Small Claims) Daily Court Hours: 8:00 AM -5:00 PM, Monday -Friday Number of Full-time Clerks: 26 plus 5 support staff #Hours Worked Per Week Per Clerk: 1Q._ Number of Part-time Clerks: 0 ----- #Hours Worked Per Week Per Clerk: NA ~~--- This form is divided into two parts. Section I contains those requirements that are statutory and cannot be waived. Section II contains minimum requirements established by the Judicial Council, and those requirements may be waived pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Instructions to Applicant included with this Application for Recertification. ComesnowJudge~C_le_n_1_el_1s~L~a~n~d_a_u __________________ __. Justice Court Judge for Salt Lake City Justice Court and, except as specifically noted below, certifies as follows: 17 SECTION I THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE STATUTORY AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. CERTIFICATION WILL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS EACH REQUIREMENT IS MET. Please indicate Yes or No to each of the following: 1. All official court business is conducted in a public facility. Yes 2. Court is open daily. Yes 3. The hours of court operation are posted conspicuously. Yes 4. The judge and the clerk attend court at regularly scheduled times based on the level of the court. Yes 5. The judge is compensated at a fixed rate, within the statutory range. Yes 6. The responsible governmental entity provides and compensates sufficient clerical personnel necessary to conduct the business of the court. Yes 7. The responsible governmental entity assumes the expenses of the travel of the judge for purposes of required judicial education. Yes 8. The responsible governmental entity assumes the expenses of the travel of each clerk for the purposes of attending training sessions conducted by the Judicial Council. Yes 9. The responsible governmental entity provides the Court with: a. Sufficient prosecutorial support Yes b. Funding for attorneys for indigent defendants, as appropriate Yes c. Sufficient local law enforcement officers to attend court as provided by statute Yes d. Security for the court as provided by statute Yes e. Witness and juror fees Yes f. Appropriate copies of the Utah Code, the Justice Court Manual, state laws affecting local governments, local ordinances and other necessary legal reference materials Yes 10. Fines, surcharges and assessments which are payable to the state are forwarded as required by law. Yes 11. Court is held within the jurisdiction of the court, except as provided by law (78A-7-212). Yes 12 . All required reports and audits are filed as required by law or Rule of the Judicial Council. Yes 13. A record of all court proceedings is maintained by an appropriate digital recording system. Yes SECTION II Section II contains minimum requirements established by the Judicial Council, and those requirements may be waived or an extension granted pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Instructions to Applicant included with this Application for Recertification. Please indicate YES or NO to each of the following: 1. A clerk is available each day to conduct court business, including hearings as required by the judge, for the number of hours required for the classification of the court. Yes 2. Hours during which a clerk is available are posted on the court's website. Yes 3. The judge is available to conduct court business as needed. Yes 4. The judge performs all duties required and exercises ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice as an independent branch of government. Yes 5. All court hearings are conducted in a designated courtroom, by remote transmission, or in another location authorized by the Presiding Judge. Yes Minimum furnishings in the courtroom include: Desk and chair for the judge Yes b. A six-inch riser Yes c. Desk and chair for the court clerk Yes d. Chairs for witnesses Yes e. Separate tables and appropriate chairs for plaintiffs and defendants Yes f. A new Utah State flag that will be on display no later than March 9, 2024 Yes g. A United States flag Yes h. A separate area and chairs for at least four jurors Yes I. A separate area with appropriate seating for the public Yes J. An appropriate room for jury deliberations Yes k. An appropriate area or room for victims and witnesses which is separate from the public Yes 1. A judicial robe Yes m. A gavel Yes p. Necessary forms and supplies Yes q. Office space for the judge Yes r. Office space for the court clerk Yes t. Appropriate office supplies Yes u. A cash register or secured cash box for each clerk performing cashiering duties Yes v. At least one computer with word processing software and internet access Yes w . Access to a scanner and copy machine Yes 4. The court shall provide interpreters as required by Rule 3-306.04 of the Code of Judicial Administration. Yes 5. Does the applicant have a law enforcement department? Yes 6. If the applicant does not have a law enforcement department, identify the law enforcement agency which will provide law enforcement services for the applicant: Yes 7. A court security plan has been submitted for approval as required by Rule 3-414 of the Code of Judicial Administration. Yes 8. The court electronically reports to the Driver License Division, the Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Administrative Office of the Courts as required. Yes 9. Clerks' education hours shall be reported to the Administrative Office of the Courts on an annual basis. Yes 10. The appointment of the clerk(s) assigned to serve the court are subject to the judge's approval, who may participate in the interview and personnel evaluation process for the clerk(s) at his or her discretion. Yes 11. Court staff are current with all certification requirements required by the Board of Justice Court Judges from the month after starting with the court through September 30, 2023. Yes 12. Any interlocal agreement relating to court operations shall be submitted to the Administrative Office of the Court with the city's application for recertification. Yes 13. The court accepts credit and debit cards through a system that integrates with CORIS. Yes 14. The court has access to UCJIS. Yes 15. An audio recording system that complies with the description below maintains a digital recording of all court proceedings. Yes For Class I and Class II justice courts, the system must: Be a stand-alone unit that records and audibly plays back the recording; Index, back-up and archive the recording and enable the record to be retrieved; Have at least four recording channels; Have a one-step "on" and "off' recording function; Have conference monitoring of recorded audio; Have external record archiving from the unit with local access; and Be capable of being integrated with the court's public address system. For Class III and Class IV justice courts, the system must, at a minimum: Be a stand-alone unit that records and audibly plays back the recording; Index, back up and archive the recording and enable the record to be retrieved; and Have at least two recording channels. 16. If the court is a Class I court: a. Judge is employed on a full-time basis Yes b. Dedicated courtroom which meets the master plan guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council Yes c. Court has a jury deliberation room Yes d. Judge's chambers, clerk's office, and courtroom are in the same building Yes e. Judge has his or her own private chambers Yes f. Clerk's office is separate from any other entity Yes g. Court is open during normal business hours Yes 17. If the court is a Class II court: NA a. Court is open (check one) 201-300 average monthly filings: at least 4 hours/day 301-400 average monthly filings: at least 5 hours/day 401-500 average monthly filings: at least 6 hours/day b. Trial calendar is set at least weekly c. Courtroom configuration is permanent d. Courtroom, judge's chambers, and clerk's office are within the same building e. Judge has his or her own private chambers 18. If the court is a Class III court: NA a. Trial calendar is set at least twice per month b. Court is opened (check one): __ 61-150 average monthly filings: at least 2 hours/day __ 151-200 average monthly filings: at least 3 hours/day 19. If the court is a Class IV court: NA a. Trial calendar is set at least monthly b. Court is open at least 1 hour per day ") 1 20. If you have responded with a "no" to any item in Section II above, you must request a waiver or extension below and justify that request. If waiver or extension of any requirement is requested, please specify each requirement and indicate factors which demonstrate a need for the waiver or extension. For any requested extension, please include the requested extension period. (To receive a waiver or extension of any requirement, the information requested in this section must be provided. Remember that statutory requirements cannot be waived or extended). I am familiar with the minimum operational standards for this court, and except as noted above, those standards are currently met or exceeded. During the current term of the court, I have met with the appropriate governing body of the city to review the budget of the court, review compliance with the minimum requirements and operational standards, and discuss other items of common concern . DATED this . of) I day of I declare under criminal penalty of the State of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ( 0~ day of __ ~_o_v_e;_V\_be __ r--_, 2023. 22 CHECKLIST Please be sure that your application for recertification includes each of the following: 1. X Court Certification Affidavit completed and signed by the judge. 2. A copy of a written opinion from the city or county attorney (as appropriate), directed to the appropriate sponsoring governmental entity, advising that entity of all requirements for the operation of the justice court and the feasibility of maintaining the court. 3 . A copy of a duly passed resolution of the sponsoring governmental entity that a. requests recertification of the court, and b. affirms that the entity is willing to meet all requirements for the operation of the court during the period of certification. 4. X A copy of your court security plan, as required by Rule 3-414 of the Code of Judicial Administration. 5. A copy of any interlocal agreement(s) relating to court operations, as amended to date. ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE ADMINISRA TIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS BY: DECEMBER 15, 2023. Board of Justice Court Judges Attention: James M. Peters Administrative Office of the Courts P. 0. Box 140241 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0241 j amesp@utcourts.gov 23 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 TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE:December 5, 2023 RE: RESOLUTION: JUSTICE COURT RECERTIFICATION MOTION 1 – ADOPT RESOLUTION I move that the Council adopt a resolution requesting the recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court by the Board of Justice Court Judges and the Utah Judicial Council. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the resolution. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, Kira Luke DATE: December 5, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number 3 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Amendment Number Three includes 31 proposed amendments, $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in expenditures of which $1,718,732 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to eight funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of nine FTE’s. Four of the nine FTEs are being requested in Item A-1 for the Fire Department and four FTEs are being requested in A-4 for the City Attorney’s new Legislative Division. The other new FTE is being requested in A-13 in the Finance Department. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.3% which is $5,784,487 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The Administration’s chart of projected Fund Balance later in this report was prepared before the Council voted in item I-1 of Budget Amendment #2 to return $1 million to General Fund Balance from an affordable housing development grant that did not proceed. This increased the projected percentage from the 14.08% to 14.3%. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the Fund Balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023. The annual audit is typically completed in December. This updated 14.3% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,501 above the 13% minimum target. 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: November 14, 2023 1st Briefing: December 5, 2023 2nd Briefing: December 12, 2023 (if needed) Public Hearing: December 12, 2023 Potential Action: December 12, 2023 and/or next year 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. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant $53,544 0.5 FTE Community Development Grant Specialist for Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART) This position is proposed to be half funded from the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully loaded annual cost for the FTE. #2 Item A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division $11,139 Reclassify an existing FTE to a higher pay grade and director of new division. Request position be appointed in a future budget opening. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division in the Public Lands Department. #2 A-6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager Budget Neutral (see note to the right) 1 Senior Community Programs Manager This item requires amending an existing interlocal agreement with the County. At the time of publishing this report, staff is checking whether the amendment could result in additional funding needs to maintain current levels of service. The item might not be budget neutral depending on the agreement changes. #2 A-7: Economic Development Project Manager Position $122,000 1 Economic Development Project Manager Would be focused on the creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts and renewal every three to five years. #2 A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses $6,500 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget #2 A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses $55,750 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Award $3,107,201 13 Existing FTEs: - 2 Police sergeants - 10 police officers - 1 Business & community liaison 4.5 New FTEs: - 1 Sequential Intercept Case Manager in the Justice Court - 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN (half grant funded and half by the General Fund in item above) - 1 Police sergeant - 2 police officers 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. Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s contribution towards implementation of the “Miami Model” of diversion out of the homelessness system. #2 G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position $482,915 (funding is to cover four years of new FTE) 1 Coordinator Four years of salary and benefits. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and achievement. #3 A-1: Fire Department (4 New FTEs)$292,638 4 New Medical Response Paramedic FTEs Annual cost #3 A-4 City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division (4 New FTEs) $594,441 Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) Focus on legislative affairs, with special emphasis on the legislative session Annual cost #3 A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings $200,000 Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget #3 A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements $271,985 Would be paid annually over six fiscal years from FY2025 – FY2030 TOTALS $4,715,199 28 FTEs of which 24 are New Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. An updated is anticipated in the next budget amendment after the comprehensive annual financial audit is completed. Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #3. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.08%. After this chart was developed, the Council added $1 million to Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #2 which increased the estimated percentage to 14.3%. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The Administration requests that 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 Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 7/20/23. The table below has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $273,684 More than two years away - Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years 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: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics Request for Four New FTEs ($160,519 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing a further evolution to staffing for the Medical Response Teams (MRTs). The proposal would increase the scope and efficiency of the team while reducing the cost of staffing each of four (4) SUV-based light response MRT units throughout Salt Lake City. The proposal adds four civilian Paramedic FTEs to the Fire Department. Each would be classified as Single-Role Paramedics (SRP’s) and would be allocated specifically to MRT positions currently held by firefighter/EMT’s. The displaced firefighters would fill daily vacancies throughout the department, and staff additional apparatus as the department grows. This will likely result in overtime budget savings although the exact amount is unknown at this time. In its current form the MRT is a successful program, but from a budgetary perspective, staffing the MRTs exclusively with firefighter/EMTs is not the most efficient use of resources. Civilian Paramedics are a less costly position than a sworn firefighter, and the training time to onboard is significantly shorter (2 weeks rather than 16). The request for FY2024 would be $150,119 plus some startup costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be $292,638. Approving this shift mid-year would enable the department to start the hiring process for SRP’s in January and incorporate them into the MRT’s as soon as February 2024. The department plans to continue gathering data on the budgetary impact of this shift on the MRT program in order to inform the FY25 budget plan. Background - The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs staffed by 16 firefighter/EMTs. This initiative was initially funded by the Council in 2014, in part to realize fuel and staffing efficiencies. Having been proven successful over the years both from a sustainability and staffing perspective, it was expanded in 2022 to include social workers when available. When a social worker is combined with an MRT the City refers to this as a Community Health Access Team (CHAT). The department has indicated that when all social worker positions are filled, their goal is to have a social worker on 2 MRT teams (becoming a CHAT), 6 days a week. Staff has included Attachment 3 showing relevant data for the first full year of CHAT operations. ➢Policy question – In addition to the relevant data collected on the MRT program, the Council may wish to ask the Administration to also collect data on any potential department-wide overtime savings of this shift. A-2: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Management Employee Expenses ($14,225 from ARPA) The Economic Development Department is requesting $14,225 of ARPA funds budgeted in previous fiscal years that was not used. The funds would cover expenses for an existing employee supporting the Department’s administration of ARPA local business direct assistance grants and local nonprofit pass-through assistance grants. The Department hired two FTEs to administer the programs through FY2023. However, the program implementation has taken longer than anticipated. One of the FTEs has left employment with the City and the position is no longer needed. This additional funding would provide a total of $125,000 for the second position through the end of FY2024. The two grant assistance programs are expected to be completed at the end of FY2024 so the second FTE would no longer be needed next fiscal year. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($297,220 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing to add four new FTEs to create a Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s Office. According to the transmittal, “The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City.” The amount requested for FY2024 (6 months of funding) is $297,220.40, which includes one-time startup costs such as computers ($12,000, to be budgeted as a transfer to IMS), and funding to establish workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). The full year cost for the four positions is $594,440.79. Note: The Administration would like to gauge Council support on this item at the first briefing such as a straw poll and consider whether to approve this item at the December 12 meeting, so that positions can be advertised/onboarded prior to the 2024 State Legislative Session which begins Tuesday, January 16, 2024. The four proposed positions are as follows: •Legislative Affairs Division Director (Grade E34 - appointed) •Senior City Attorney (Grade E39 - merit) •Special Projects Analyst (Grade E26 - merit) •Administrative Assistant (Grade N21 - merit) The proposal also includes an ordinance to amend the City Code to document this as a new division and to clarify that the City Attorney’s Office and Legislative Division report equally to both branches of government. The Administration notes that the ordinance: •Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council Chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. •Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division, and Division of Legislative Affairs. •Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. •Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. •Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. Staff is working with the Attorney’s Office on several clarifying edits to the ordinance to ensure it matches the intent of the bullet points listed above. See Attachment 1 for the approved as to form version of the ordinance and Attachment 2 for the redlined version (showing edits in track changes format). A-5: Additional Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction in Sugar House ($3,323,950 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 2100 South reconstruction project. The total estimated cost for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business District (from 700 East to 1300 East) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community-desired elements. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2024. The table below summarizes budget line items for this project including the additional funding requested in this budget amendment. No further funding requests are anticipated for this project. Source Amount Original 2100 South Bond Amount $8,000,000 Transportation Impact Fees $660,410 Class C $814,027 (minimum, could increase) Remaining contingency from 300 West project that can be applied to 2100 South $850,000 2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000 2023-2024 CIP Complete Streets $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 – the remainder goes to Virginia Street) Additional Streets Reconstruction Bond Funds from Budget Amendment #1 $1,500,000 Requested additional transportation impact fees in Budget Amendment #3 $3,323,590 Total $18,198,027 Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table The project webpage is publicly available at www.2100southslc.org A-6: Additional Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction ($3,204,371 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would almost maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 600/700 North corridor reconstruction and transformation project. It is eligible for another $400,000 of transportation impact fees however the current unallocated available balance is not enough to cover that additional amount. The Council may see a request in a future budget opening for the additional $400,000 if enough transportation impact fee revenue comes in later this fiscal year or next. The total estimated cost for reconstructing the corridor (from Redwood Road to 800 West) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community- desired elements. The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond included $9,753,000 for this project. The Council also approved $1,879,654 in FY2022 CIP from Funding Our Future transit dollars for this project. A frequent (every 15 minutes) bus service route runs along this corridor. Several other smaller funding sources are also anticipated to be used for the project such as Class C funds, remaining Streets Reconstruction bond funds unused from completed projects, grants, and CIP complete streets funds. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2025. The project webpage is publicly available at www.600northslc.org A-7: Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 from General Fund Balance) Additional one-time funding is needed to continue transitioning City buildings to an upgraded S2 control access system as the citywide standard. The back-end software was recently upgraded for the Public Safety Building and City Hall. This item would allow the same upgrade for Plaza 349 and the Justice Court buildings. The funding also includes card readers and proximity cards (sometimes called smart badges or access cards) for employees using the four buildings. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. A-8: Additional Funds to Purchase Electric Trucks instead of Sedans for the Compliance Division ($20,000 from General Fund Balance) Current funding would allow the Fleet Division to purchase two electric sedans. One sedan to replace a jeep that is past useful life and another sedan for three new FTEs added in the annual budget to create the RV and Long-term Parking Enforcement Team. This funding request would allow both vehicles to be electric trucks instead of sedans. The larger vehicles would provide greater capabilities for the team to operate during the winter, inclement weather, and in neighborhoods with steep roads. The trucks also have larger cargo space for equipment and supplies such as pay station kiosks. A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget ($200,000 from General Fund Balance) The Council did not fund this item in FY2024 CIP but requested the Administration evaluate adding this ongoing maintenance need to the ongoing base budget for the Public Services Department or the Transportation Division in the Community and Neighborhoods Department. The Council previously funded this item in CIP for a couple years. The Administration recommends increasing the Streets Division’s base budget by $200,000. This item would be a one-time appropriation from General Fund Balance. The next annual budget would then include the $200,000 as ongoing. Council Members discussed the competitive CIP process, and that basic maintenance and safety funding better belongs in the annual operating budgets of some departments. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year would lapse to General Fund Balance. The funding will be used for hiring contractors with specialized equipment. Examples of city-owned assets that could be maintained include 1,010 bike racks, over three miles of green painted pavement, bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and radar feedback signs. The Public Services Department and Transportation Division will develop optimal maintenance schedules for these assets and evaluate potential equipment and staffing costs to bring the work in-house vs. the current approach of using outside contractors. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) The blue tower parking pay stations in the downtown are over a decade old and past the recommended useful life. This is causing increasing maintenance costs and operations issues. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and is evaluating the bid submissions. This item is being included in a budget amendment because of timeliness challenges around equipment ordering and delivery windows. Based on the RFP responses, the Administration estimates a seven- year payment schedule would be best. An initial half year payment would be this fiscal year and then larger payments evenly spread across years two through seven (fiscal years 2025 – 2030). A shorter payment schedule or a one-time lump- sum payment could result in savings because the total cost would be less than the seven-year payment schedule. However, the larger upfront costs for a shorter schedule or one-time lump-sum payment would also reduce the General Fund Balance more in the short-term. New parking pay stations are expected to have features not available on the current older equipment such as pay by license plate capabilities, public service information like events in the area, business and organization sponsored parking validations, pay parking citations at a station, multiple languages, and pollution sensors. The old meters would be recycled to the extent possible. New meters may be in new locations based on revenue evaluations for old station locations. Policy Questions: ➢Public Education – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations will learn about the new parking pay stations. The Council may also wish to ask whether the existing ParkSLC mobile app will continue, or a new app would be needed. ➢Parking Demand Management – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices and whether funding would be needed to study options such as variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation-based parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during certain times. A-11: Reappropriation for Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund) The Council originally approved this funding in Budget Amendment #1 of FY2023. A reappropriation is needed because the funds were not used by the end of last fiscal year and lapsed to General Fund Balance. The rail spur at 600 West and 500 South was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. There have been a couple similar rail spur removals in recent years. The Administration stated this is believed to be the last rail spur removal in the area. Note that the budget spreadsheet in the Administration’s transmittal mistakenly identifies this item as ongoing when the funding is one-time. A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) This item would provide one-time funding for police officer overtime shifts at and in the area around the sanctioned campground pilot program (“temporary shelter community”) at approximately 300 South and 600 West. It is expected to operate until April 30, 2024. The overtime shifts would be voluntary so some might go unfilled. The overtime rate would be $65/hour as an incentive for shifts to be filled. The Police Department will evaluate staffing levels to determine how many officers are needed by shift (e.g., days, evenings, and nights). The Department will also utilize vacancy savings to fund additional overtime shifts as needed. Over the five months of December through April, the $500,000 could provide an average of five police officers working 10-hour overtime shifts per day. The actual staffing levels per day and time of day will vary based on officers signing up for voluntary shifts, the volume of calls for service, proactive patrols, and other factors. At the time of publishing this staff report an ARPA reconciliation was pending to show which budgets were unused in prior fiscal years and whether any more ARPA funding remains available for repurposing. The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. Policy Questions: ➢Where would officers be for overtime shifts? – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would officers be inside the sanctioned campground, immediately around it, and/or how wide of an area around it would be proactively patrolled? ➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether more funding is anticipated to be needed for the temporary sanctioned campground’s operations, mitigating public safety issues, or other related costs. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst FTE in the Finance Department for Grants Administered by the Housing Stability Division ($46,643 from CDBG and $14,548 from ARPA) This request would fund one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024. The position is intended to oversee grants administered by the Housing Stability Program. The proposed grant analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% from ARPA. A job description for this position was included in the Administration’s transmittal. The City has experienced a significant increase in the number and complexity of grant applications and grant awards over the past few years. This trend is expected to continue as departments apply for more grants such as billions of dollars in federal grants spread over multiple years from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Historically, the City has not used all the available funding from CDBG to cover the costs of administering the program as allowed under U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. There is anticipated to be enough ongoing CDBG funding to help cover most costs related to this new FTE over the long-term. The remaining 25% of the costs may be covered by other grant funding depending on how much the FTE directly works on those programs. The ability to use grant funds for personnel expenses is often limited to hours spent working directly on the grant programs. ➢Policy question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on the number of grant applications and awards in recent years and are additional resources (e.g., software, FTEs, trainings) needed to improve management of grants. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems ($250,000 from the IMS Fund Balance) This item was previously appropriated in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2023 but, due to delays in the RFP process, was ineligible to be encumbered prior to the fiscal year end and fell to IMS’s fund balance. The RFP process is underway, and the Department wishes to reappropriate this funding. The Public Utilities Billing System (PUBS) was developed and expanded by IMS over the past two decades. The system is reaching the end of life and needs to be replaced. In addition to Public Utilities, some General Fund departments use the system, like Sustainability and Community and Neighborhoods. This funding is to hire a consultant to evaluate the City’s needs and identify the best path for a smooth implementation of the system’s replacement. Microsoft support for the current system is expected to end as soon as July 2024. A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) The Council approved $750,000 in FY2024 CIP from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to purchase an asphalt paver and a cold-milling machine that do this type of pavement maintenance. In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council also approved $130,000 ongoing from Funding Our Future for program supplies. The Public Services Department was notified that the manufacturer increased prices after these appropriations were approved. $205,177 is needed in addition to the $750,000 in CIP to purchase the two machines. The Department has previously rented these machines. Purchasing the machines is estimated to be a more cost-effective option in the long term than continuing to rent. This item would also swap the funding sources for two projects to better align funding eligibilities with project uses. At the time of publishing this report, staff has requested information on the allowable uses of quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds as equipment purchases were previously thought to be eligible. The Mill & Overlay equipment would be shifted away from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds that were also approved by the Council in FY2024 CIP. An equivalent $750,000 for complete streets reconstruction projects would be shifted away from General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds to the quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds. The Mill and Overlay provides a pavement maintenance option that is greater than filling a pothole or chip & slurry surface treatments and less than a full street reconstruction. For example, cutting down a few inches into deteriorated asphalt and removing a several foot stretch and then backfilling with new asphalt. ➢Policy question: The Council may wish to consider a straw poll for this item so the Department could proceed with drafting contracts before the next price increase which is anticipated to be in mid-December. A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) This item would provide one-time funding to assist the State and The Road Home’s efforts to provide motel rooms to families experiencing homelessness from December 2023 to June 2024. The motel vouchers could be considered a stopgap option until a new family non-congregate shelter opens next spring / summer. This new facility will be in addition to the existing Midvale Family Recourse Center or MFRC. The average cost is estimated at $600-800 per week for a hotel room serving a family of four. Actual costs could be more or less depending on the size of a family and variable rates at different hotels. A one-page summary of the plan is shown as the last page of the Administration’s transmittal. The Road Home stated there are existing contracts with motels for 12 rooms and one case manager assigned to the program. Additional case managers would be hired per 12 hotel rooms that are contracted to ensure adequate staffing to workload ratios. A supportive services manager is also anticipated to be hired. The Administration has requested a straw poll on this item to facilitate contract development in advance of the final Council vote. ➢Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the funding gap for the overall plan and would the City’s $300,000 fill the existing funding gap? Adding up all the costs on the one-page summary indicates the total cost could exceed $1 million. The Council may also wish to task what other entities are contributing funding towards the plan? Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project ($513,208 from CAN to Public Services) Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward ($4,269,083) IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center ($250,000) This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources (None) Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor ($100,000 from Misc. Grants) DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup ($495,200 from Misc. Grants) This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2022. No match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grants) The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates ($346,132 from Misc. Grants) The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant ($386,620 from Misc. Grants) The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following: •Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park ($29,508 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park ($20,517 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex ($12,882 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library ($22,642 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) charging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras ($15,000 from Misc. Grants) FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Releasing Funds for Physical Security Improvements to City Hall ($154,000 from CIP Holding Account) In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council put $1 million into a Capital Improvement Program or CIP Fund holding account for one-time to be determined physical security improvements to City Hall. The Public Services Department is requesting these funds in a budget amendment so the improvements could be done in tandem with current earthquake repairs to minimize disruptions in the building. The total project cost is estimated at $240,886. The FY2023 annual budget included funding for building security which is $86,886 of the project cost. If the Council approves this item, then the holding account would have a remaining balance of $846,000. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. ATTACHMENTS 1. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Approved as to Form 2. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Redline ACRONYMS CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund FOF – Funding Our Future IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous OJJDP – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention RDA – Redevelopment Agency SAA – Special Assessment Area TBD – To Be Determined VOCA – Victims of Crime Act 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Oct 25, 2023 14:59 MDT) October 25, 2023 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. ___ of 2023 3 4 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) 5 6 An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of 7 legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City 8 Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. 9 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year-10 round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. 11 WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more 12 bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. 13 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal 14 legislation. 15 WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to 16 establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the 17 City’s legislative interests. 18 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally 19 participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s 20 legislative interests. 21 WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is 22 responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative 23 branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s 24 Office. 25 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to 26 create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. 27 WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative 28 advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the 29 City Council. 30 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the 31 Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government 32 and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. 33 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 34 SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby 35 amended to read as follows: 36 37 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: 38 39 A. Functions: 40 41 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be 42 responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the 43 legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The 44 city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be 45 removed at the discretion of the mayor. 46 47 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and 48 independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference 49 to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city 50 attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable 51 the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 52 53 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either 54 personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before 55 (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official 56 or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may 57 be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city 58 attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such 59 board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 60 61 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the 62 division of legislative affairs. 63 64 B. Outside Separate Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be 65 construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city 66 council or mayor from retaining separate counsel from appropriated funds, provided, 67 however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city 68 council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of 69 interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such 70 branch of city government. as either may from time to time deem appropriate. 71 72 C. City Recorder: 73 74 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under 75 the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be 76 responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for 77 services with respect to legislative functions. 78 79 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of 80 the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required 81 by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters 82 prescribed by law. 83 84 85 D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 86 87 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and 88 federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all 89 legislative matters for the city. 90 91 1.2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the 92 executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda 93 for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative 94 priorities and policies. 95 96 SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 97 publication. 98 99 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 100 2023. 101 102 103 ____________________________________ 104 Darin Mano, Council Chair 105 ATTEST: 106 4 107 _________________________ 108 CITY RECORDER 109 110 111 Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. 112 113 Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. 114 115 116 117 118 _______________________________________ 119 MAYOR 120 _________________________ 121 CITY RECORDER 122 123 124 (SEAL) 125 126 Bill No. _______ of 2023. 127 Published: __________________ 128 129 130 131 132 133 APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney CHAT PILOT DATA October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023 (Three FT Social Work Staff) CHAT 1 (PSB) Scene Responses: 87 CHAT 5 (Station 5) Scene Responses:445 CHAT Total Scene Responses:532 ER Transport Avoided:218 (41%) FD Heavy Apparatus Avoided:224 (42%) FD Heavy Apparatus Released:63% PD Intervention Avoided:229 (43%) Total # Substance/ Psych Calls for all of SLCFD 2691 Crew Referrals Received For Follow Up 769 37% PSYCH 20% SUBSTANCE 24% MEDICAL 9% DEATH, GRIEF, 10% OTHER Breakdown Of Scene Response Calls MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE, ROOM 135 P.O.BOX 145470, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5470 WWW.SLC.COM TEL:801-535-7773 Page 1 of 1 TO: City Council CC: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Megan Yuill, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer FROM: Jorge Chamorro Director of Public Services DATE: November 17, 2023 RE: Release of funds from CIP Holding Account This is a formal request to release funds amounting to $154,000 ($140,000 with 10% contingency) from the CIP holding account for physical security improvements to City Hall that were allocated through Budget Amendment 5 of FY2023. In February 2023, Council Staff requested Public Services make certain security upgrades to the Council Work Session Room. The initial $80,000 request was covered with funding allocated in Budget Amendment 4 of FY2023 of $1.2M for building security. The request was subsequently expanded to include Council Chambers and added additional improvement scope, now totaling $240,886. The cost now exceeds the available funding from the $1.2M allocation by $140,000. Details on reconciliation could be made available to Council in a closed session if requested. This project has been put on an expedited timeline to coincide with earthquake repairs for minimal disruption. We kindly request the Council's prompt consideration of this funding request for $154,000 ($140,000 + 10% contingency), as timely approval will allow us to proceed with the necessary procurement processes and ensure the timely completion that coincides with earthquake damage repairs. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are available to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Oct 25, 2023 14:59 MDT) October 25, 2023 1 1 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 3 No. ___ of 2023 4 5 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) 6 7 An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of 8 legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City 9 Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. 10 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- 11 round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. 12 WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more 13 bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. 14 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal 15 legislation. 16 WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to 17 establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the 18 City’s legislative interests. 19 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally 20 participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s 21 legislative interests. 22 WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is 23 responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative 24 branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s 25 Office. 2 26 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to 27 create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. 28 WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative 29 advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the 30 City Council. 31 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the 32 Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government 33 and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. 34 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 35 SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby 36 amended to read as follows: 37 38 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: 39 40 A. Functions: 41 42 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be 43 responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the 44 legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The 45 city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be 46 removed at the discretion of the mayor. 47 48 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and 49 independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference 50 to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city 51 attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable 52 the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 53 54 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either 55 personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before 56 (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official 57 or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may 58 be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city 59 attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such 60 board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 61 3 62 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the 63 division of legislative affairs. 64 65 B. Outside Separate Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be 66 construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city 67 council or mayor from retaining separate counsel from appropriated funds, provided, 68 however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city 69 council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of 70 interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such 71 branch of city government. as either may from time to time deem appropriate. 72 73 C. City Recorder: 74 75 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under 76 the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be 77 responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for 78 services with respect to legislative functions. 79 80 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of 81 the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required 82 by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters 83 prescribed by law. 84 85 86 D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 87 88 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and 89 federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all 90 legislative matters for the city. 91 92 1.2.The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the 93 executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda 94 for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative 95 priorities and policies. 96 97 SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 98 publication. 99 100 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 101 2023. 102 103 104 ____________________________________ 105 Darin Mano, Council Chair 106 ATTEST: 4 107 108 _________________________ 109 CITY RECORDER 110 111 112 Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. 113 114 Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. 115 116 117 118 119 _______________________________________ 120 MAYOR 121 _________________________ 122 CITY RECORDER 123 124 125 (SEAL) 126 127 Bill No. _______ of 2023. 128 Published: __________________ 129 130 131 132 133 APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 16, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #3 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $1,730,731.89 FLEET FUND $975,177.00 $975,177.00 CIP FUND $410,177.00 ($750,177.00) TRANSPORTATION FUND $0.00 ($205,177.00) IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $6,527,961.00 IMS FUND $12,000.00 $4,531,083.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,705,700.79 $2,234,473.29 CDBG FUND $0.00 $46,642.50 TOTAL $3,103,054.79 $15,090,714.68 Greg Cleary (Nov 16, 2023 12:40 MST) Greg Cleary Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 16, 2023 13:33 MST) rachel otto (Nov 16, 2023 14:06 MST)11/16/2023 11/16/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. Due to the timing of this budget amendment, there are no updates to the FY 2024 revenue projections. Revenues are trending as expected are there are no reasons to assume any variance to the initially adopted projections. The City has begun closing out the financials for Fiscal Year 2023, and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses and is finalized. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #3. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will adjust to 14.08 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,874,345 111,007,097 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 58,403,398 65,998,855 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.89%14.85% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 56,145,652 63,741,109 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.32%14.34% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - (204,200) (204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - (1,730,732) (1,730,732) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,530,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 54,974,670 62,570,127 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%14.02%14.08% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $3,103,054.79 in revenue and $15,090,714.68 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in eight (8) funds, with an increase of nine (9.0) FTEs. The proposal includes 30 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 amendment 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 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, 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, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, 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. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate 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, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, 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 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 150,119.00 Ongoing 4.00 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 10,400.00 One-time - 2 ARPA Employee Expenses Misc Grants - 14,225.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 297,220.40 Ongoing 4.00 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division IMS 12,000.00 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF 20,000.00 One-time - 5 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,323,590.00 One-time - 6 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,204,371.00 One-time - 7 Access Control System Upgrade - Security GF - 400,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - (20,000.00)One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - 20,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 One-time - 9 Road Marking Maintenance GF - 200,000.00 Ongoing - 10 Paystation Replacement GF - 135,992.49 One-time - 11 Rail Spur Removal GF - 205,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Rail Spur Removal CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 One-time - 12 Temporary Shelter Community Misc Grants - 500,000.00 One-time - 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 75%CDBG Grants - 43,642.50 Ongoing 0.75 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 25%Misc Grants - 14,547.50 Ongoing 0.25 13 Grant Employee - Finance - One-time Costs CDBG Grants - 3,000.00 One-time - 14 Consulting for the Enterprise Billing Systems IMS - 250,000.00 One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment Transportation (205,177.00)One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment CIP 205,177.00 (955,177.00)One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment Fleet 955,177.00 955,177.00 One-time - 16 The Road Home - Family Hotel Winter Plan GF 300,000.00 One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - (513,208.00)One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - 513,208.00 One-time - 2 IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS - 4,269,083.00 One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF (250,000.00)One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF 250,000.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Consent Agenda #2 1 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 2 Department of Workforce Services Know Your Neighbor Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 3 EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Cleanup Misc Grants 495,200.00 495,200.00 One-time - 4 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG Grant)Misc Grants 38,000.00 38,000.00 One-time - 5 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants 346,131.80 346,131.80 One-time - 6 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 386,620.00 386,620.00 One-time - 7 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc Grants 29,507.51 29,507.51 One-time - 8 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc Grants 20,517.38 20,517.38 One-time - 9 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc Grants 12,881.77 12,881.77 One-time - 10 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside LibraryMisc Grants 22,642.33 22,642.33 One-time - 11 FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc Grants 39,200.00 39,200.00 One-time - 12 Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc Grants 15,000.00 15,000.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,103,054.79 15,090,714.68 - - 9.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF - 1,730,731.89 - - 8.00 Fleet Fund Fleet 975,177.00 975,177.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 410,177.00 (750,177.00) - - - Transportation Fund Transportation - (205,177.00) - - - Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees - 6,527,961.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS 12,000.00 4,531,083.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 1,705,700.79 2,234,473.29 - - 0.25 CDBG Operating Fund CDBG Grants - 46,642.50 - - 0.75 Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,103,054.79 15,090,714.68 - - 9.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget - Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 448,514,918.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 0.00 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 975,177.00 33,120,946.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 36,281,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 - 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 26,823,040.79 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 56,313,826.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 - - 1,668,750,038.04 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 449,685,899.89 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 47,935,720.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 43,248,254.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00) 9,494,823.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 5,644,405.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 27,351,813.29 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 5,777,784.00 40,672,763.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 - - 1,840,552,848.63 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics GF $150,119.00 GF $10,400.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Karl Lieb / Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Chief Lieb, Clint Rasmussen, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson Current Status The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs. Each MRT is comprised of 4 Firefighters (FFs), for a total of 16 FFs allocated and funded for the MRT program. All FFs currently allocated to the MRT are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). By staffing a MRT with 3 EMTs and 1 Paramedic, rather than 4 EMTS, the response capability would increase by Replacing one of the EMTs as a Paramedic (Advanced Life Support or ALS) would increase the capability of the MRTs by approximately 30% and allow them to perform more advanced patient assessments. Paramedics are currently at a premium nationwide. Fortunately, SLCFD trains and remains appropriately staffed with Paramedics on our Medic Engines (4-handed) for our optimal response model - two Paramedics on each of eight daily Medic (ALS) Engines within SLC. These Medic Engines respond to the most serious medical and fire calls and should remain staffed in this configuration as a 4-handed unit for maximum capability. Proposal This item it to establish 4 new FTEs (Medical Response Paramedics) and reclassify 4 existing FTEs (Firefighters) to Medical Response Paramedics. The SLCFD proposes to diversify our current MRT model by replacing and displacing a total of eight (8) MRT FF EMTs with Medical Response Paramedics (SRPs). This would ideally staff one (1) Paramedic on each unit of four daily operating MRTs. The transition would expand the current MRTs response capability with an ALS component while maintaining the integrity of the MRT as a FD resource responding from and residing within select SLCFD fire stations. The SRPs would be civilian, potentially sworn, and eligible to participate in the Firefighters or Tier 2 Public Safety/Firefighter retirement systems. The SRPs would participate in a training regimen developed by the SLCFD for their specific role within our EMS response model. SRPs will serve under a new job title, new wage schedule, and possibly as part of SLCFD’s Local 81 labor group. Process The SLCFD would realize eight (8) Medical Response Paramedics through a combination of additional FTEs and conversion of existing FTEs: 1. SLCFD is requesting four (4) additional FTEs in the form of Medical Response Paramedics at a half-year cost $150,119 plus some start-up costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be an additional budget increase of $142,519. No new equipment (radio’s, tablets, vehicles, etc.) is required. These new positions would be funded for six months beginning January 2024. 2. SLCFD would retain the option to convert four (4) existing vacant FF positions currently funded for the MRT to SRPs by the end of calendar year 2023. 3. The remaining four FFs displaced by the four requested SRPs would be utilized to fill 4 -handed vacancies or additional resources throughout Salt Lake City in an effort to reduce OT and consistently staff SLCFD heavy apparatus. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: ARPA Employee Expenses Misc. Grants $14,225.00 Department: Finance & Economic Development Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson Funding in the amount of $14,225.00 is being requested to cover expenses for one grant employee for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. Throughout the year, staffing levels have been in flux to support this ongoing need . The additional amount will sufficiently cover the personnel expenses, factoring in vacancies savings, to support Economic Development’s ongoing ARPA grant activity. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division GF $297,220.40 GF $12,000.00 IMS $12,000.00 GF $20,000.00 Department: City Attorney Prepared By: Katherine Lewis For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Katie Lewis This funding is to establish and support four (4) new FTEs, creating the Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s office. The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City. The proposed funding in the amount of $297,220.40 assumes the positions to be filled for six-months in Fiscal Year 2024, with a hire date in January. The four (4) positions are to be ongoing, with a financial impact of $594,440.79 annually beginning if FY25. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) The supporting Ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda, and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. This initial funding request accounts for one-time expenses for staff equipment such as computers ($12,000), funding via a Non Departmental Transfer ($12,000), and a tenant improvement to established workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,323,590.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 2100 South Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 2100 South Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,323,590 of Streets Impact Fees. A-6: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,204,371.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,204,371 of Streets Impact Fees. A-7: Access Control System Upgrade – Security GF $400,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro The current access control system and devices across City buildings are now considered outdated and vulnerable, and staff are proposing this be addressed before the system fails. This system is used for access badges issued to all City employees to scan at certain doors to gain access to a given space. The Safety and Security Program proposes continuing the transition to the S2 control access system as a City-wide standard. With the recent allocation of funding from Council, the Public Safety Buildi ng and City Hall have upgraded their back-end software. The funding requested for the next phase should transition Plaza 349 and the Justice Courts. Additionally, access cards and card readers will be purchased for all four buildings. This project scope has been developed with staff from various departments, including IMS, to ensure standards and needs are met. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000. A-8: Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF ($20,000.00) GF $20,000.00 Fleet $20,000.00 Department: Public Services – Compliance Prepared By: Erik O’Brien / Julie Crookston For questions please include Erik O’Brien, Julie Crookston, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen Public Services - Compliance is requesting a transfer of $20,000 to the Fleet Replacement Fund helping cover the difference in cost to purchase two electric trucks instead of the originally funded smaller vehicles. Fleet has been presented with an opportunity to order these electric trucks. One of the vehicles is part of the replacement cycle, upgrading the originally intended vehicle to a more capable one, and will allow for Parking Enforcement operations to continue during winter snow events, especially in areas like the Avenues. Additionally, the extra cargo space is needed to transport equipment such as pay station kiosks and equipment as needed. In addition to these advantages, the second Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 vehicle will provide adequate space to transport three (3) mitigation officers (FTEs recently approved) and their supplies for our Long-Term Parking Mitigation Team. The addition of these 2 EVs will bring Compliance closer to their goal to have a 100% electric fleet. A-9: Road Marking Maintenance GF $200,000.00 Department: Public Services – Streets Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For question, please include Jorge Chamorro Over the past few years the Transportation Division has been successful in obtaining funding for special road markings through the CIP process, which include green paint on certain bike lanes . After assessing the current inventory of assets made up of 1010 bike racks and 3.23 miles of green-painted bike lanes and markings, staff has concluded that this ongoing maintenance need should no longer rely on the CIP process but rather be added to the Streets operating budget. At this time the need does not justify upfront cost of equipment procurement, Streets will develop a maintenance schedule and oversee a contract to perform the necessary maintenance work. If funding is approved for this item, though most of the work would not occur in the winter, contract development and work scheduling could be done in the meantime with work happening as weather allows. The Streets Division is requesting $200,000 to be added to their budget for ongoing maintenance of road markings and assets recently inventoried. A-10: Pay Station Replacement GF $135,992.49 Department: Public Services/Finance For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson and Jorge Chamorro The current pay stations were purchased over 10 years ago. Due to their age, they are past the end of their useful life and a t risk of failure. New pay stations will allow the City to modernize the services offered to end users. The new pay stations will provide more features for the public including parking payment, information sharing about events going on city wide, the capability to pay by license plate technology, potential pollution sensors, and other innovative features. The modernization of the pay stations will allow for smoother staff operations and continued service to end users. City Finance is recommending a 7-year amortization rather than using the General Fund for one-time payment. The amortization schedule is attached and includes a 7-year payment schedule, with $135,992.49 due in Year 1, and $271,984.98 due in years two (2) through year seven (7). This includes an interest rate of 4.60%. The Council may consider a 5-year schedule which is also attached, with an interest rate of 4.77%. This item is being brought forward with Budget Amendment 3 due to the Request for Proposal process and market conditions around equipment. At the time of budget development, staff did not have clear insight into the cost or timeline of pay station procurement and delivery. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff feel it is best to proceed with the selected vendor for the reasons outlined above. A-11: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 CIP $205,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro / JP Goates For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro and JP Goates Housekeeping request to move $205,000, approved by Council on BA#1 of FY23, item A -7, but placed on a GF cost center, and were recaptured at the end of FY23, from Fund Balance to a Capital Project Cost Center for Engineering to initiate the project. An overview of the original request is below. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 The property on which this rail spur is located, 535 S. 600 W., was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, and that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City’s expense. Since the rail spur has not been used fo r over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. A-12: Temporary Shelter Community (Sanctioned Camping) Misc. Grants $500,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Greg Cleary/Shellie Dietrich Staff is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $500,000 to support startup costs associated with city efforts around a Temporary Shelter Community or Sanctioned Camping. This funding will allow staff to roll out the program, with ongoing assessment in needs, service levels, and funding being further developed in the coming months. Specifically, the $500,000 will support the Police Departments role in this effort , with overtime staffing of offers at the temporary shelters. In addition to the program, the most effective and efficient police staffing levels will also be assessed. The Police Department will look to savings in other areas of the budget to help support the program, notably with the savings realized with any vacant positions. Staff will return to council in the coming months with additional funding requests as needed, and once there is better data and information available on what the program is to entail and what might be needed to fund the ongoing efforts. Attached to this item is an ARPA financial reconciliation. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst – Housing Stability Program Support CDBG Grants $46,642.50 Misc. Grants $14,547.50 Department: CAN Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas and Tony Milner This request is for funding to support one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024, which is intended to oversee the grant allocation from the ARPA program, supporting the Housing Stability Program. The proposed Finance Grant Analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements . The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% Misc. Grants. A job description for this position is attached. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems IMS $250,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Gloria Cortes and Joesph Anthony This item provides funding for consulting services for the Enterprise Billing systems for PUBS which is primarily used by Sustainability and Public Utilities. PUBS needs to be replaced or upgraded, and the consultant work includes an analysis of the city's needs and compare that to best practices and make a recomm endation on where the city should be moving with regards to future decisions. Microsoft’s has the city’s current solution mapped at the end of life by FY2025. Therefore, staff are initiating the work to finding a solution in the current year have an adequate platform it in place by the beginning of FY2025. The proposal and expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis and is estimated based on 1,000 hours of work, at $250 per hour. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program - CIP Equipment Transp. Fund ($205,177.00) CIP ($750,000.00) Fleet Fund $955,177.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Denise Sorensen, Julie Crookston, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Dawn Valente, Mike Atkinson, and Mary Beth Thompson Streets received notification in August that the Council had adopted the CIP application of equipment for the Mill & Overlay program, totaling $750,000. As Streets began to coordinate with Fleet to purchase the equipment it became apparent that the manufacturers ordering window for 2023 had already closed. The 2024 window has now opened, however the manufacturer increased prices such that there is now a $205,200 deficit (includes make -ready). This item is to request an additional $205,200 to cover the increase in price, as well as the transfer of the $750,000 from the CIP Fund to the Fleet Replacement Fund. The vendor has notified us that there will be another price increase, estimated at approximately $7,000 around mid - December 2023. The next price increase will incur in July 2024, however if we do not have the equipment by Spring 2024 it will be very difficult to evaluate the pilot program as the equipment used during the first part of the fiscal year has been a combination of shared and/or rented. This item includes financial adjustments from the Transportation Fund (1/4 cent sales tax), CIP Funds, and the Fleet Fund to ensure the most appropriate use of funds for the proposed capital equipment procurement. When initially preparing the Capital Budget, the Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program was funded in the amount of $750,000 with the ¼ cent sales tax or the “Transportation Fund”, which is to be dedicated to transportation related projects. However, after consultation with city staff, it was determined that the ¼ cent sales tax is no t intended to support equipment expenses. As a result, staff is reallocating the $750,00o to the Complete Streets Project, and is proposing to utilize an additional $205,177 of available Transportation Funds to support the Complete Streets Reconstruction Project, where this funding source is better aligned and is eligible for the given project. This adjustment results in a reduction of general CIP funds needed to support the Complete Streets Reconstruction Project in the amount of $750,000, which are to be transferred to the Fleet Fund for the capital equipment procurement in support of the Mill and Overlay project. The end result of these adjustments includes the use of $205,177 of Transportation Funds to support the Complete Streets Project. A-16: The Road Home - Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan GF $300,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared by: Brent Beck, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Blake Thomas and Andrew Johnston In support of The Road Home program, staff is proposing the use of up to $300,000 from General Fund Fund Balance to assist the State by adding additional motel options for families ahead of the winter months. The goal of this program is to expand support for families to step out of the cold into a sheltered situation until the opening of the Family Non- Congregate Shelter in 2024. The use of $300,000 from GF Fund Balance is proposed following council action in Budget Amendment #2, which allocated $1M back to Fund Balance, associated with the Discontinued Deeply Affordable Housing Development. Attached is the Road Home Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan which outlines the program in more detail, challenges the program faces, staffing levels, and how additional funds will support the program. The Administration is requesting that the Council hold a Straw Poll on funding this initiative to expedite the budget for use in this program. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF ($513,208.00) GF $513,208.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For question, please include Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS $4,269,083.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Joseph Anthony, Gloria Cortes, Aaron Bentley IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF ($250,000.00) GF $250,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental, Economic Development Prepared By: Greg Cleary For questions, please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Felicia Baca This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc. Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. Public hearing was held on September 19, 2023 No match is required. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023 No Match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup Misc. Grants $495,200.00 Department: RDA Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. Public hearing was held on December 13, 2022 No Match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants $346,131.80 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. Public hearing will be on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $386,620.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following : • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc. Grants $29,507.51 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc. Grants $20,517.38 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Acceptin g the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc. Grants $12,881.77 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger w ill be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting fr om the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc. Grants $22,642.33 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) char ging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc. Grants $39,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc. Grants $15,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 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 IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ 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 Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 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 Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ 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$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ 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$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 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$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ 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 Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ 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$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 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$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ Attachments A-1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 (Requesting Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System) WHEREAS, Utah Code Sections 49-23-101 et seq. authorize an employer of emergency medical service personnel to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, employers of full time emergency medical service personnel including paramedics for interfacility transport, including Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), are authorized to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide benefits authorized by Utah state law for the public safety personnel by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Salt Lake City (“City Council”) to exercise the election authorized by statute to approve and authorize coverage under the Fighters Retirement Systems for City firefighter and emergency medical services personnel, including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Election and Authorization. The City Council hereby elects to cover the City’s emergency service personnel, also including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services, who can be qualified for such coverage pursuant to Utah Code Sections 49-23- 101 et seq. in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement System with the Utah Retirement System. The Mayor is hereby authorized to undertake all of the necessary actions to enroll the City in the benefit programs of the Firefighters Retirement Systems offered by Utah Retirement Systems, including the retirement coverage and death benefit coverage for qualified employees under the laws and regulation of the Utah Retirement Systems. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______October 9, 2023________ Medical Response Paramedic Job Profile Summary Under the supervision of a Fire Department Officer and the direction of emergency room medical personnel, and in compliance with Utah State and Fire Department operating procedures, provides basic and advanced life support and medical care to victims of sudden illness and accident, at the emergency scene, and during transport to an appropriate medical facility. This is a specialized work performed in accordance with National and Salt Lake City Fire Department performance and training standards. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES: • Responds to medical emergencies in fire department vehicle with EMT partner. Examines patient at emergency scene and establishes priorities for treatment. Communicates with appropriate hospital emergency room. Provides all treatment according to orders from hospital staff or standing orders, including ECG monitoring, administering IV fluids and medications, defibrillation intubation, splinting and bandaging, extraction, and other treatments necessary for stabilization of patients prior to arrival at emergency room. May transport patients with assistance from contracted ambulance company. • Performs daily medical equipment checks, cleans, and makes equipment used at medical scene serviceable after each call. Keeps record of each medical emergency and patient on forms provided by Utah State Division of Health. Maintains company medical logbook. • Responds to other emergencies with assigned partner as dispatched, carries out orders of company/division officer and other activities necessary for handling an emergency. Acts to maintain safety for self and other members of the team. • Participates in drills and classes as provided by the department or company officer. Participates in physical fitness training. Demonstrates medical skills as required by appropriate authority. Fulfills paramedic certification requirements as established by the State of Utah. Conducts periodic medical training for members as assigned. • Complies with city and department policies and procedures. Completes daily job assignments from company officer to maintain fire station, grounds, and equipment in clean and serviceable condition. Meets with company officer to assess job performance. • Maintains the ability to perform medical activities and participates in all functions required of a paramedic on the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Performs other duties as required. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: • Successful completion of paramedic training and maintenance of certification and licensure as a Utah State Paramedic, including CME attendance and all required testing. Such certification must be in good standing at all times. • Must satisfy the medical condition requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1582. • Possession of valid driver license. WORKING CONDITIONS: • Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior while responding to emergency and non-emergency situations. Medical Response Paramedic • Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to stand, walk, or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Exposure to disagreeable elements such as cold, dampness, toxic fumes, smoke, and noise. Intermittent exposure to infectious diseases, emotionally upset patient, and relatives. Frequent exposure to extreme weather conditions. • May be subjected to lifting weights of 50 pounds or more, aroused out of sleep by fire alarm gongs. Subjected to rapid changes in temperature by responding from station facilities to outside temperatures. May be required during prolonged emergency operations to work without sleep for extended periods. Subjected to traffic hazards during emergency responses through city traffic. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Attachments A-4 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Oct 25, 2023 14:59 MDT) October 25, 2023 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Director of Legislative and Government Affairs The Director of Legislative and Government Affairs reports to the City Attorney and is responsive to both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government. The Director is responsible for monitoring and interpreting state legislation, appropriations and authorizations, and proposed or existing state regulations, keeping both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government informed of legislative impacts to the City, and advising and developing policy responses. Incumbent must be able to work extended hours and on weekends as needed, especially while the Legislature is in session. Duties: - Helps ensure City departments are apprised of existing and proposed state regulations and laws and ensures such regulations and laws are fully implemented. - Knows City legislative priorities and advocates for City legislative priorities before the State legislature. - Communicates effectively between the Administrative and Legislative branches of Salt Lake City government to ensure that the City’s legislative priorities are agreed-upon and clearly communicated internally and externally. - Knows City department-specific legislative priorities and negotiates the acceptable City priority when multiple departments have different/conflicting priorities. - Ensures City departments and Administrative and Legislative branches of government timely receive information necessary to understand and participate in City legislative priorities. - Participates with City elected officials and department leadership in establishing direction, goals, and policies. - Meets with staff in both branches of City government to determine needs and challenges. - Oversees staff in the Office of Legislative Affairs and outside contracted lobbyists, and helps set goals for performance. - Ensures compliance with applicable federal and/or state laws, regulations, and/or City rules, standards and guidelines, etc. - Represents City interests on key legislative issues, task forces, committees, etc. and/or drafts legislation, find sponsors, proposes amendments, etc. - Ensures that legislation is implemented and followed. - Works with both branches of City government and legislators if there are concerns in implementation. - Identify and prioritize system changes and improvements in legislative processes. - Demonstrate and utilize knowledge and understanding of best practices in working with the legislature. - Supervise subordinate personnel including hiring, determining workload and delegating assignments, training, monitoring and evaluating performance, and initiating corrective or disciplinary actions. - Gives recommendations to both branches of City government regarding implementation of passed legislation. - Tracks current events, legislation and other issues of interest to both branches of City government. - Other duties as assigned. Qualifications: - Sufficient education to demonstrate an aptitude to perform above and related duties; AND minimum of six (6) years of progressively responsible experience directly related to municipal government administration, and state and local legislative processes; OR An equivalent combination of education and experience. - Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of city government and legislative processes; Utah laws, regulations, and guidelines governing all aspects of municipal operations; legal and political issues affecting city operations and management. - Considerable skill in the art of diplomacy and cooperative problem solving; establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with state, federal, and other local officials, elected officials and City residents. - Ability to understand and interpret complex laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines; establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other entities and the public; communicate effectively, verbally and in writing; implement cooperative problem-solving processes. - The ability to communicate information and ideas so others will understand, including the ability to adapt communication. - Collaborative with stakeholders and both branches of City government. - The ability to think critically to help solve problems. - The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong and help pull the right people together to solve it. - Experience working with diverse communities. - Strong planning/project management skills. Attachments A-13 Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department Job Title: Finance Grant Analyst Job Code Number: 002589 FLSA: Exempt Pay Level: 27 EEO Code: 2 Bargaining Unit: 600 Benchmark: Research Analyst Grant Prog. Mgr. JOB SUMMARY: The Finance Grant Analyst will be under the general direction of the Deputy Director of Finance. The Finance Grant Analyst will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. , TYPICAL DUTIES: Assist the Deputy Controller with Financial support for Housing grants. This includes, but limited to: • Working alongside other financial professionals. • Preparing calculations in Excel • Managing and approving payments through Workday • Reviewing, reconciling, and administering controls for grant funds • Analyzing, summarizing and/or reviewing data • Reporting findings, interpreting results and/or making recommendations • Collaborating with other team members • Work to ensure budgets and budget amendments are reconciled. • Assist in entering grants into Workday and managing the Workday Grants process. Assist the Grant Manager with reporting and monitoring of grants. This includes, but not limited to: • Assisting the Housing Stability division with City contracts and processes. • Reviewing subrecipient contracts to ensure grant compliance. • Serves as a liaison to provide administrative and technical guidance. • Identifies, resolves, and ensures system compliance issues to follow State and Federal regulations, as well as City policies, procedures, and ordinances. • Organizes and reviews grant files to ensure documentation is complete, maintained, and retained for appropriate audit trails. • Prepares and presents reports for informational briefings and status updates. • Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited College or University in a related field su ch as accounting, business or finance and four years of years in contract and/or grant experience. Education and experience may be substituted on a year-for-year basis 2. Knowledge of finance and accounting theory, including generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Knowledge of administering and managing grants and contract policy, procedure, and guidelines under City, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 4. Knowledge of 2 CFR 200 Federal grant regulations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing and build consensus with diverse backgrounds, with varied organizational needs and differing priorities. 6. Ability to coordinate with and instruct others, as necessary, to ensure compliance and accuracy. 7. Ability to independently bring tasks and projects to meet successful and timely resolution. 8. May require minimum amounts of travel to and from meetings, trainings, and conferences. 9. Occasional non-traditional working hours, which may include evening and weekend meetings. PREFERRED OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience in federal grant administration. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Light physical effort, comfortable working conditions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing and walking. 2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of report deadlines and human behavior. Offers of employment are contingent on successful completion of a criminal background check in accordance with City policy and applicable law. Criminal offenses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from City employment. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Position Review Information Date: 10/28/2023 Departmental Approval: Mary Beth Thompson HR Consultant Approval: Mike Sanchez Compensation Approval: David Salazar Notes: Update to minimum qualifications Attachments A-16 G O A L : T o ex pa nd su p po rt f or f a m i l i e s t o st e p o u t o f t h e co l d i nt o a s h e l t e r ed s it u a ti o n un t i l t h e o p e n i n g o f t h e F a m i l y N o n -C o n g r e g a t e S h el t er (F N C S ) i n 2 0 2 4. The Road Home P H A S E O N E : R A M P U P - N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 3 Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan FY24 C r e a t e a L e a s e : 12 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $288,00024 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $576,00026 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $864,000Average hotel room cost per week for a family of four - $600-$800.Average hotel room cost per week for a family of five to eight - $1,200+. Create lease with hotel(s) for a block of rooms beginning of December to rent rooms asallotted by funding and hotel room availability. T W O P H A S E A P P R O A C H (N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 3 - J U N E 2 0 2 4 ) S t a f f i n g : Supportive Services Manager1 FTE at $46,000Case Manager1 FTE per12 hotel rooms at $34,000 Post and hire for staff positions. O t h e r :Transportation costs including mileage. Supplies will be supplemented with the MFRCbudget. P r i o r i t i z a t i o n : Creates capacity for new families seeking shelter 24/7 at MFRC. Prioritize families with children under 4, unsheltered or in MFRC, and in coordinationwith Fourth Street Clinic. P H A S E T W O : S H I F T I N S E R V I C E S - E A R L Y 2 0 2 4 S t a f f :Staff hired for this project shifts to Family Non-Congregate Shelter. M o v e :Families in hotels moved from scattered site hotels/motels into the Family Non-Congregate Shelter upon opening in early spring. C U R R E N T : W e h a ve c o n t r a c t s w i th m o te l s f or 1 2 r oo m s , wit h o n e C a s e M a n a g e r . C H A L L E N G E S : F u n di ng, l o c a t i n g a n d c o n t r a ct i n g w i t h m o t el (s ), ma i n ta i n i n g h i g h l e v el of c o n ta c t w i th f a m i l i e s t o p r o v i d e n ee d e d s u p p o r t s a n d s e r v i ce s , s u p p o r tin g f a m i l i e s t o fol l o w a ll m o t e l ru le s . S ca tt e r ed sit e m o d e l r eq u i r es a v eh i c l e . DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 31, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $1,430,731.89 FLEET FUND $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CIP FUND $205,000.00 $205,000.00 IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $6,527,961.00 IMS FUND $12,000.00 $4,531,083.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,705,700.79 $2,234,473.29 CDBG FUND $0.00 $46,642.50 TOTAL $1,942,700.79 $14,995,891.68 Greg Cleary (Oct 31, 2023 16:51 MDT) Greg Cleary Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 1, 2023 08:54 MDT) rachel otto (Nov 1, 2023 08:55 MDT)11/01/2023 11/01/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. Due to the timing of this budget amendment, there are no updates to the FY 2024 revenue projections. Revenues are trending as expected are there are no reasons to assume any variance to the initially adopted projections. The City has begun closing out the financials for Fiscal Year 2023, and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses and is finalized. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #3. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will adjust to 13.89 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,874,345 111,007,097 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 58,403,398 65,998,855 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.89%14.85% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 56,145,652 63,741,109 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.32%14.34% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - (754,483) (754,483) BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 187,250 187,250 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - (1,430,732) (1,430,732) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,530,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 54,147,687 61,743,144 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%13.81%13.89% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $1,942,700.79 in revenue and $14,995,891.68 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with an increase of nine (9.0) FTEs. The proposal includes 28 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 amendment 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 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, 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, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, 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. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate 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, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, 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 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 150,119.00 Ongoing 4.00 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 10,400.00 One-time - 2 ARPA Employee Expenses Misc Grants - 14,225.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 297,220.40 Ongoing 4.00 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division IMS 12,000.00 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF 20,000.00 One-time 5 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,323,590.00 One-time - 6 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,204,371.00 One-time - 7 Access Control System Upgrade - Security GF - 400,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - (20,000.00)One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - 20,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 One-time - 9 Road Marking Maintenance GF - 200,000.00 Ongoing - 10 Paystation Replacement GF - 135,992.49 One-time - 11 Rail Spur Removal GF - 205,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Rail Spur Removal CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 One-time - 12 Temporary Shelter Community Misc Grants - 500,000.00 One-time - 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 75%CDBG Grants - 43,642.50 Ongoing 0.75 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 25%Misc Grants - 14,547.50 Ongoing 0.25 13 Grant Employee - Finance - One-time Costs CDBG Grants - 3,000.00 One-time - 14 Consulting for the Enterprise Billing Systems IMS - 250,000.00 One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - (513,208.00)One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - 513,208.00 One-time - 2 IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS - 4,269,083.00 One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF (250,000.00)One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF 250,000.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Consent Agenda #2 1 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 2 Department of Workforce Services Know Your Neighbor Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 3 EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Cleanup Misc Grants 495,200.00 495,200.00 One-time - 4 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG Grant)Misc Grants 38,000.00 38,000.00 One-time - 5 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants 346,131.80 346,131.80 One-time - 6 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 386,620.00 386,620.00 One-time - 7 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc Grants 29,507.51 29,507.51 One-time - 8 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc Grants 20,517.38 20,517.38 One-time - 9 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc Grants 12,881.77 12,881.77 One-time - 10 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc Grants 22,642.33 22,642.33 One-time - 11 FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc Grants 39,200.00 39,200.00 One-time - 12 Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc Grants 15,000.00 15,000.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 9.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF - 1,430,731.89 - - 8.00 Fleet Fund Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 - - - Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees - 6,527,961.00 IMS Fund IMS 12,000.00 4,531,083.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 1,705,700.79 2,234,473.29 - - 0.25 CDBG Operating Fund CDBG Grants - 46,642.50 - - 0.75 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 9.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget - Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 - 448,514,918.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 0.00 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 20,000.00 32,165,769.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 36,281,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 - 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 26,823,040.79 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 205,000.00 56,108,649.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 1,942,700.79 - - 1,667,589,684.04 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,430,731.89 449,385,899.89 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 20,000.00 46,980,543.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 43,248,254.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 5,644,405.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 27,351,813.29 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 6,732,961.00 41,627,940.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 14,995,891.68 - - 1,840,458,025.63 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics GF $150,119.00 GF $10,400.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Karl Lieb / Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Chief Lieb, Clint Rasmussen, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson Current Status The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs. Each MRT is comprised of 4 Firefighters (FFs), for a total of 16 FFs allocated and funded for the MRT program. All FFs currently allocated to the MRT are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). By staffing a MRT with 3 EMTs and 1 Paramedic, rather than 4 EMTS, the response capability would increase by Replacing one of the EMTs as a Paramedic (Advanced Life Support or ALS) would increase the capability of the MRTs by approximately 30% and allow them to perform more advanced patient assessments. Paramedics are currently at a premium nationwide. Fortunately, SLCFD trains and remains appropriately staffed with Paramedics on our Medic Engines (4-handed) for our optimal response model - two Paramedics on each of eight daily Medic (ALS) Engines within SLC. These Medic Engines respond to the most serious medical and fire calls and should remain staffed in this configuration as a 4-handed unit for maximum capability. Proposal This item it to establish 4 new FTEs (Medical Response Paramedics) and reclassify 4 existing FTEs (Firefighters) to Medical Response Paramedics. The SLCFD proposes to diversify our current MRT model by replacing and displacing a total of eight (8) MRT FF EMTs with Medical Response Paramedics (SRPs). This would ideally staff one (1) Paramedic on each unit of four daily operating MRTs. The transition would expand the current MRTs response capability with an ALS component while maintaining the integrity of the MRT as a FD resource responding from and residing within select SLCFD fire stations. The SRPs would be civilian, potentially sworn, and eligible to participate in the Firefighters or Tier 2 Public Safety/Firefighter retirement systems. The SRPs would participate in a training regimen developed by the SLCFD for their specific role within our EMS response model. SRPs will serve under a new job title, new wage schedule, and possibly as part of SLCFD’s Local 81 labor group. Process The SLCFD would realize eight (8) Medical Response Paramedics through a combination of additional FTEs and conversion of existing FTEs: 1. SLCFD is requesting four (4) additional FTEs in the form of Medical Response Paramedics at a half-year cost $150,119 plus some start-up costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be an additional budget increase of $142,519. No new equipment (radio’s, tablets, vehicles, etc.) is required. These new positions would be funded for six months beginning January 2024. 2. SLCFD would retain the option to convert four (4) existing vacant FF positions currently funded for the MRT to SRPs by the end of calendar year 2023. 3. The remaining four FFs displaced by the four requested SRPs would be utilized to fill 4 -handed vacancies or additional resources throughout Salt Lake City in an effort to reduce OT and consistently staff SLCFD heavy apparatus. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: ARPA Employee Expenses Misc. Grants $14,225.00 Department: Finance & Economic Development Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson Funding in the amount of $14,225.00 is being requested to cover expenses for one grant employee for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. Throughout the year, staffing levels have been in flux to support this ongoing need . The additional amount will sufficiently cover the personnel expenses, factoring in vacancies savings, to support Economic Development’s ongoing ARPA grant activity. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division GF $297,220.40 GF $12,000.00 IMS $12,000.00 GF $20,000.00 Department: City Attorney Prepared By: Katherine Lewis For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Katie Lewis This funding is to establish and support four (4) new FTEs, creating the Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s office. The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City. The proposed funding in the amount of $297,220.40 assumes the positions to be filled for six-months in Fiscal Year 2024, with a hire date in January. The four (4) positions are to be ongoing, with a financial impact of $594,440.79 annually beginning if FY25. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) The supporting Ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda, and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. This initial funding request accounts for one-time expenses for staff equipment such as computers ($12,000), funding via a Non Departmental Transfer ($12,000), and a tenant improvement to established workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,323,590.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 2100 South Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 2100 South Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,323,590 of Streets Impact Fees. A-6: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,204,371.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project . Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,204,371 of Streets Impact Fees. A-7: Access Control System Upgrade – Security GF $400,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro The current access control system and devices across City buildings are now considered outdated and vulnerable, and staff are proposing this be addressed before the system fails. This system is used for access badges issued to all City employees to scan at certain doors to gain access to a given space. The Safety and Security Program proposes continuing the transition to the S2 control access system as a City-wide standard. With the recent allocation of funding from Council, the Public Safety Buildi ng and City Hall have upgraded their back-end software. The funding requested for the next phase should transition Plaza 349 and the Justice Courts. Additionally, access cards and card readers will be purchased for all four buildings. This project scope has been developed with staff from various departments, including IMS, to ensure standards and needs are met. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000. A-8: Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF ($20,000.00) GF $20,000.00 Fleet $20,000.00 Department: Public Services – Compliance Prepared By: Erik O’Brien / Julie Crookston For questions please include Erik O’Brien, Julie Crookston, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen Public Services - Compliance is requesting a transfer of $20,000 to the Fleet Replacement Fund helping cover the difference in cost to purchase two electric trucks instead of the originally funded smaller vehicles. Fleet has been presented with an opportunity to order these electric trucks. One of the vehicles is part of the replacement cycle, upgrading the originally intended vehicle to a more capable one, and will allow for Parking Enforcement operations to continue during winter snow events, especially in areas like the Avenues. Additionally, the extra cargo space is needed to transport equipment such as pay station kiosks and equipment as needed. In addition to these advantages, the second Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 vehicle will provide adequate space to transport three (3) mitigation officers (FTEs recently approved) and their supplies for our Long-Term Parking Mitigation Team. The addition of these 2 EVs will bring Compliance closer to their goal to have a 100% electric fleet. A-9: Road Marking Maintenance GF $200,000.00 Department: Public Services – Streets Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For question, please include Jorge Chamorro Over the past few years the Transportation Division has been successful in obtaining funding for special road markings through the CIP process, which include green paint on certain bike lanes . After assessing the current inventory of assets made up of 1010 bike racks and 3.23 miles of green-painted bike lanes and markings, staff has concluded that this ongoing maintenance need should no longer rely on the CIP process but rather be added to the Streets operating budget. At this time the need does not justify upfront cost of equipment procurement, Streets will develop a maintenance schedule and oversee a contract to perform the necessary maintenance work. If funding is approved for this item, though most of the work would not occur in the winter, contract development and work scheduling could be done in the meantime with work happening as weather allows. The Streets Division is requesting $200,000 to be added to their budget for ongoing maintenance of road markings and assets recently inventoried. A-10: Pay Station Replacement GF $135,992.49 Department: Public Services/Finance The current pay stations were purchased over 10 years ago. Due to their age, they are past the end of their useful life and a t risk of failure. New pay stations will allow the City to modernize the services offered to end users. The new pay stations will provide more features for the public including parking payment, information sharing about events going on city wide, the capability to pay by license plate technology, potential pollution sensors, and other innovative features. The modernization of the pay stations will allow for smoother staff operations and continued service to end users. City Finance is recommending a 7-year amortization rather than using the General Fund for one-time payment. The amortization schedule is attached and includes a 7-year payment schedule, with $135,992.49 due in Year 1, and $271,984.98 due in years two (2) through year seven (7). This includes an interest rate of 4.60%. The Council may consider a 5-year schedule which is also attached, with an interest rate of 4.77%. This item is being brought forward with Budget Amendment 3 due to the Request for Proposal process and market conditions around equipment. At the time of budget development, staff did not have clear insight into the cost or timeline of pay station procurement and delivery. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff feel it is best to proceed with the selected vendor for the reasons outlined above. A-11: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 CIP $205,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro / JP Goates For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro and JP Goates Housekeeping request to move $205,000, approved by Council on BA#1 of FY23, item A -7, but placed on a GF cost center, and were recaptured at the end of FY23, from Fund Balance to a Capital Project Cost Center for Engineering to initiate the project. An overview of the original request is below. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 The property on which this rail spur is located, 535 S. 600 W., was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, ope rate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, a nd that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City’s expense. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. A-12: Temporary Shelter Community (Sanctioned Camping) Misc. Grants $500,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Greg Cleary/Shellie Dietrich Staff is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $500,000 to support startup costs associated with city efforts around a Temporary Shelter Community or Sanctioned Camping. This funding will allow staff to roll out the program, with ongoing assessment in needs, service levels, and funding being further developed in the coming months. Specifically, the $500,000 will support the Police Departments role in this effort, with overtime staffing of offers at the temporary shelters. In addition to the program, the most effective and efficient police staffing levels will also be assessed. The Police Department will look to savings in other areas of the budget to help support the program, notably with the savings realized with any vacant positions. Staff will return to council in the coming months with additional funding requests as needed, and once there is better data and information available on what the program is to entail and what might be needed to fund the ongoing efforts. Attached to this item is an ARPA financial reconciliation. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst – Housing Stability Program Support CDBG Grants $46,642.50 Misc. Grants $14,547.50 Department: CAN Prepared By: This request is for funding to support one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024, which is intended to oversee the grant allocation from the ARPA program, supporting the Housing Stability Program. The proposed Finance Grant Analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements . The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% Misc. Grants. A job description for this position is attached. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems IMS $250,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes This item provides funding for consulting services for the Enterprise Billing systems for PUBS which is primarily used by Sustainability and Public Utilities. PUBS needs to be replaced or upgraded, and the consultant work includes an analysis of the city's needs and compare that to best practices and make a recommendation on where the city should be moving with regards to future decisions. Microsoft’s has the city’s current solution mapped at the end of life by FY2025. Therefore, staff are initiating the work to finding a solution in the current year have an adequate platform it in place by the beginning of FY2025. The proposal and expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis and is estimated based on 1,000 hours of work, at $250 per hour. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF ($513,208.00) GF $513,208.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For question, please include Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS $4,269,083.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Joseph Anthony, Gloria Cortes, Aaron Bentley IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF ($250,000.00) GF $250,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental, Economic Development Prepared By: Greg Cleary For questions, please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Felicia Baca This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc. Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. Public hearing was held on September 19, 2023 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 No match is required. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023 No Match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup Misc. Grants $495,200.00 Department: RDA Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the S alt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. Public hearing was held on December 13, 2022 No Match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants $346,131.80 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. Public hearing will be on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $386,620.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following : • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc. Grants $29,507.51 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc. Grants $20,517.38 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc. Grants $12,881.77 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc. Grants $22,642.33 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) char ging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc. Grants $39,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc. Grants $15,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 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 IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ 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 Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 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 Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ 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$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ 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$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 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$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ 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 Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ 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$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 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$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ Attachments A-1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 (Requesting Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System) WHEREAS, Utah Code Sections 49-23-101 et seq. authorize an employer of emergency medical service personnel to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, employers of full time emergency medical service personnel including paramedics for interfacility transport, including Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), are authorized to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide benefits authorized by Utah state law for the public safety personnel by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Salt Lake City (“City Council”) to exercise the election authorized by statute to approve and authorize coverage under the Fighters Retirement Systems for City firefighter and emergency medical services personnel, including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Election and Authorization. The City Council hereby elects to cover the City’s emergency service personnel, also including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services, who can be qualified for such coverage pursuant to Utah Code Sections 49-23- 101 et seq. in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement System with the Utah Retirement System. The Mayor is hereby authorized to undertake all of the necessary actions to enroll the City in the benefit programs of the Firefighters Retirement Systems offered by Utah Retirement Systems, including the retirement coverage and death benefit coverage for qualified employees under the laws and regulation of the Utah Retirement Systems. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______October 9, 2023________ Medical Response Paramedic Job Profile Summary Under the supervision of a Fire Department Officer and the direction of emergency room medical personnel, and in compliance with Utah State and Fire Department operating procedures, provides basic and advanced life support and medical care to victims of sudden illness and accident, at the emergency scene, and during transport to an appropriate medical facility. This is a specialized work performed in accordance with National and Salt Lake City Fire Department performance and training standards. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES: • Responds to medical emergencies in fire department vehicle with EMT partner. Examines patient at emergency scene and establishes priorities for treatment. Communicates with appropriate hospital emergency room. Provides all treatment according to orders from hospital staff or standing orders, including ECG monitoring, administering IV fluids and medications, defibrillation intubation, splinting and bandaging, extraction, and other treatments necessary for stabilization of patients prior to arrival at emergency room. May transport patients with assistance from contracted ambulance company. • Performs daily medical equipment checks, cleans, and makes equipment used at medical scene serviceable after each call. Keeps record of each medical emergency and patient on forms provided by Utah State Division of Health. Maintains company medical logbook. • Responds to other emergencies with assigned partner as dispatched, carries out orders of company/division officer and other activities necessary for handling an emergency. Acts to maintain safety for self and other members of the team. • Participates in drills and classes as provided by the department or company officer. Participates in physical fitness training. Demonstrates medical skills as required by appropriate authority. Fulfills paramedic certification requirements as established by the State of Utah. Conducts periodic medical training for members as assigned. • Complies with city and department policies and procedures. Completes daily job assignments from company officer to maintain fire station, grounds, and equipment in clean and serviceable condition. Meets with company officer to assess job performance. • Maintains the ability to perform medical activities and participates in all functions required of a paramedic on the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Performs other duties as required. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: • Successful completion of paramedic training and maintenance of certification and licensure as a Utah State Paramedic, including CME attendance and all required testing. Such certification must be in good standing at all times. • Must satisfy the medical condition requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1582. • Possession of valid driver license. WORKING CONDITIONS: • Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior while responding to emergency and non-emergency situations. Medical Response Paramedic • Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to stand, walk, or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Exposure to disagreeable elements such as cold, dampness, toxic fumes, smoke, and noise. Intermittent exposure to infectious diseases, emotionally upset patient, and relatives. Frequent exposure to extreme weather conditions. • May be subjected to lifting weights of 50 pounds or more, aroused out of sleep by fire alarm gongs. Subjected to rapid changes in temperature by responding from station facilities to outside temperatures. May be required during prolonged emergency operations to work without sleep for extended periods. Subjected to traffic hazards during emergency responses through city traffic. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Attachments A-4 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Oct 25, 2023 14:59 MDT) October 25, 2023 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. ed 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. ed Director of Legislative and Government Affairs The Director of Legislative and Government Affairs reports to the City Attorney and is responsive to both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government. The Director is responsible for monitoring and interpreting state legislation, appropriations and authorizations, and proposed or existing state regulations, keeping both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government informed of legislative impacts to the City, and advising and developing policy responses. Incumbent must be able to work extended hours and on weekends as needed, especially while the Legislature is in session. Duties: - Helps ensure City departments are apprised of existing and proposed state regulations and laws and ensures such regulations and laws are fully implemented. - Knows City legislative priorities and advocates for City legislative priorities before the State legislature. - Communicates effectively between the Administrative and Legislative branches of Salt Lake City government to ensure that the City’s legislative priorities are agreed-upon and clearly communicated internally and externally. - Knows City department-specific legislative priorities and negotiates the acceptable City priority when multiple departments have different/conflicting priorities. - Ensures City departments and Administrative and Legislative branches of government timely receive information necessary to understand and participate in City legislative priorities. - Participates with City elected officials and department leadership in establishing direction, goals, and policies. - Meets with staff in both branches of City government to determine needs and challenges. - Oversees staff in the Office of Legislative Affairs and outside contracted lobbyists, and helps set goals for performance. - Ensures compliance with applicable federal and/or state laws, regulations, and/or City rules, standards and guidelines, etc. - Represents City interests on key legislative issues, task forces, committees, etc. and/or drafts legislation, find sponsors, proposes amendments, etc. - Ensures that legislation is implemented and followed. - Works with both branches of City government and legislators if there are concerns in implementation. - Identify and prioritize system changes and improvements in legislative processes. - Demonstrate and utilize knowledge and understanding of best practices in working with the legislature. - Supervise subordinate personnel including hiring, determining workload and delegating assignments, training, monitoring and evaluating performance, and initiating corrective or disciplinary actions. - Gives recommendations to both branches of City government regarding implementation of passed legislation. - Tracks current events, legislation and other issues of interest to both branches of City government. - Other duties as assigned. Qualifications: - Sufficient education to demonstrate an aptitude to perform above and related duties; AND minimum of six (6) years of progressively responsible experience directly related to municipal government administration, and state and local legislative processes; OR An equivalent combination of education and experience. - Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of city government and legislative processes; Utah laws, regulations, and guidelines governing all aspects of municipal operations; legal and political issues affecting city operations and management. - Considerable skill in the art of diplomacy and cooperative problem solving; establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with state, federal, and other local officials, elected officials and City residents. - Ability to understand and interpret complex laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines; establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other entities and the public; communicate effectively, verbally and in writing; implement cooperative problem-solving processes. - The ability to communicate information and ideas so others will understand, including the ability to adapt communication. - Collaborative with stakeholders and both branches of City government. - The ability to think critically to help solve problems. - The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong and help pull the right people together to solve it. - Experience working with diverse communities. - Strong planning/project management skills. Attachments A-13 Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department Job Title: Finance Grant Analyst Job Code Number: 002589 FLSA: Exempt Pay Level: 27 EEO Code: 2 Bargaining Unit: 600 Benchmark: Research Analyst Grant Prog. Mgr. JOB SUMMARY: The Finance Grant Analyst will be under the general direction of the Deputy Director of Finance. The Finance Grant Analyst will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. , TYPICAL DUTIES: Assist the Deputy Controller with Financial support for Housing grants. This includes, but limited to: • Working alongside other financial professionals. • Preparing calculations in Excel • Managing and approving payments through Workday • Reviewing, reconciling, and administering controls for grant funds • Analyzing, summarizing and/or reviewing data • Reporting findings, interpreting results and/or making recommendations • Collaborating with other team members • Work to ensure budgets and budget amendments are reconciled. • Assist in entering grants into Workday and managing the Workday Grants process. Assist the Grant Manager with reporting and monitoring of grants. This includes, but not limited to: • Assisting the Housing Stability division with City contracts and processes. • Reviewing subrecipient contracts to ensure grant compliance. • Serves as a liaison to provide administrative and technical guidance. • Identifies, resolves, and ensures system compliance issues to follow State and Federal regulations, as well as City policies, procedures, and ordinances. • Organizes and reviews grant files to ensure documentation is complete, maintained, and retained for appropriate audit trails. • Prepares and presents reports for informational briefings and status updates. • Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited College or University in a related field su ch as accounting, business or finance and four years of years in contract and/or grant experience. Education and experience may be substituted on a year-for-year basis 2. Knowledge of finance and accounting theory, including generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Knowledge of administering and managing grants and contract policy, procedure, and guidelines under City, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 4. Knowledge of 2 CFR 200 Federal grant regulations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing and build consensus with diverse backgrounds, with varied organizational needs and differing priorities. 6. Ability to coordinate with and instruct others, as necessary, to ensure compliance and accuracy. 7. Ability to independently bring tasks and projects to meet successful and timely resolution. 8. May require minimum amounts of travel to and from meetings, trainings, and conferences. 9. Occasional non-traditional working hours, which may include evening and weekend meetings. PREFERRED OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience in federal grant administration. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Light physical effort, comfortable working conditions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing and walking. 2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of report deadlines and human behavior. Offers of employment are contingent on successful completion of a criminal background check in accordance with City policy and applicable law. Criminal offenses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from City employment. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Position Review Information Date: 10/28/2023 Departmental Approval: Mary Beth Thompson HR Consultant Approval: Mike Sanchez Compensation Approval: David Salazar Notes: Update to minimum qualifications COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE: December 5, 2023 RE:Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: Dec 5, 2023 Set Date: Dec 12, 2023 Public Hearing: Jan 9, 2024 Potential Action: TBD ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration’s proposed ordinance rewrites and re-organizes the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter, consistent with previous Council discussions relating to various sustainability goals for Salt Lake City, and consistent with the strategies outlined in the City’s Urban Forest Action Plan. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the ordinance is intended to “better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality…”. It also notes that re-organizing this section of the code to improve clarity and readability for both the public and administration. The proposed changes also include feedback from several City departments, as well as changes recommended from the Planning Commission. On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission voted 10 to 1 to recommend a positive recommendation to the Council with two modifications (see Key Elements #2 and Policy Question #1 on page 3). Goal of the Briefing: Review proposed changes to Landscaping and Buffers chapter, provide feedback and schedule public hearing to receive public comment. KEY ELEMENTS 1.Proposed Changes – The Administration’s transmittal notes the following proposed changes/additions, organized by policy goal: a. Improve water conservation by: i. Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. ii. Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. iii. Prohibiting water waste. iv. Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. Page | 2 b. Supporting the Urban Forest/trees by: i. Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. ii. Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. iii. Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). iv. Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. c. Reduce the urban heat island by: i. Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. ii. Establishing rock mulch limitations. iii. Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. d. Reduce stormwater runoff by: i. Allowing stormwater curb cuts. ii. Requireing bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44) e. Simplify and clarify through: i. Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. ii. Addressing artificial turf, by removing it as permitted, based on the Planning Commission recommendation (See Planning Commission changes below and policy question #1 on Page 3). iii. Consolidating buffer sizes. iv. Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. v. Creating tables and graphics where possible. vi. Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. vii. Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. 2.Planning Commission Changes – The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council with the following changes: c. Prohibiting artificial turf. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the proposed draft before the Council includes “a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process.” See Policy Question #1 on Page 3. d.Define “Landscape or Irrigation specialist”. During the Planning Commission hearing, some commented that the general language originally proposed about a “landscape or irrigation professional” was too broad. The current draft now requires review and signature by a landscape architect (licensed with the State of Utah), or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. Page | 3 5.Elements not changing - The Administration’s transmittal notes that several current standards in the zoning code will remain: a. Regulated landscaping locations (Park Strips, Yard areas, Buffers, Parking Lots). b. 33% vegetation standard. c. 20% hard surfacing limitations. d. Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. e. Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. f. Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. g. Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. – h. Mulching depth and permeability standards. i. And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. j. Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Planning Commission recommendations relating to turf – o The draft presented to the Planning Commission on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. It was prohibited in other locations. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. o As noted above, the Planning Commission was concerned with this aspect of the proposal, particularly the impact of turf on stormwater runoff and harmful chemicals used in the turf manufacturing process. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended to prohibit turf in required landscaping areas. Where landscaping is not regulated by this chapter, such as the rear yard, turf would be permitted. o Recently, some cities, including Boston and several in California have prohibited artificial turf. They have cited Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances or P-FAS, as well as bisphenol A (BPA) in the rubber crumb underlayer as a main public health reason to prohibit artificial turf. o According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS chemicals are a known carcinogen which can interfere with hormones, reproduction, immunity and cause developmental delays in children. The EPA has not officially listed BPA on their concerned substance list but they are continuing to monitor research. o Turf manufacturers have been working to improve the production of artificial turf to reduce/remove chemicals, and each year of development shows improvement on this front. o Previous Council discussions asked for the Administration to evaluate artificial turf as an option for required landscaping areas. Does the Council wish to discuss this further with the Administration, including reviewing the language originally proposed to the Planning Commission? Page | 4 2.Enforcement – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have a recommendation for how to handle enforcement/grandfathering of the changing standards, particularly as it relates to turf? Currently staff understands that the Administration has paused enforcement on turf in landscaping areas, while this ordinance is working its way through the process. CHRONOLOGY •September 6, 2022 – Initial feedback from City Council in work session •February 8, 2023 – Text amendment formally initiated •February 10, 2023 – Notice emailed to recognized organizations and changes posted to Planning Division Open House webpage •March 20, 2023 – Proposed changes presented to Sugar House Community Council •April 26, 2023 – Planning Commission discussion and positive recommendation forwarded •May 8, 2023 – Ordinance forwarded to Attorney’s office for review •June 15, 2023 – Ordinance corrections forwarded to Attorney’s office •August 29, 2023 – Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s office for final review •September 26, 2023 – Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office •September 28, 2023 – Transmittal sent to Council Office Text Amendment // City Council Briefing LANDSCAPING & BUFFERSCHAPTER 48 PLNPCM2023-00098 Water Conservation Simplify Implementation Aligning Standards with Goals WHY UPDATE THE LANDSCAPE CHAPTER? Promote Water Conservation Preserve and Expand the Urban Tree Canopy Reduce Heat Island Effect Reduce Stormwater Runoff Improve Air Quality Salt Lake City // Planning Division DEFINED GOALS WORKED CLOSELY WITH: •SLC Public Utilities •SLC Urban Forestry •SLC Civil Enforcement LANDSCAPING CONSULTANTS VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME: SIMPLIFIED & CLARIFIED: Illustrations, Tables, Lists GETTING IT RIGHT Salt Lake City // Planning Division STANDARDS SIMPLIFIED •NOT RETROACTIVE •Modifications cannot violate the code •All landscaping standards will need to be met when there is... •New Construction. •Addition of 50% (except single- and two- family residences). Salt Lake City // Planning Division WHEN DO THE STANDARDS APPLY? Salt Lake City // Planning Division WHERE DO THE STANDARDS APPLY? All Properties in the City Required Landscaping Locations Minimum Standards UPDATED STANDARDS •Landscaping Locations •33% Vegetation •20% Impervious Surface •Park Strips With Less Than 36” No Tree Required •Mulching Standards. FIRST, WHAT HASN’T CHANGED. •Separate Irrigation Valves. •Hydrozones •R-of-w Structural Encroachments Turf Coverage Maximums (in required landscaping areas) •Residential Districts: •33% •Commercial Districts: •Active Recreation Areas Only •Manufacturing Districts: •Prohibited TURF & REBATE ELIGIBILITY. VERIFIED CONTINUED REBATE ELIGIBILITY Salt Lake City // Planning Division NOW, WHAT’S NEW CONTENTS: •Planting Plan •Grading Plan •Irrigation Plan ADMINISTERED: •Prepared & Signed by a License Landscape Architect / US-EPA WaterSense Professional IMPLEMENTED: •Letter of Compliance & Signature NEW, LANDSCAPE PLAN UPDATED Salt Lake City // Planning Division NEW, PRIORITIZING TREES TREES REQUIRED: Landscape Plan Northwest Quadrant TREE CANOPY COUNTS AS VEGETATION COVERAGE. NEW, PARKING LOT UPDATES Salt Lake City // Planning Division No Requirement Current Standards Proposed Changes Aligning Zoning Code with Public Utilities Standards. Stormwater Capture Encouraged. Rock Mulch Size Dependent On Slope. NEW, STORMWATER INTEGRATED Salt Lake City // Planning Division ROCK MULCH LIMITATIONS Max 50% of Mulch Used Storm Drain Protection Reduce Urban Heat Island Salt Lake City // Planning Division NEW, PUBLIC COMMENT CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL CLARITY: Salt Lake City // Planning Division Turf Coverage Maximums •Apply To Required Landscape Areas Turf Limitations Apply To Certain Grass Species: Example of Native / Adaptive Grasses: DO THESE CHANGES PROHIBIT GRASS? NO! Buffalo Grass Salt Lake City // Planning Division WILL I NEED TO PLANT A PARK STRIP TREE? If there are no changes to your property, NO. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: PROHIBIT ARTIFICIAL TURF Storm Water Quality Perception of a Landscape Expectation Salt Lake City // Planning Division OTHER CHANGES TO NOTE: MODIFICATIONS AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION Clarifications and Deletions Landscape Buffer Table Corrections Parking Lot Landscaping Updates Landscaping Graphics Combined Purpose and Intent Simplified Salt Lake City // Planning Division NEXT STEPS Salt Lake City // Planning Division UPDATING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUMMARIZE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN WEBPAGE OR HANDBOOK QUESTIONS & COMMENTS F course not ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 12/04/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 12/04/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 11/27/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Nan Larsen, Senior Planner nannette.larsen@slcgov.com or 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Landscaping and Buffers Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a text amendment for a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter of the zoning ordinance to better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality, and improvements to air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. Reorganization and clarity of the ordinance was of upmost importance for both the public’s understanding and for city administration. On September 6, 2022, the Planning Division and Public Utilities held a work session with the City Council to get initial feedback on priorities related to changes to landscaping regulations to help achieve city policies and goals. The report that was prepared for the City Council briefing is included in the staff report to the Planning Commission as found in Planning Commission records b). The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter changes are based on the feedback received 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 AS from the Council during the briefing, feedback from several departments including Public Utilities, Urban Forestry, and Enforcement, begins to implement strategies in the Urban Forest Action Plan. ZONING REGULATIONS AND LANDSCAPING: Title 21A, SLC zoning code, regulates landscaping in several ways for several purposes. Generally, landscaping is regulated in the zoning code to reduce the heat island effect, reduce stormwater runoff, reduce auditory and visual impacts of certain uses, improve aesthetics, and make use of the health benefits of being in a more natural environment. These goals are accomplished by regulating landscaping in certain locations of a property depending on the use or district. The zoning code regulates landscaping in the following locations: Park strips: The strip of vegetation that is usually between the street and the sidewalk. Park strips vary in size and form, different standards for different park strip sizes are proposed. Yard areas: Front or corner side yards are identified as required landscaped yards. Yard areas are where the building is required to be setback from the property line, where buildings are prohibited, and other structures like fences and sheds are limited. Outside of a required landscaped yard, there are no specific vegetation requirements in a required yard, except for buffer yards (if required) or parking lot landscaping (if applicable). Buffers: The purpose of buffer areas is to mitigate potential impacts between dissimilar zoning districts. Landscaping in buffer areas is utilized to reduce auditory or visual impacts on an adjoining property. Parking lots: Landscaping standards in parking lots are utilized to reduce the auditory, visual, or temperature impacts of a large surface area that is paved. This type of landscaping takes the form of interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping and generally applies to parking lots with 10 or more stalls. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: What’s Staying? Several standards that are currently required in the landscaping chapter will remain:, - Regulated landscaping locations. - 33% vegetation standard. - 20% hard surfacing limitations. - Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. - Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. - Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. - Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. - Mulching depth and permeability standards. 2 - And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. - Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. What’s New? The significant new additions to the landscaping chapter aim to: - Improve water conservation by: o Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. o Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. o Prohibiting water waste. o Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. - Simplify and clarify through: o Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. o Addressing artificial turf. o Consolidating buffer sizes. o Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. o Creating tables and graphics where possible. o Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. o Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. - Prioritizing trees by: o Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. o Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. o Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). o Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. - Reduce the urban heat island by: o Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. o Establishing rock mulch limitations. o Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. - Reduce stormwater runoff by: 3 o Allow stormwater curb cuts. o Require bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44). SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS CHAPTER: The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter is outlined and briefly described below: 21A.48: Landscaping and Buffers Purpose and Intent: Explains the purpose of establishing a landscape chapter and the intent of the standards. - Increase tree canopy, protect and preserve public trees, reduce heat island, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, enhance community appearance from the public realm, mitigate impacts through buffer between uses, and promote water conservation. Applicability: Applies to all properties in SLC, any updates must comply. Existing landscaping that does not comply with the regulations of the chapter do not need to come into compliance unless there is a change made to the landscaping for single- and two- family districts, or if the floor area or the number of parking stalls required increases by 50% or more for all other uses. Authority: What modifications can be applied; Zoning Administrator may make modifications to standards to better comply with the intent of the chapter, or in coordination with the Urban Forestry, Police, or Public Utilities. Responsibility & Maintenance: Establishes the responsibilities of the property owner and ongoing maintenance required in regard to landscaping maintenance in general, landscape yards, park strips, street trees, and irrigation. - Clearance from the public right-of-way. - Maintained in good condition. - Lists specific responsibilities for street trees and irrigation systems. - Height limitations within the sight distance triangle to prevent vision obstructions from approaching traffic. Landscape Plan: Required for new construction of a primary structure and when an addition increases the floor area by 50%, or modifies any required landscaping by 50% . - Landscape plans require a planning plan, a grading plan, and an irrigation plan. Lists specific criteria for each. 4 - Requires Landscape Architect licensed with the State or a US-EPA WaterSense certified professional signature and letter of completion. Landscape Requirements: Describes required landscape locations, landscape location sizes, and specific landscape standards per location. Landscape locations include park strip, landscaped yards, surface parking lot landscaping, and buffer areas. - Establishes minimum ground coverage and tree planting in all landscape areas. - Describes locations where turf is permitted, and the coverage allowed. - Describes impervious surface coverage maximums. - Establishes where landscape buffers are required, the size, location, and coverage, shrub, and tree planting requirements. Parking Lot Landscaping: Applies to surface parking lots with 10 or more stalls. - Interior landscape areas and perimeter parking lot landscaping required. Describes size, location, exceptions, and vegetation requirements in these areas that include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. - Curbs are required where no biodetention is utilized. Standards: Requires specific landscape installation and landscape material standards that apply to all regulated landscaping locations. - Requires drought tolerant, adaptive, or native species. - Establishes limitations and standards on turf, mulch, and berming. Prohibits artificial turf. - Describes specific park strip material standards that includes ground cover regulations, pathways, stormwater detention allowances, and permitted encroachments. Private Lands Tree Preservation: Establishes process and standards for removing a tree on private lands. This section has not been changed, it is expected the Urban Forestry Division will update this section in the coming years as they continue to work on updates to better respond to the Urban Forest Action Plan. Appeal: Right to appeal statement. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment and voted 10 to 1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments with two recommended modifications to the draft ordinance: • Define a landscape or irrigation specialist. The draft ordinance language has been updated to address this and now requires review and signature by a Landscape Architect, licensed with the State of Utah, or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. The previous draft included a generalized statement about a landscaping or irrigation professional, during the Planning Commission hearing comments questions were raised on the need to define what constitutes a landscaping or irrigation professional. • Remove all language that permits artificial turf. The existing Landscaping and Buffers chapter does not allow artificial turf in required landscaped locations. The chapter draft the Planning Commission reviewed on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. In all other required landscaping locations, artificial turf was prohibited. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. With the Planning Commission’s recommended modification, the artificial material standards and its inclusion in the impervious surface has been removed. Now included in the draft language is a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process. MODIFICATIONS MADE AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Following the positive recommendation from Planning Commission, planning staff made corrections to the draft chapter for the City Council to consider. The current draft ordinance reflects these changes: Landscaping buffer table - Inconsistencies were found and updated between specific district landscaping buffer references, within the I, RP, EI, and MU districts, and the proposed chapter’s required landscaping buffers. Also updated the table to maintain a required landscaping buffer between multi- family residential and commercial districts, residential and Business Park, residential and Research Park, and required a landscaping buffer in Extractive Industries and Mobile Home Districts when abutting any zoning district. Added a buffer between manufacturing districts and open space. 6 - Included language that a freeway landscape buffer is required on properties abutting a freeway. Parking lot landscaping - Added a provision that parking lot interior landscaping must include no less than 5% of the total parking lot. This provision ensures there is sufficient amount of landscaping to reduce the urban heat island effect regardless of the parking lot design. - Deleted the vehicle sales and lease lot provision that required a 5’ landscaping buffer in the front and corner side yard. The parking lot perimeter landscaping provision already ensures that a greater setback with sufficient landscaping would apply. - Included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping specific section references of 21A.44.060 and 21A.36.020 that address where a parking lot may be allowed in a yard area. - Clarified that the perimeter parking lot landscaping that abuts a building does not need to be included in the tree calculation. Clarified that the vehicle overhang area may be included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping width. - Specified parking lot interior landscaping allowed locations, minimum size, and ratio of trees and shrubs required. - Specified in 21A.44.060 that parking lots with 10 or more stalls or within 20’ of a lot line are subject to the landscaping chapter. Landscaping graphics - Consolidated the residential and nonresidential landscaping locations graphics into a single graphic that addresses both residential and nonresidential zoning districts. Updated the parking lot landscaping graphics to show the approximate number of trees required based on approximated scale and size of the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. Revision - Revised the purpose and intent section in the landscaping chapter that simplified language and listed purposes and intents based on priority. Multiple Section Deletions - Landscaping related terms and definitions as they are no longer referenced in the ordnance: Evapotranspiration rate, Best Management Practice, Landscape BMPs manual, Evergreen and Perennial, Overspray, Maximum extent practicable, Tier 2 water target, Treasured landscape, Landscaping vegetation, Water budget, and a duplicative Street tree definition. - Language in the applicability section that referenced that the entire chapter 48 may be exempted if permitted in other sections of the zoning code. There are no other sections that allow for an exception from the entire chapter 48, specific sections exception language within the proposed chapter have remained. - Removal of Bond requirement to comply with State Code. Multiple Section Clarifications - In the landscape requirements section of the landscaping chapter clarified that where conflict between specific district standards and this landscaping chapter the specific district standards shall prevail. - In the Foothills and Foothills Protection District removed titles in the landscape plan requirements to be consistent with the rest of the section. 7 - Clarified precedence language in the Design Standards section where conflicting language may occur between the design standards and the district specific standards. Clarified where percent tree canopy coverage is required in the design standards table, the tree canopy cannot be counted toward vegetation coverage in the downtown districts. Removed vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping to ensure vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping applies to all properties not just the downtown and CG districts. - Included language that clarified landscaping installation process during winter months through a temporary certificate of occupancy. - In the park strip standards table, specified where the center of a park strip is. - In the authority section, stated simply which departments or divisions may provide input to the zoning administrator when the provisions of the landscaping chapter may be waived. Removed qualifying provisions required when departments or divisions may recommend a landscaping waiver. - Clarified in the landscape plan section, permitted modification if the change is from one plant species to another with similar watering needs. - Specified in the CSHBD district sufficient soil volumes for street trees must be approved by Urban Forestry. PUBLIC PROCESS: Recognized Organizations: All recognized organization chairs city-wide were notified on February 10th, 2023, of the proposed text amendments. The Planning Division presented the proposed code amendments to the Sugar House Community Council on March 20th, 2023 and accepted comments and answered questions. Open House: A virtual open house was hosted on Planning’s website and published via list serve on February 10th, 2023. The open house information included the most recent version of the landscaping and buffers chapter draft. The open house page was continually updated to include the most recent draft amendments and public hearing dates. Public Hearing Notification: Notice of the public hearing was posted on City and State websites and emailed via list serve to subscribers on April 19th, 2023. Planning Commission Public Hearing: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the text amendments on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Staff Report Public Comments Received: We received 14 public comments, as of the date this memo was transmitted. The public comments ranged from concerns of enforceability of some of the standards, landscaping rocks and their contribution to the urban heat island, landscaping materials on the sidewalk and unkempt landscapes, vegetation and vegetation maximum height 8 in the park strip, costs associated with requiring permanent irrigation, water waste, allowing native grass species, and public noticing procedures. Comments included statements encouraging waterwise landscaping and improving water conservation in landscaping areas. There were also statements where there was some misunderstanding on when a street tree is required. Where possible staff clarified when a street tree is required to the public – in a park strip over 36” in width and for new construction for single- and two- family developments. PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) c) PC Minutes for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) d) PC Video for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Petition Initiation 4) Public Comments Received after Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5) Public Utilities Director Statement 9 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202_ (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall--at the request of the Salt Lake City Council--to amend the zoning code pertaining to the Landscaping and Buffer Chapter (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098); and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12. That Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: Special Foothills Regulations), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 12. Landscaping and Revegetation: a. Installation of all required landscaping shall begin no later than one month after a certificate of occupancy; except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 15 and the following April 1, installation of the landscaping shall begin no later than April 30. Landscaping shall be substantially completed within nine (9) months after a certificate of occupancy is issued. Landscaping shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title, and shall also conform to the following requirements: (1) Front Yards and Side Yards: Front yards, corner side yards and interior side yards shall be completely landscaped except for driveways, walkways and patios/decks. (2) Disturbed Areas: All other areas disturbed during construction shall be either landscaped or revegetated to a natural state. (3) Undevelopable Areas: Lawns or gardens are prohibited in the undevelopable areas. Native and drought tolerant plant species established in undevelopable areas may be enhanced by irrigation and supplemental planting as approved by the zoning administrator, provided the zoning administrator finds that such supplemental planting is in keeping with the natural conditions. b. Special Landscape Regulations in the FR-1/43,560 and FR-2/21,780 Districts: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: (1) Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: (a) Delineation between the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. (b) As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. (c) An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first two years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. (2) Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. (3) Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope and microclimate conditions. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.020.I. That Subsection 21A.24.020.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.030. That Subsection 21A.24.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/21,780 Foothills Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.120.G. That Subsection 21A.24.120.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District: RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building H Height 30’ Pitched Roof- 23’ Flat Roof-16’ 16’ 30’ F Front yard setback 20’ or the average of the block face C Corner side yard setback 10’ S Interior side yard setback 4’ on one side 10’ on the other 10’ 4’ 6’ on one side 10’ on the other 4’ 10’ R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ 10’ Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ L Minimum lot size2 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 5,000 sq. ft. per building DU Maximum Dwelling Units per Form 1 2 8 6 8 per development 1 n/a BC Maximum Building Coverage 50% LY Required Landscaped Yards The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. LB Landscape Buffers per Chapter 21A.48. X X X G Attached Garages Garage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than 50% of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5’ from the street facing building facade and at least 20’ from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are permitted. DS Design Standards All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in Chapter 21A.37 of this title. 0 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.010. That Section 21A.26.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.26.010.C.1 shall be amended to read as follows: C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Commercial Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Temporary storage of refuse materials shall be limited to that produced on the premises. Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. b. That Subsection 21A.26.010.H shall be amended to read as follows: H. Landscaping and Buffering: The landscaping and buffering requirements for the commercial districts shall be as specified in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.020.G. That Subsection 21A.26.020.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CN Neighborhood Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. Subject to site plan review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza. SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.025.G. That Subsection 21A.26.025.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: SNB Small Neighborhood Business District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or the entire landscape yard may be a patio or plaza. SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.040.F. That Subsection 21A.26.040.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CS Community Shopping District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter21A.48. SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.050.E. That Subsection 21A.26.050.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CC Corridor Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.060. That Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.26.060.J shall be amended to read as follows: J. Park Strip Materials: Properties within this zoning district may utilize alternative park strip landscaping materials. Alternative materials are subject to planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. b. That Subsection 21A.26.060.K shall be amended to read as follows: K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48. If a park strip does not exist, street trees are required when the sidewalk width of at least 10’ can be maintained, to which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with tree grates with sufficient soil volume as determined by the Urban Forestry Division. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.070.E. That Subsection 21A.26.070.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CG General Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of five feet shall be required on all front or corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Section 21A.28.010. That Section 21A.28.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.28.010.B.1 shall be amended to read as follows: B. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Manufacturing Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. b. That Subsection 21A.28.010.G shall be amended to read as follows: G. Landscaping and Buffering: All uses in the manufacturing districts shall comply with the provisions governing landscaping and buffering in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.28.030.E. That Subsection 21A.28.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Landscape Yard Requirements: The first twenty five feet (25’) of all required front yards and the first fifteen feet (15’) of all required corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Section 21A.30.010. That Section 21A.30.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.30.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Statement of Intent: The downtown districts are intended to provide use, bulk, urban design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help implement adopted plans. B. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title are permitted; provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. 1. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, may be allowed in the downtown districts provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements. C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Downtown Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent properties. 3. Fencing for Vacant Lots in the D-1 Central Business District and D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: Fencing shall be required on those lots becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the following: a. Fencing, pursuant to Section 21A.40.120 of this title, is required to secure vacant lots in the downtown area; b. Fencing shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material (chainlink is prohibited); and c. Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall be limited to a maximum of 4 feet in height, with the exception of a fence located within a sight distance on any corner lot as noted in Section 21A.40.120 of this title. The approval of a building permit shall be delegated to the building official with the input of the planning director, to determine if the fencing materials, location, and height are compatible with adjacent properties in a given setting. D. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 1. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required parking for periods longer than 30 days; 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard area within the lot when the required yard abuts a residential zoning district; 3. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, pennants or strings of pennants; 4. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not to exceed eight feet in height; and 5. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage shall also be permitted when part of an authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title. E. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the Downtown zoning districts. To control such impacts, the following regulations apply to surface parking and above grade structures: 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed in the zone other than parking. 2. A parking lot shall not consist of more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. Parking for government facilities necessary for public health and safety are exempt from this provision. 3. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a property that has frontage on a public street and that would result in a building demolition are prohibited in the Downtown zoning districts. 4. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. F. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. Illustration of Regulation 21A.010.E.2 Surface Parking Lots c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above. (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet. (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories. (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. Illustration of Regulation 21A.30.010.F Midblock Walkways 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. G. Sidewalks: For all downtown districts, sidewalks must be a clear walking path that is a minimum of 10’ wide. Outdoor dining shall be permitted within the sidewalk if it complies with the minimum width of a clear path as defined in the outdoor dining design guidelines. H. Landscaping and Buffers: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the provisions governing landscaping and buffers in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Where a park strip does not exist, street trees are only required when the sidewalk width of at least 10’ can be maintained, in which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with tree grates. I. Additional Standards: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the standards set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the applicable standards in the following chapters: 1. 21A.36 General Provisions 2. 21A.37 Design Standards 3. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 4. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 5. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 6. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 7. 21A.46 Signs 8. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 9. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.30.020.C. That Subsection 21A.30.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-1 Central Business District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: C. D-1 District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the D-1 District as a whole. 1. Yard Requirements: No minimum yards are required. A maximum yard of eight feet is allowed. a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. e. Interior Side Yards: No minimum interior side yard is required. f. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required. SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.030. That Section 21A.32.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: BP Business Park District), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.32.030.E shall be amended to read as follows: E. Minimum Open Space Area: The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less than fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area. 1. At least thirty three percent (33%) of the required open space area shall be covered with vegetation. 2. All landscaped open space areas shall conform with the water efficient landscaping standards found in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. b. That Subsection 21A.32.030.I shall be amended to read as follows: I. Other District Regulations: In addition to the foregoing regulations, all uses shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Enclosed Operations: All principal uses shall take place within entirely enclosed buildings. 2. Outdoor Storage: Accessory outdoor storage shall be screened with a solid fence and approved through the site plan review process. 3. Nuisance Impacts: Uses and processes shall be limited to those that do not create a nuisance to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property due to odor, dust, smoke, gases, vapors, noise, light, vibration, refuse matter or water carried waste. The use of explosive or radioactive materials, or any other hazardous materials, shall conform to all applicable State or Federal regulations. 4. Property Zoned Business Park: When a property zoned Business Park abuts, or is across the street from, an AG-2 or AG-5 Zoning District the following standards shall apply: a. Buildings shall be prohibited within one hundred feet (100’) of the adjacent property line; b. Parking lots shall be prohibited within fifty feet (50’) of the adjacent property line; and c. The portion of the lot located between the adjacent property line and the parking lot or building shall be improved in the form of a landscaped buffer with a minimum 5 foot berm and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.040. That Section 21A.32.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: FP Foothills Protection District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.32.040: FP FOOTHILLS PROTECTION DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the FP Foothills Protection District is to protect the foothill areas from intensive development in order to protect the scenic value of these areas, wildlife habitats and to minimize flooding and erosion. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. B. Uses: Uses in the FP Foothills Protection District as specified in Section 21A.33.070, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.32.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Special Foothills Regulations: The regulations contained in Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title, shall apply to the FP Foothills Protection District. D. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: Any use, except trailheads, in the FP Foothills Protection District shall comply with the following lot area and width requirements: 1. Minimum lot area: Sixteen (16) acres. 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred forty feet (140’). E. Maximum Building Height: See Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title for special foothills regulations governing building height. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: No principal or accessory building shall be located within twenty feet (20’) of the front or corner side lot line nor shall any principal or accessory building be located within 75’ of any side or rear lot line. Accessory structures (other than accessory buildings) shall conform to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. G. Maximum Disturbed Area: The disturbed site area shall not exceed two acres. For the purposes of this district, “disturbed areas” shall be defined as areas of grading and removal of existing vegetation for principal and accessory buildings and areas to be hard surfaced. H. Slope Restrictions: To protect the visual and environmental quality of foothill areas, no building shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty percent (30%) slope for lots in subdivisions granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994. I. Fence Restrictions: Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a building permit subject to the standards of this subsection. 1. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan review process, a fencing plan shall be submitted which shall show: a. Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; b. Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with specific subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 2. Field Fencing of Designated Undevelopable Areas: Fencing on areas identified as undevelopable areas or transitional areas on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, included specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive requirement shall apply. a. A low visibility see through fence shall consist of flat black colored steel “T” posts and not more than four strands of nonbarbed steel wire, strung at even vertical spacing on the “T” post, and erected to a height of not more than 42” above the natural ground surface. b. When fencing lot boundary lines, vegetation or native brush shall not be cleared so as to create a visible demarcation from off site. c. The existing surface of the ground shall not be changed by grading activities when erecting boundary fences. d. Fence materials and designs must not create a hazard for big game wildlife species. e. No field fencing shall be erected in conflict with pedestrian easements dedicated to Salt Lake City. 3. Buildable Area Fencing: Fencing on any portions of a lot identified as buildable area or required side yard on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, includes specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive requirement shall apply. a. An open, see through fence shall be constructed of tubular steel, wrought iron or similar materials, finished with a flat black, nonreflective finish constructed to a height of six feet or less; or b. A sight obscuring or privacy type fence shall be of earth tone colors, or similar materials to the primary dwelling, and located in a way to screen private outdoor living spaces from off site view. 4. Front or Corner Side Yard Fencing: Walls and fences located within the front or corner side yards or along dedicated roads shall not exceed a maximum of 42” in height. J. Special Landscape Regulations: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: 1. Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: a. Delineation between proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend 100 feet beyond the disturbed site area and 25 feet beyond the limits of grading for roads/driveways, but need not include any portions of the site designated as undevelopable unless these areas are disturbed. b. As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. c. An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 2 years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 10% of the total site area. 3. Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 4. Limits on Turf: To minimize the impact on the natural landscape and promote the intent of this district, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed 33% of the area to be landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and microclimate conditions. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.32.130.I. That Subsection 21A.32.130.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: MU Mixed Use District: Landscape Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any Residential District, a 10’ landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.030. That Section 21A.34.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: T Transitional Overlay District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.030: T TRANSITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the T Transitional Overlay District is to allow for the redevelopment of certain older residential areas for limited commercial and light industrial uses. This district is intended to provide a higher level of control over such activity to ensure that the use and enjoyment of existing residential properties is not substantially diminished by future nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this district shall be achieved by designating certain nonresidential uses as conditional uses within the overlay district and requiring future redevelopment to comply with established standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. B. District Locational Criteria: Residential areas covered by the T Transitional Overlay District are characterized by: 1. A land use designation in the city’s General Plan identifying reuse or redevelopment for nonresidential uses; 2. The presence of external influences, such as proximity to expressways, railroad tracks and incompatible uses, which impact the long term viability of residential use; and 3. Deteriorating housing stock. C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in the table of permitted and conditional uses set forth in Part III of this title for the underlying district shall be permitted uses and no other. D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in the table of permitted and conditional uses set forth in Part III of this title for the underlying district shall be conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses permitted in the underlying district, the following uses shall be allowed as conditional uses in the T Transitional Overlay District: 1. Light manufacturing and industrial assembly uses; 2. Warehouse and wholesale uses in which goods and materials are stored in completely enclosed buildings; 3. Offices; 4. Furniture and appliance repair shops; 5. Commercial photography studios and photofinishing laboratories; 6. Retail goods establishments; 7. Retail services establishments; 8. Medical and dental offices and clinics; and 9. Medical laboratories. E. Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area for any conditional use shall be 10,000 square feet. F. Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width for any conditional use shall be 60’. G. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for conditional uses shall be 35’. H. Site Design Criteria: The land use compatibility of a proposed conditional use shall be assessed, through the application of the following criteria in addition to the standards for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 1. The proposed principal building shall be located not less than 20’ from any residential dwelling; 2. Interior side yards for lots abutting residential uses shall not be less than 12’; 3. Interior side yards for lots abutting another nonresidential use shall not be less than eight feet; 4. Front and corner side yards shall be provided consistent with the underlying zoning district; 5. Rear yards shall not be less than 25’; 6. Signs should be limited to one flat nonilluminated identification sign not more than six square feet per 50’ of lot frontage. I. Application: The application for a conditional use in the transitional overlay district shall include information in sufficient detail so that the planning commission may judge the compatibility of the conditional use with the existing residential conditions and the adopted mixed use development policies and for the planning commission to assess the impacts to the existing neighborhood. The following specific information shall also be provided in the application: 1. The amount of employee, customer or other business related traffic (i.e., delivery and pick up) expected to be generated by the proposed use; 2. Traffic impact analysis determining the anticipated effect on contiguous streets and necessary improvements to the street network required to maintain an acceptable level of service for the neighborhood; 3. The location and design of vehicular access to the proposed use, the amount of off street parking facilities, and the location, arrangement and dimensions of loading and unloading facilities; 4. Hours of operation of the business; 5. The amount of noise, noxious odors, fumes or vibration anticipated from the proposed use; 6. Schematic elevations of all building facades indicating building materials, entries, loading docks, signage and building height; 7. Schematic landscape plan. J. Standards: In evaluating the suitability of a proposed conditional use, the planning commission shall consider the following standards: 1. In addition to all the requirements, standards and criteria established for the transitional overlay district, each conditional use must satisfy the requirements of Chapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 2. The applicant has the burden of establishing to the planning commission that the proposed conditional use meets the purposes of the transitional overlay district. SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.34.040.FF. That Subsection 21A.34.040.FF of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District: Airport Parking Lot Landscaping), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: FF. Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the airport landscaping overlay district shall comply with the following guidelines: 1. General Landscaping Performance Standards: Landscaping plans for parking lots shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address city goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which may include trees ground cover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and rock features. Drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant vegetation, which reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, shall be used to create an aesthetically appealing landscape. 2. Reduction of Urban Heat Islands: The following standards are intended to help mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following methods to reduce urban heat: a. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. b. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. c. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, ground cover and perennials, shall be dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while ensuring trees are not planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an aviation hazard. d. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. e. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide a visual buffer and reduce runoff. f. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. 3. Visual Buffering: Landscaped buffers, not less than 10’ in width, shall be provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of shrubs, trees or other methods. 4. Water Conservation: To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, ground cover, and perennials that are drought tolerant, native, or adaptive species that can withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the city, titled “Water Conserving Plants for Salt Lake City”, shall be used as the primary reference in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed for efficient use of potable water. Traditional turf areas are prohibited. 5. Temporary Parking Lots: Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three years or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development standards for parking lots as outlined in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. Parking lots that remain in use by the public beyond three years shall be brought into compliance with these standards within 12 months. 6. Operational and Maintenance Lots: Parking lots that are not available to the public for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. 7. Plan Approval: All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the city’s development review team (DRT) and planning division, for review and comment on compliance with city ordinances and these performance standards. The planning director and director of airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any airport parking lot. SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.140. That Section 21A.34.140 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Northwest Quadrant Overlay District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.140: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife habitat; allow for the continuation of agricultural uses; and allow for the development of lands in appropriate areas that contribute to the future economic growth of the city and will not negatively impact sensitive lands, habitats, and waterways in the area north of I-80 and west of the Salt Lake International Airport. Sites within this area may be subject to difficult environmental and site conditions. The overlay defines three subareas: the Development Area, the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, and the Natural Area. 2. Public Improvements and Dedications: The undeveloped land in the Northwest Quadrant requires public improvements to ensure the long term development potential and success of the area. All development subject to a site development or building permit, shall be required to provide public improvements required by city departments as outlined in their master plans. 3. State and Federal Permits Required: A site development and/or building permit shall not be granted unless the applicant has first obtained any necessary State and/or Federal wetlands and/or stream alteration permits. 4. Precedence: For areas where the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District is mapped within the Northwest Quadrant Development Area and/or the Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District shall take precedence. B. Northwest Quadrant Development Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to allow for new development to occur in a way that allows for the growth of light industrial uses in the city while minimizing impacts to wildlife and the surrounding sensitive Great Salt Lake shore lands. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. General Requirements: a. Minimum Yard Requirements: (1) Front Yard: 20’. (2) Corner Side Yard: 20’. (3) Interior Side Yard: None required. (4) Rear Yard: None required. b. Lighting: All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to prevent upward lighting. Uplighting and event searchlights are prohibited. c. Roof Color: Light reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI) of 82 shall be used for all roofs. 2. Landscaping Requirements: The purpose of the special landscaping for the Northwest Quadrant Development Area is to provide appropriate native landscaping that can survive in the unique conditions of the area, prevent noxious weeds, and to provide landscaping that will not negatively impact the adjacent sensitive lands and birds areas. a. All landscaping shall consist only of native plants as identified in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant List” on file with the city’s planning division. b. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be landscaped with plantings at an appropriate density to achieve complete cover within two years. c. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two years and methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. d. Required trees, including street trees, shall be chosen from the “Northwest Quadrant Plant List”. Noxious trees, as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) are prohibited. e. Any shrub required by Chapter 21A.48 of this title shall be selected from the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plan List” have a mature height of at least three feet (3’). f. All other requirements in Chapter 21A.48 of this title apply. This section shall take precedence in the case of a conflict with Chapter 21A.48 of this title. C. Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to provide an adequate buffer between the Natural Area, the adjacent Inland Sea Shore and the development of light industrial uses. Requirements in this area are meant to provide an area of transition from the natural environment to the built environment that will limit impacts to wildlife and sensitive areas. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. In addition to the requirements listed in Subsection B of this section, properties located within the Northwest Quadrant Eco- Industrial Buffer Area are subject to the following requirements: a. Glass Requirements: For buildings with more than 10% glass on any building elevation, a minimum of 90% of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass or other means to reduce the number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than two inches wide by four inches tall. b. Fencing: When adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area or the western city boundary, a see through fence that is at least 50% open with a minimum height of six feet shall be erected along the property line to protect the Natural Area from development impacts and trespass. D. Northwest Quadrant Natural Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife near the Great Salt Lake shorelands, to allow for the continuation of existing uses, and to limit new uses and new development in this area. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. Permitted Uses and Improvements: Within the Natural Area, permitted developments and improvements to land are limited to the following: Accessory use (associated with an allowed principal use). Agricultural use. Living quarters for caretaker or security guard. Maintenance to existing infrastructure. Natural open space. Necessary infrastructure to support an allowed use. Utility, building or structure (public). Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (public). Wildlife and game preserves. 2. Conditional Uses and Standards: a. Uses and Improvements: The following uses and improvements are subject to conditional use standards contained in Chapter 21A.54 of this title: Hunting club, (when allowed by the underlying zoning). Underground utility transmission infrastructure (private), subject to the following: (1) An appropriate plan for mitigation of any construction activities shall be prepared, and (2) Absent any State or Federal regulations, a plan for creating no adverse impact should the line be abandoned shall be prepared. Utility, building or structure (private). Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (private). b. Conditional Use Standards: In addition to demonstrating conformance with the conditional use standards contained in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, each applicant for a conditional use within the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area must demonstrate conformance with the following standards: (1) The development will not detrimentally affect or destroy natural features such as ponds, streams, wetlands, and forested areas, nor impair their natural functions, but will preserve and incorporate such features into the development’s site; (2) The location of natural features and the site’s topography have been considered in the designing and siting of all physical improvements; (3) Adequate assurances have been received that the clearing of the site topsoil, trees, and other natural features will not occur before the commencement of building operations; only those areas approved for the placement of physical improvements may be cleared; (4) The development will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of any watercourse, nor increase the magnitude and volume of flooding at other locations; and that in addition, the development will not increase stream velocities; (5) The soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavation and site preparation, and the drainage is designed to prevent erosion and environmentally deleterious surface runoff; (6) The proposed development activity will not endanger health and safety, including danger from the obstruction or diversion of flood flow; (7) The proposed development activity will not destroy valuable habitat for aquatic or other flora and fauna, adversely affect water quality or groundwater resources, increase stormwater runoff velocity so that water levels from flooding increased, or adversely impact any other natural stream, floodplain, or wetland functions, and is otherwise consistent with the intent of this title; (8) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems are adequate to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; and (9) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 3. Landscaping: Landscaping is not required for uses and improvements within the Natural Area, except: a. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be revegetated with native plants as listed in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant List”. b. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two years and methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.050.P. That Subsection 21A.37.050.P of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined: Streetscape Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: P. Streetscape Standards: These standards are required for landscaping that is within the public right of way. This is defined as the space between the private property line and the back of the curb. All properties must comply with the park strip landscaping regulations in Chapter 21A.48. Where there is a conflict between the requirements in Chapter 21A.48 and the requirements of this Subsection, the requirements in this Subsection shall apply. 1. Tree Canopy Coverage: No tree canopy shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The defined percentage represents the canopy coverage at maturity. At installation, a minimum of 20% of all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3”. Where tree canopy coverage percentage is indicated in Table 21A.37.060, tree canopy coverage shall not count towards the minimum coverage requirements for park strip vegetation. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.1 Tree Canopy Coverage 1 No tree canopy coverage shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.4 Minimize Curb Cuts 2. Street Trees: All new development must provide street trees in accordance with the requirements in Chapter 21A.48. Where specified in Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, for every new development, there shall be one street tree planted for every 30’ of street frontage. 3. Soil Volume: In order to promote street tree health and longevity, each tree shall have an adequate volume of soil. The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. The soil volume may be reduced if under ground utilities are present within the soil volume and the soil volume cannot be extended horizontally due to other obstructions or barriers. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.3 Soil Volume 1 The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. 4. Minimize Curb Cuts: As an effort to emphasize the public realm and encourage the safety of pedestrians, places where cars intersect the street shall be minimized. More specifically, curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. The sidewalk material shall continue at ground level of the curb cuts. 1 Curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. 5. Overhead Cover: Overhead covers are required at building entrances to provide weather protection to pedestrians and may encroach into a required yard as indicated in this section or into a public right of way with an approved encroachment agreement with the city. These coverings are required to be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall also provide coverage with a minimum depth of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.5 Overhead Cover 1 The shade structure shall occur between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. The shade shall provide a minimum coverage of 6’ in width. The cover shall project no closer than 3’ to the curb. SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.060. That Subsection 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is checked (X), that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases where a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. TABLE 21A.37.060 A. Residential Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B.3) 80 80 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length(feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 10 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Residential character in RB District (21A.37.050.N) X B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG1 TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 802 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 70/20 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 80 70 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 25 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 40 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X 40 40 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 20 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet)(21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 15 X Façade height for required stepback (21A.37.050.G.2) 30 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X Tree canopy coverage (%)(21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent buildings (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. These standards only apply to the portion of the CG district within the boundaries of north of 900 S, south of 200 S, west 300 W and east of I-15. 2. Maximum width of the entrance shall be 35’ if the additional 20% is used for an entrance to a parking structure. C. Manufacturing Districts: Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) D. Downtown Districts: Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 90 80 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 80/10 70/20 70/20 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 80 701 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 50 701 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 0 0 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 40 60 60 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 20 20 20 20 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 200 150 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X X Notes: 1. In the D-3 zoning district this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. E. Gateway Districts: Standard (Code Section) District G-MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) 1 X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) 1 X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of- way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street lighting policy document adopted by the city. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. F. Special Purpose Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 PL PL-2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40-70 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) Soil Volume (21A.37.050.P.3) Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) G. Form Based Districts: Standard (Code Section) District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-MU11 FB-SC FB-SE Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 70 70 70 70 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 70 70 70 70 70 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 601 601 601 601 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 15 15 15 15 15 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 75 75 75 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 30 30 30 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G.4) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X2 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X X X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X Notes: 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100’ in length: a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non-residential active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of any active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Height Restrictions and Gates: 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following zoning districts: a. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: (1) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. (2) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than ten (10) feet from the property line. (3) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. (4) All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters, except those located in the M-2, LO and EI districts shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, masonry wall or an equivalent opaque material to a height of not less than 6 feet but not more than 8 feet. SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.060.A. That Subsection 21A.44.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A. Generally: 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the effective date of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site Parking Permitted”. 2. Biodetention Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the SLCDPUs Standard Practices Manual, an approved Stormwater Best Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is required. All proposed Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and inspection. 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback Requirements”. Parking lots with 10 or more stalls and within 20’ of a lot line that are in a required yard area or abutting a building are subject to Section 21A.48.070 Parking Lot Landscaping. TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line GENERAL CONTEXT Residential (FR Districts, RB, RMF, RO) FR N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt from this restriction. 6 ft. 0 ft. R-1, R-2, SR- 1, SR-2 0 ft. RMF-30 N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, RO 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single-family attached lots. Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district CG 10 ft. M-1 15 ft. M-2 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20 N BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. FP 20 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 0 ft. OS 30 ft. 10 ft. PL 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district PL-2 20 ft. RP 30 ft. 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT CB, CN, SNB N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district R-MU-35, R- MU-45 Surface Parking: N Parking Structures: 45’ or located behind principal building Limited to 1 side yard, 0 ft,; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RB, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB- SE N 0 ft. URBAN CENTER CONTEXT CSHBD1 N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district D-2 Surface Parking: 20 ft. Parking Structures: N 0 ft. MU Surface Parking: 25 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-3 D-4 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 0 ft. G-MU FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 R-MU Surface Parking: 30 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district Surface parking at least 30 ft. from front lot line 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district UI 0 ft; Hospitals: 30 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following standards: a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking” (measured in a straight line from the property boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of the parking area). Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center 600 ft. General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District Urban Center 1,200 ft. Transit 1,000 ft. b. Documentation Required: (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking arrangement to the planning director for review. (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this chapter. 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 6. Driveways and Access: a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the maximum degree practicable, with respect to: (A) Minimum distances between curb cuts; (B) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; (C) Provisions for shared driveways; (D) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and (E) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or renovated in compliance with the city code. b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following standards: (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage shall have only one (1) curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two (2) curb cuts, unless the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire code. Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20’) from street corner property lines and five feet (5’) from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 8 ft. 22 ft. MH 8 ft. 16 ft. Other Residential Zoning Districts 8 ft. 30 ft. M-1 and M-2 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 50 ft. Other Non-Residential Zoning Districts 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 30 ft. * Maximum width is for all driveways combined when more than one driveway is provided (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.40.120 of this title. 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 14. Pedestrian Walkways: The following standards shall apply to surface parking lots with 25 or more parking spaces: a. Pedestrian walkway(s) shall be at least five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving aisle leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the principal building. b. Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). c. Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, from surrounding driving surfaces, but such identification cannot be curbing of the walkway. d. One (1) pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for every 50 parking spaces provided on site or part thereof, after the first 20 parking spaces. 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking levels. c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that visitors can easily identify these entry points. e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards for habitable space to allow at least one (1) permitted or conditional use, other than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest extent practicable. 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one (1) parking space is required to be provided for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking spaces, provided that: a. No more than two (2) required spaces may be included in the tandem parking layout; and b. Each set of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific residential unit. 17. Cross-Access between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.070.B. That Subsection 21A.44.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Off Street Loading Areas: Location and Design of Loading Areas), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Location and Design of Loading Areas: 1. All required loading berths shall be located on the same development site as the use(s) served. 2. No loading berth shall be located within thirty feet (30’) of the nearest point of intersection of any two (2) streets. 3. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. 4. Each required loading berth shall be located and designed to: a. Allow all required vehicle maneuvering and backing movements on-site; b. Minimize conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic movement or encroachments into any pedestrian walkway, bicycle lane, public right-of-way, and fire lane; and c. Avoid the need to back into a public street while leaving the site to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the planning director and the transportation director. 5. Landscaping and screening of all loading berths shall be provided to comply with the requirements of Subsection 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges”. 6. Where a loading berth is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 7. All signs in loading areas shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8. All required loading berths shall comply with the surfacing standards of the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.48. That Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.48: LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS SECTION: 21A.48.010: Purpose and Intent 21A.48.020: Applicability 21A.48.030: Authority 21A.48.040: Responsibility & Maintenance 21A.48.050: Landscape Plan 21A.48.060: Landscape Requirements 21A.48.070: Parking Lot Landscaping 21A.48.080: General Standards 21A.48.090: Private Lands Tree Preservation 21A.48.100: Appeal 21A.48.010: PURPOSE & INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to promote water conservation, preserve and expand Salt Lake City’s urban tree canopy, improve air quality, and reduce urban heat islands and stormwater runoff. These regulations are intended to encourage low impact development principals into overall landscape design in a way that is attractive, and to mitigate impacts through buffering between dissimilar zoning districts. 21A.48.020: APPLICABILITY: A. The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city. B. Any modification of required landscaping shall come into greater compliance with this chapter. 21A.48.030: AUTHORITY: A. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning administrator, on a case- by-case basis where innovative landscaping design that furthers the purpose and intent of this chapter is implemented, or in response to input from: 1. Police Department; 2. Public Utilities; or 3. Urban Forestry. 21A.48.040: RESPONSIBILITY & MAINTENANCE: A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Be limited to a maximum height of 22 inches in the park strip and 30 inches in all other landscaped areas within a sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; 3. Be maintained in live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance; and 4. Be kept free of refuse, debris, and noxious weeds. B. Landscape Yards. The owner of the property shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping, and obtain permits as required by the provisions of this chapter. C. Park Strips. 1. The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping and obtain permits as required by the provisions of this chapter. 2. Exclusions: Any street tree planting or maintenance pursuant to Subsections 21A.48.040.D.1 and 21A.48.040.D.2. D. Street Trees. 1. Salt Lake City’s expectation is to preserve street trees. Planting, cutting, removing, pruning, and any other maintenance of street trees is subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division as described in Section 2.26.210 of this code. 2. It is the abutting property owner’s responsibility to: a. Contact the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division to request maintenance on a street tree and obtain required approval for any changes made to a street tree. b. Provide sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip. 3. Root Zone Protection: The root zone of all street trees shall be protected when impacted by any construction work on the abutting property or within the right-of- way when a street tree is present. 4. Irrigation. a. When a Landscaping Plan is required, as described in Section 21A.48.050, street trees shall be irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system. b. Street tree irrigation systems are the responsibility of the abutting property owner to install and maintain. It shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each street tree, as determined by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. E. Irrigation Systems: 1. Shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste or run-off into the public right-of-way. 2. Shall be appropriate for the designated plant material and achieves the highest water efficiency. 3. All irrigation systems, including drip irrigation shall be equipped with a pressure regulator, filter, flush-end assembly, and backflow preventer. 4. Each valve shall irrigate landscaping with similar site, slope, soil conditions, and similar watering needs. 5. Turf and planting beds shall be irrigated on separate irrigation valves; and, 6. Drip emitters and sprinklers shall be placed on separate irrigation valves. 7. Irrigation systems are required to use an irrigation controller that can automatically adjust the frequency and duration of irrigation in response to changing weather conditions and have a US-EPA WaterSense label. 8. Any fountain, pond, and other similar water feature supplied through the culinary water system shall have a recirculating system. 9. Backflow preventer assemblies shall be designed and installed and maintained according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency and Protection” or the documents’ successor. 21A.48.050: LANDSCAPE PLAN: A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required for the following: 1. New construction of a primary structure. 2. Any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area by 50% or more, increases the number of parking stalls required by 50% or more, or modifies any required landscaping by 50% or more. Single- and two- family uses are exempt from this provision. 3. When required elsewhere in this title. B. Modifications to an Approved Landscape Plan: Any change to an approved landscape plan requires the approval of the zoning administrator, except for changes from one plant species to another plant species that have similar watering needs and meet all other standards within this chapter. C. Unauthorized Modifications: Landscape improvements made to a lot that are not authorized and not in conformance with a required and approved landscape plan shall be a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established in Chapter 21A.20. D. Contents of a Complete Landscape Plan: A complete landscape plan shall include at least the following information unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator. All plans shall be drawn at the same scale: 1. Planting Plan: a. Property lines, easements, and street names. b. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking lots, drive aisles, and fencing. c. Location of existing and proposed sidewalks, bicycle paths, ground signs, refuse disposal, freestanding electrical equipment, and all other structures. d. The location of existing buildings, structures, and trees on adjacent property within 20 feet of the site. e. The location, size, and common names of all existing trees. f. Sight distance triangles at curb cuts or corners, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62. g. Root Zone Protection Plan required when construction work will occur near a street tree or other protected tree and is subject to approval from the Urban Forestry Division. h. Minimum tree soil standards set by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. i. The location, quantity, size at maturity, and name (botanical and common) of proposed plants and trees. j. Summary table that specifies the following for each landscaping location separately: (1) Area and percentage of each required landscape location. (2) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in turf grasses, impervious surfaces. (3) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in adaptive or native plant species and adaptive or native trees at maturity. k. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying planting plan compliance with the standards of this chapter. 2. Grading Plan: a. Property lines, street names, existing and proposed structures, turf areas, and paved areas. b. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at 2-foot intervals. c. Any proposed berming shall be indicated using 1-foot contour intervals. d. Delineate and label areas with a grade greater than 25% (4 feet Horizonal: 1 foot Vertical). 3. Irrigation Plan: a. Layout of the irrigation system and a legend summarizing the type and size of all components of the system. b. Delineate and label each hydrozone in accordance with the Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule. c. Location and coverage of individual sprinkler heads. d. Use of a water efficient irrigation system. e. Type of US-EPA WaterSense automatic controller. f. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying irrigation plan compliance with the standards of this chapter. g. Separate plans from the irrigation plan are required for: (1) Backflow Prevention Plan. (2) Water Feature Recirculating Plan, if applicable. E. Specific Landscape Regulations: Various zoning districts in this title have specific landscaping regulations in addition to the requirements found in this chapter. Refer to the respective zoning district for specific landscaping regulations. Landscape plans for properties subject to zoning district specific landscape regulations shall be in compliance with all applicable landscape and district specific requirements. F. Compliance Certification: A letter of compliance shall be prepared and submitted to the city upon completion of the landscape plan installation and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or commencement of the use of the property. Compliance certification shall be signed by a landscape architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US-EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying that all landscape plan elements have been installed in compliance with the approved landscape plan. G. Planting Season Installation: The landscape plan installation may be delayed until the next optimal planting season. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) may be issued and subsequent TCO fees waived between October 15 and the following April 1 where it is not favorable to install landscaping. The landscape plan shall be installed, and a letter of compliance submitted within 30 days following April 1. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees pursuant to Section 18.32.035 of this code shall be reinstated where no letter of compliance is submitted by the end of the 30-day period. 21A.48.060: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: A. Landscape Locations: 1. Applicability: The following graphics illustrate required landscape locations that are regulated by the standards identified in this chapter. 2. Landscape Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscaped yards, unless otherwise exempted in this title. 3. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers and freeway buffers may be located within a required side or rear yard. 4. Coverage and Quantity calculations: a. Vegetation coverage is measured at plant maturity. b. Tree canopy may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within. c. Fractional landscaping quantities shall be measured to the nearest whole number. d. Streets, drives and sidewalks necessary for reasonable access may be excluded from impervious surface calculations. 5. Conflicting Standards: a. Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. b. Where the standards in this chapter conflict with specific district regulations, the specific district regulations shall prevail. Landscape Yards B. Park Strip Standards: Park Strips Street Trees Minimum of 1 street tree planted on center between back of street curb and the sidewalk. Additional street trees shall be provided at the following rate per each frontage length: 1 small tree per 20 feet, or 1 medium tree per 30 feet, or 1 large tree per 40 feet. The largest tree that is appropriate to the park strip size shall be used. 1, 2 Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited Impervious Surfaces The combination of all paving materials shall not exceed 20% of the total park strip area. 1. Street trees shall be an appropriate species chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List based on park strip size, shall have sufficient separation from public utilities, and shall be approved by the Urban Forestry Division. 2. Park strips with a width of 36” or less are exempt from this provision. C. Landscape Yard Standards 1. Residential Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.24): Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Maximum 33% 1 (Landscape yard areas less than 250 sq. ft. are exempt) Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% 1. Turf limitations established in 21A.48.080.B shall apply. 2. Manufacturing Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.28): Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited. Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% up to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. 3. All Other Districts Not Included in Chapters 21A.24 and 21A.28: Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage (may be decreased if specified within specific district regulations). Turf Only permitted in active recreation areas. 1 Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% (may be increased if specified within specific district regulations). 1. Turf limitations established in Subsection 21A.48.080.B shall apply. D. Landscape Buffer Standards: District When Abutting 1 Required Landscape / Freeway Buffer Widths All districts (except Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, Special Development Pattern, SNB, FB-UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, & Special Development 10’ All districts Freeway 2 20’ All other non-residential districts (except SNB, FB- UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, & RMF-75 10’ M-1 Any district that allows residential uses, AG districts, & OS 15’ M-2 Any district that allows residential uses 50’ AG districts & OS 30’ BP & RP All residential districts (in Chapter 21A.24) 30’ EI All districts 30’ MH All districts 20’ 1. Or when required elsewhere by this title. 2. The zoning administrator may approve a reduced freeway buffer if there’s an existing sound wall or required off-street parking cannot be met. If such a reduction is necessary, the buffer may not be less than 10’ in width. Landscape Buffer Standards 1 tree for every 30 linear feet of landscape buffer. 1 shrub every 3 feet, with a mature height of no less than 4’, along the entire length of the buffer. A 6-foot solid fence along the length of the required landscape buffer unless modified by the zoning administrator to better meet the fence height provisions in Section 21A.40.120. Turf is limited to active recreation areas. Freeway Landscape Buffer Standards (buffer standards for those properties abutting a freeway) 1 tree for every 15 linear feet of required freeway landscape buffer. Trees shall be staggered along the length of the buffer. 100% coverage required, may include adaptive or native grasses, wildflower, and shrubs. Turf is prohibited. 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: A. Applicability: 1. Hard surfaced parking lots with 10 or more parking spaces shall provide landscaping in accordance with the provisions of this section. The following graphic depicts landscape location required and corresponding standards identified in this chapter. 2. Parking lots with less than 10 parking spaces are exempt from parking lot landscaping but shall provide the required landscape yards and landscape buffers. B. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 1. Minimum Area: A minimum of 5% of the parking lot shall be interior parking lot landscaping in the locations identified below and dispersed throughout the parking lot. Landscaping areas located along the perimeter of a parking lot shall not be included toward satisfying this requirement. 2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting required perimeter landscaping; b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 parking spaces; c. Along the interior length of a double-loading parking row; 3. Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width of 10 feet, as measured from the inside of the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a minimum length of 10’ is required. 4. Planting Requirements: Interior Landscape Areas Shade trees A minimum of 1 tree is required per interior landscape area. Additional trees are required at a rate of 1 tree for every additional 140 square feet in each required interior landscape area. Shrubs A minimum of 2 shrubs are required per interior landscape area. Additional shrubs are required at a rate of 2 shrubs for every additional 140 square feet in each landscape area. Adaptive or native ornamental grasses or wildflowers with a minimum height of 3’ may be used as an alternative. Ground cover / Mulch Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. 5. Modifications to Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: The zoning administrator may waive interior landscape area requirements if a solar energy system is integrated into the roof structure of a carport, or if the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is increased to 15’ and with an equal number of trees, as required in the interior, and perimeter parking lot landscaping, are provided. C. Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: 1. Applicability: Landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot shall be provided when the parking lot is located: a. Within a required yard (where permitted in Sections 21A.44.060 or 21A.36.020) b. Within 20 feet of a lot line; or c. Abutting a principal building. 2. Where both landscape buffers and perimeter parking lot landscaping are required, the more restrictive shall apply. 3. Where a surface parking lot is adjacent to another surface parking lot, on the same or separate parcels or lots, the perimeter parking lot landscaping provision may be waived by the zoning administrator if the required number trees are located elsewhere within the development. 4. Size: a. In a required yard or within 20 feet of a property line: 10 feet in width, as measured from the back of the parking lot curb and extending into any parking space overhang area. b. Abutting a building on the same property: A minimum 5-foot-wide required landscaping and 3-foot walkway shall be required to buffer buildings from parking spaces. 5. Planting Requirements: Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: Shade Tress 1 tree per 300 square feet of perimeter parking lot area. Trees may be clustered or spaced throughout the landscaping areas. Perimeter landscaping abutting a building does not need to be included in the square footage calculation.1 Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center, along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs with mature height not more than 3 feet Ground cover / Mulch Required landscaping outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. Parking Lot Fences/Walls: Fences or walls along parking lot perimeters may be required to satisfy landscape buffer requirements outlined in Section 21A.48.060 of this chapter. 1. Required perimeter trees species shall be chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List and shall be approved by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. D. Curbing: Concrete curbing shall be installed at the perimeter of internal landscape areas and perimeter parking where parking lots vehicular access aisles or stalls directly abuts required landscaping. Biodetention areas are exempt from curbing requirements, however a vehicle stop is required when biodetention areas directly abut parking stalls. E. Stormwater BMP Approval Required: A SLC Approved Stormwater Best Management Practice (Stormwater BMP) for all hard surfaced parking lots is required prior to discharge to the public storm drain and gutter, as required in Subsection 21A.44.060.A.2: 1. All Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and inspection. 2. Plantings within BMPs are to be drought tolerant, salt tolerant, winter hardy, and able to be submerged. 21A.48.080. GENERAL STANDARDS All required landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following standards. All landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in Sections 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.070 shall meet the regulations described in this section. A. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, as determined by the zoning administrator. 1. At the time of planting: a. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 inches in caliper. b. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in height. c. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of 10 inches depending on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 2-gallon containers will generally comply with this standard. B. General Landscaping Standards: 1. Drought Tolerant or Native Species: 100% of required shrubs, perennial plants, and groundcover used on a site shall be drought tolerant, adaptive or native species. The city has compiled a list titled “Salt Lake City Plant List & Hydrozone Schedule”, established and maintained by Public Utilities, shall be used to satisfy this requirement. Other plants that are not on the list but are considered drought tolerant, adaptive or native and require similar watering needs may also be used. 2. Turf: Turf is not permitted: a. In the park strip. b. In parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping areas. c. In areas that are less than 8 feet in any dimension at the narrowest point. d. In areas with a slope greater than 25% (4 feet horizontal: 1 foot vertical). e. In required landscape buffer areas. 3. Mulch: Mulch shall be: a. At least 3 inches in depth, b. Used in areas that are not covered with landscaping. c. Permeable to air and water. d. Permanent fiber barriers, plastic sheeting, crushed rubber, or other impervious barriers are prohibited. e. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 50% of the overall mulch used, the other 50% shall be an organic mulch material. 4. Artificial turf is prohibited in any location where landscaping is regulated by this chapter. 5. Berming is prohibited in parking lot and park strip landscaping unless required in specific district regulations. C. Specific Park Strip Standards: In addition to General Landscape Standards these provisions shall apply to park strips. 1. Street Trees: a. Substitutions. The Urban Forester may approve a substitute of the required street tree provision for a cash in lieu payment if the number of required trees cannot be met due to conflicts related to public utilities or right-of-way regulations. A cash in lieu payment, in the amount of cost to purchase and plant the required number of street trees, shall be contributed to the city’s Tree Fund; b. Tree Grates: If new street trees are proposed in a location where the area surrounding the tree will have an impervious surface, tree wells with grates shall be provided with adequate dimensions and sufficient soil volume to accommodate the proposed tree species, subject to review by the Urban Forestry Division. c. Tree Root Protection: Rock or gravel shall maintain a 2-foot separation from the trunk of a street tree. 2. Vegetation with Thorned, Spined, or Other Sharp Rigid Parts: Vegetation with thorns, spines, or other sharp, rigid parts hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists, and difficult to walk across are prohibited within 3 feet of a curb, sidewalk, walkway, or driveway. 3. Storm Drain Protection: a. Rock or gravel shall be set at or below top back of curb or abutting sidewalk grade. b. Rock or gravel shall have 1 inch or greater diameter. Grades abutting public streets exceeding 4%, as indicated by Public Utilities Division’s “4% Grade Streets Map”, shall have rock or gravel 3 inch or greater diameter. 4. Pathways: Impervious surface pathways provided between the curb and sidewalk, are permitted subject to the following: a. Shall not be more than 5 feet in width and shall be located to provide the most direct route from curb to sidewalk. b. A maximum of 1 pathway per 20 linear feet of park strip is permitted. c. The pathway area shall be included in impervious surface percentage calculation. 5. Stormwater Curb Controls: Integration of LID (Low Impact Development) practices are encouraged in park strip areas. Stormwater curb cuts are permitted to allow stormwater to enter the landscaped area subject to the following provisions: a. The design and construction of the stormwater curb cut shall comply with the SLCDPU Standards Practices Manual. b. All stormwater curb controls are subject to Public Utilities Division review and approval. 6. Encroachments in the Right-of-Way: Structural encroachments are only permitted when specifically approved by city divisions and applicable decision-making bodies (or their designee) and may require an encroachment permit. a. All encroachments are subject to the following standards, unless specifically allowed elsewhere in this title: (1) Any raised structure shall be setback from the curb a minimum of 24 inches, (2) There are no other practical locations for the structure on the private property, and (3) The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general public need, or the proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of the property. b. Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus stop benches and/or shelters and bike share stations may be permitted with zoning administrator approval. Impervious surface limitations may be modified upon review. c. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials and structural standards may be modified by the Zoning Administrator when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to Section 21A.40.065 of this title. d. Bike Paths: Bike paths that are separated from the travel lanes with cars are permitted in any existing park strip. Any space between the bike path and the sidewalk and/or curb of the travel lanes are subject to the requirements of this section. 21A.48.090: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this section through the preservation of the trees to: 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island effect; 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and waterways; 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. B. Applicability: 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city unless exempted in accordance with Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, Chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban forestry ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property owned by the city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are deemed to be specimen trees subject to Subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community emergency; 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not part of a proposed new subdivision; 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new development; 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at driveways or intersections; 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict with utilities or streets; and 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, site conditions, or other variables. D. Standards: 1. Preservation of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning administrator, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the following criteria, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent properties, (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted development on the property infeasible, or (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits that outweigh tree preservation. b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks and height limits, by up to 20% if such modification will result in preservation of a specimen tree. 2. Cutting, Removal, or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or soil compaction. 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. a. Replacement Tree Required: 2 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 2 inches in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to certificate of occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the city forester. Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule” for recommendations on tree selection. Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning administrator, finds the following: (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to accommodate the total number of replacement trees; or (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. b. Cash in Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. E. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from damage during and after construction. 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in Subsection F.3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones”, of this section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the city forester. The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least 1 foot in distance from the edge of the drip line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the city forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow construction access. b. Type of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of 4 feet in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing shall be secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and shall be maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the property. This is not considered permanent fencing subject to Section 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges”, of this title. c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. 4. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones: Encroachments into a tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: a. Tree Crown and/or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, the area shall first be mulched with a minimum 4 inch layer of woodchips or a 6 inch layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of the impacted area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture conditions warrant. Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within the tree protection zone. c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree protection fencing. F. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 21A.48.100: APPEAL: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be and hereby is amended to as follows: a. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Artificial turf. Impervious surface. Low impact development (LID). Shade tree. Stormwater curb cut. b. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to amend the following terms in the list of defined terms, which shall remain in that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Caliper. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. dbh. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Diameter at breast height. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Specimen tree. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Tree protection fencing. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Tree protection zone. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. c. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to delete the following terms in the list of defined terms: BMP Best Management Practice (BMP) ET or ETo. ETAF. Ecological restoration project Evapotranspiration (ET) rate. Evergreen. Landscape BMPs manual. Maximum extent practicable. See subsection 21A.48.135D of this title. Overspray. Perennial. Tier 2 water target. Treasured landscape. Water budget. SECTION 29. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Amending the definition of “GROUND COVER.” That the definition of “GROUND COVER” shall be amended to read as follows: GROUND COVER: Any perennial plant material species that generally does not exceed 12 inches in height, stabilizes soils and protects against erosion, and covers 100% of the ground all year. b. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA” shall be amended to read as follows: LANDSCAPE AREA: That portion of a lot devoted exclusively to landscaping, except streets, drives and sidewalks may be located within such an area to provide reasonable access. c. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: LANDSCAPING: The improvement of a lot, parcel or tract of land with vegetation such as ornamental grass, shrubs and trees. Landscaping may include pedestrian walks, flowerbeds, ornamental objects such as fountains, statuary, and other similar natural and artificial objects designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect. d. Amending the definition of “MULCH.” That the definition of “MULCH” shall be amended to read as follows: MULCH: Any material such as rock, bark, compost, wood chips or other materials left loose and applied to the soil, for the purposes of suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion. e. Amending the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: The improvement of property within the street right-of-way situated between the back of curb and the sidewalk or, if there is no sidewalk, the back of curb and the right-of-way line, through the addition of plants and other organic and inorganic materials harmoniously combined to produce an effect appropriate for adjacent uses and compatible with the neighborhood. f. Amending the definition of “PARKING LOT.” That the definition of “PARKING LOT” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING LOT: An area on the surface of the land used for the parking and circulation of more than four (4) automobiles. g. Amending the definition of “TURF.” That the definition of “TURF” shall be amended to read as follows: TURF: Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area of landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or native to the local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, or inorganic substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf. h. Adding the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF.” That the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: ARTIFICIAL TURF: A synthetically derived, grass substitute that simulates the appearance of natural live grass. i. Adding the definition of “CALIPER.” That the definition of “CALIPER” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 6 inches from the soil line. j. Adding the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh).” That the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh): The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 4 feet 6 inches from the ground. k. Adding the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.” That the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of stormwater directly into the ground, including: asphalt, concrete, pavers, and brick. l. Adding the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID).” That the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID): Systems or practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or use of stormwater to protect water quality and aquatic habitat. m. Adding the definition of “SHADE TREE.” That the definition of “SHADE TREE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: SHADE TREE: Any tree that has a mature minimum tree canopy of 30 feet and a mature height that is 40 feet or greater. n. Adding the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE.” That the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having an individual or combined dbh measuring greater than 10 inches; whose future vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; and whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site’s appearance, environmental benefit, character or history. o. Adding the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT.” That the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: STORMWATER CURB CUT: Openings created in the curb to allow storm water from an adjacent impervious surface to flow into a depressed planting area. p. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING.” That the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and maintained during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. q. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE.” That the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. r. Deleting definitions. That the following definitions are hereby deleted from the definitions of terms: BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) (Applies Only To Chapter 21A.48 Of This Title) ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT ET OR ETo ETAF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) RATE EVERGREEN LANDSCAPE BMPs MANUAL OVERSPRAY PERENNIAL TIER 2 WATER TARGET TREASURED LANDSCAPE WATER BUDGET SECTION 30. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.050. That Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Illustrations of Selected Definitions), shall be and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.62.050: ILLUSTRATIONS OF SELECTED DEFINITIONS: The definitions listed below are illustrated on the following pages: A. Building Height in Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts. B. Building Height (Outside Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts). C. Flag Lot. D. (RESERVED). E. Lattice Tower. F. Monopole With Antennas and Antenna Support Structures Greater Than Two Feet in Width. G. Monopole With Antennas and Antenna Support Structures Less Than Two Feet in Width. H. Roof Mounted Antennas. I. Sight Distance Triangle. J. Wall Mounted Antennas. K. Dormer. ILLUSTRATION A BUILDING HEIGHT IN FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS Finished Grade: The final grade of a site after reconfiguring grades according to an approved site plan related to the most recent building permit activity on a site. Established Grade: The grade of a property prior to the most recent proposed development or construction activity. On developed lots, the zoning administrator shall estimate established grade if not readily apparent, by referencing elevations at points where the developed area appears to meet the undeveloped portions of the land. The estimated grade shall tie into the elevation and slopes of adjoining properties without creating a need for new retaining wall, abrupt differences in the visual slope and elevation of the land, or redirecting the flow of runoff water. ILLUSTRATION B BUILDING HEIGHT (OUTSIDE FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS) ILLUSTRATION C FLAG LOT ILLUSTRATION D (RESERVED) ILLUSTRATION E LATTICE TOWER ILLUSTRATION F MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES GREATER THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH ILLUSTRATION G MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH ILLUSTRATION H ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS ILLUSTRATION I SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE ILLUSTRATION J WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS SECTION 31. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective four months from the date of its adoption; however, a land use applicant wishing to have the provisions of this Ordinance apply to a land use application sooner may elect to have the provisions herein apply following its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 202_. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER ILLUSTRATION K DORMER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 202_. Published: . Ordinance amending landscaping regulations (final) 10-30-23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:_No_ve_mb_er_14_, 2_023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Petition Initiation 4. Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5. Public Utilities Director Statement 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00098 September 6, 2022 City Council briefing to get initial feedback on potential changes to landscaping regulations. February 8, 2023 Text amendment to update the Landscaping and Buffers chapter initiated. February 10, 2023 Notice emailed to recognized organizations City-wide. February 10, 2023 The proposed code changes were posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. March 20, 2023 The Planning Division presented proposed code changes to Sugar House Community Council. Public comments and questions were accepted. April 19, 2023 Public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites. April 21, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council. May 8, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. June 7, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 12, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. Ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 15, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 22, 2023 Reviewed ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 29, 2023 Ordinance forwarded again to the Attorney’s Office, reviewed final received from Attorney’s Office. August 29, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. September 26, 2023 Final ordinance version received from Attorney’s Office. September 27, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. October 26, 2023 Council Office informed of needed modifications to the ordinance. November 6, 2023 Ordinance with needed corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. November 14, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. November 15, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 – A petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code for the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment. This proposal includes amendments that will be affected City-wide. The proposed code amendments seek to better address landscaping regulations and seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposed amendment also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building,located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection information. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail nannette.larsen@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3) PETITION INITIATION To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: NickNorris,Planning Director Date: January 27, 2023 Re: Initiate Petition to AmendText in the Zoning Ordinance to Update the Landscaping Chapter This memo is to request that a petition is initiated directing the Planning Division to update the Landscaping Chapter to better address the needs of the City and the changing climate being experienced along the Wasatch Front. Amendments to the Landscaping Chapter will also better conform to Plan Salt Lake. In Plan Salt Lake direction to reduce water consumption, protect and enhance the urban forest, and improve green infrastructure in the City’s neighborhoods is emphasized. To achieve these goals amending the landscaping chapter is necessary to reduce barriers to water conservation while improving water and air quality. In addition to providing best management practices to reduce barriers and incentive water conservation, is promoting accessible conservation strategies and standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The updates to the Landscaping chapter will accomplish this by quantifying best practices and creating visual elements to the chapter to better achieve accessibility needs of the residents in the City. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments, which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. The adoption process will include collaboration with other City Departments and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to ensure best management practices are utilized. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS 4) PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSIONS STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Amanda Dillon To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment on new Landscaping Ordinance - Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:38:19 PM Hey Nan! I was chatting with Amanda Roman and she let me know that tomorrow is when the new landscaping ordinance goes in front of the planning commission. Congrats on getting these revised policies to this point! I had the chance to skim through it earlier today and wanted to submit two official comments. SLC's website said to reach out to you as the staff listed at the top of the report. Let me know if I should reach out somewhere else to get this comment officially recorded. The first comment is in regards to plant height in the park strip. The proposed ordinance says: Plant height is limited to 22” to preserve clear views from intersection driveways, alleys, and streets, to preserve line of sights for people, and to prevent areas that some people may find unsafe when visibility is blocked. One issue we've found with this limited plant height is that it makes it hard to put planter boxes or similar into the park strip because we are so limited in height. As a developer of infill multifamily housing, we find that many of our residents let their pets relieve themselves in the park strips on any planted vegetation. The high acidity of their urine/feces makes it so that most plants die immediately and don't really grow back, leaving barren and unattractive park strips. One solution we've found that helps keep the park strips vegetated and looking nice is putting plants in planter boxes, which makes it harder for pets to disturb them. However, to create one that is hard for pets to get into, the planter box needs to be at least 12" tall. With the plant height restriction, that means we can only put a plant in that will mature to 10" tall. This really narrows down the selection of plants we can use to beautify the park strips and prevents us from designing attractive landscaped right of way areas for the City. It would be great to have a slight modification in this part of the code that would allow for taller plant heights if those are planted in garden boxes or the like. The second comment is more of a clarification question. On page 6 of the ordinance, in the second paragraph, it says "rocks (over a certain size)" but no where else in the code does it give any specifics about that size. Can more definition/clarity be added on this point? Thanks so much! Let's get together soon. Amanda Amanda Dillon Giv Development From: Bruce A. Hamilton To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Case PLNPCM2023-00098: oppose vegetation requirements on park strips Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:54:24 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Planning Commission, April 26 agenda, case PLNPCM2023-00098: It is insane to require vegetation on park strips in this age of droughts. Please oppose all such existing and new zoning requirements. --Bruce (Bruce A. Hamilton, Salt Lake City, UT) Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Margaret Holloway To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00098 Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:40:34 AM The goal of the city is to increase the canopy throughout the city. But what I see is a stumbling block is the fact of a permanent irrigation line to a street tree. I was quoted 3000 dollars just to connect a irrigation connection to my water line. If this is required of ALL homeowners who would like a tree or are going to be required to have a tree planted To whom is going to pay this bill? That quote was just to dig down to the water line and connect a meter. That does not include the line to the tree. I understand the need to encourage watering the tree. But if this is not done correctly you can have the water go into reverse and contaminate the water supply. It has happened when people try to do plumbing themselves. Now how is this even reasonable? All you need is a hose . The city gave buckets to the homeowners that had their trees taken out by Rocky Mountain power on 900 west. They were told to haul 5 gallons to the tree each week or 10 days. Which sounds reasonable... But how do you fill the bucket with a hose. And if they had given them a hose instead maybe they would have watered the trees. But they didn't and they did not get watered They all died except a couple that did. ..... The city plants trees into parks without water and then they die. The new trees the city planted on 1200 west there were 10 all but 2 died Because the sprinklers were turned off and the new trees need help for the first few years. The city turns off the sprinklers or cuts back and the trees die. But here you are requiring homeowners to spend upward of 3,000 to put a line in maintain it when you just need a hose. ..... I water my street tree with a soaker hose every other week if it doesn't get enough water like last 2 years .... The canopy changes over the life of the tree. ... You MUST water under the canopy..... It only benefits the tree if you water under the growing canopy. .. This is where a soaker hose is important.. it goes straight to the roots.... But to make the decision that everyone has to pay upto 3,000 dollars to put a permanent line to where it isn't going to do what you want it to do. ... seems missguided. The city just planted 30 more trees in Rosewood In Rosepark ..... if they have to cut off the water again will they make it? It depends this year they have a chance because of all the water in the soil. But last year they lost 5 from the previous year lack of water. The west side needs the trees but forcing people to put in an expensive hook up when a 30 dollar hose will do ... But last year you just drive around and see the trees they had planted in the parks that died. So why is the city going to require something of homeowners that the city does not do itself? Please reconsider this it won't do the trees any good to water where they can't use it.,..It will not get the city where it wants to go with the canopy. If there are actually any new houses built in the city i can see where this might come into play before everything is installed. But since we don;t have any place to build new houses you are telling existing homeowners what to do. after the fact of 60 or more years. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north SLC Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Larsen, Nannette; Planning Public Comments Wharton, Chris; City Council Liaisons; slcgreen; (EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:51:52 PM 21A.48 Nextdoor posting 1.4 K Views 5 Days .pdf Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45-day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of- way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02 2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Chelsea Benjamin To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Report to include as part of public record for today"s planning commission meeting Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:00:08 AM Attachments: 2022 WRA Artifical Turf Report.pdf Hello Nannette, I would like the following report to be included as part of the public record during the Planning Committee discussion on the new landscaping ordinance today. Here is a link to the report, and I have attached it as a PDF to this email. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/is- artificial-turf-a-beneficial-water-conservation-tool-in-the-west/ Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to include it in the Planning Commission’s discussion today. Thank you, Chelsea Benjamin Chelsea Benjamin Water Policy Fellow | WesternResourceAdvocates.org 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 photo Is Artificial Turf a Beneficial Water Conservation Tool in the West? December 2022 Author: Chelsea Benjamin Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Water Management ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Temperature Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 4 Lifecycle Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Harmful Chemicals ........................................................................................................................................ 5 PFAS Contamination ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Microplastic Contamination .......................................................................................................................... 7 Soil Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Pet Waste Buildup ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Cost ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction Artificial turf is a landscaping alternative made of plastic that mimics the look, feel, and function of a natural grass lawn or athletic field. Artificial turf has become more popular in Colorado and the West in recent years for its ability to reduce landscape water use in the face of unprecedented drought and water security challenges; the region now accounts for 24% of the artificial turf market share in the United States, with most being used for athletic fields. In recent years, many communities across the West have mounted turf replacement programs to encourage residents to save water used on outdoor landscapes in the face of prolonged drought. Communities are also limiting the amount of high water use, non-functional turf that can be installed in new development and instead requiring landscaping alternatives. As momentum continues to grow around reducing high water use turfgrass in our communities, water conservation practitioners, land use planners, landscape professionals and community members are asking: is artificial turf a worthwhile landscaping alternative, especially for residential properties? While artificial turf may reduce landscape water demand compared to traditional cool season turf, research shows that artificial turf can also have significant environmental and economic drawbacks. This report explores the current state of the research behind the benefits and drawbacks of artificial turf as it relates to: water management, temperature impacts, lifecycle analysis, PFAS contamination, harmful chemicals, microplastic contamination, pet waste buildup, and cost. While much of the data available are from studies of artificial turf athletic fields, most findings are applicable to properties with smaller footprints as well. Water Management Artificial turf has gained popularity in large part for its ability to reduce outdoor water use. One study found that full-sized, 1.32 acre, natural grass sports fields can use up to 1.5 million gallons of water for irrigation per year depending on geographic location. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that same- sized artificial turf athletic fields can save 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water per year (8.7 to 17.4 gallons/sq-ft), and that a turf lawn of 1,800 square feet can save 99,000 gallons of water per year, or about 70% of a homeowner’s water bill. In the arid Western United States, the need for water conservation has been a driver of artificial turf demand. Artificial turf for residences has proven especially popular in drought-stricken California, where some areas were limited to one day of outdoor watering per week in the summer of 2022 due to water shortages. While artificial turf companies tout water savings as a main benefit of artificial turf, this is not always the case. Studies have found that on a warm, sunny day artificial turf can measure up to 80 degrees hotter than the ambient air temperature. In one study, an artificial turf field measured 160 degrees while the ambient air temperature was 87 degrees. On an athletic playing field, one solution to this heat is to water the artificial turf. A large amount of water needs to be applied to achieve a cooling effect, and it has been found that this cooling effect lasts only minutes before temperatures rebound. Some sports arenas have attempted to solve the problem by installing misters that apply water to the turf field throughout sports events. Others find that irrigation of artificial turf improves traction and athletic performance; one university in North Carolina going so far as to apply for a business exemption to water their artificial turf athletic fields during a drought. An additional concern is the effect of artificial turf on groundwater recharge. Cities in California that once encouraged the replacement of natural grass with artificial turf have since changed their policies upon discovering that artificial turf can increase stormwater runoff and prevent groundwater recharge. Los Angeles offered a rebate for homeowners who replaced irrigated grass with artificial turf until 2016, when they revised their program’s requirements to provide a rebate only for replacement with xeriscape landscaping. Los Angeles realized that artificial turf reduces the amount of rainwater that soaks into the ground after a storm, and that more stormwater flushed out to sea via the stormwater system. Temperature Impacts Artificial turf can reach temperatures up to 80 degrees higher than the ambient air temperature due to its material composition and color, as well as the color and heat retention abilities of infill materials used. This excess heat contributes to urban heat island effect in cities, as heat from the synthetic turf elevates the ambient air temperature and disperses into the local environment. One researcher found that some of the hottest areas in New York City are artificial turf fields, rivaling black colored roofs in their heat retention abilities. Research has shown that excessively hot artificial athletic fields can lead to heat stress, especially in children who are more susceptible than adults, turf burns, and the cancellation of athletic events due to unsafe playing conditions. Artificial turf heat can also be an issue when used in landscaping, as pets and children use the turf for play on warm days. Urban heat island effect can also increase the demand for energy for air conditioning, and can increase pollution as natural grass areas are removed. Natural grass absorbs the sun’s heat during the day, and slowly releases it at night, contributing a cooling effect to the surrounding environment, as well as removing pollutants from the air. The artificial turf industry has responded to temperature issues and has developed products that can repel UV rays, better disperse heat, and even mimic the evaporative cooling effects of natural grass. Some types of artificial grass have been developed specifically for areas like Arizona that have extreme high temperatures during the summer. Manufacturers claim that heat-repellent synthetic turf measures 10-20% cooler than grasses with high heat retention. Another heat reduction measure is the infill material chosen; crumb rubber and sand infill materials can contribute to extreme artificial turf temperatures due to their color and heat-retention abilities. Special infill materials have been developed that when wet with water, will slowly release the water over time, mimicking the evaporative cooling properties of natural grass and reducing the hottest temperatures by 50 degrees. Cooling technologies seem to be distributed across price points, but largely cannot match the cooling properties of natural grass or other plants. Lifecycle Analysis In the early 1990s, the United States had a mounting problem with the disposal of used automobile tires; they were costly to dispose of and created pest and fire hazards in landfills. It was then discovered that discarded tire rubber could easily be recycled into small pellets to be used as “infill” to stabilize artificial turf athletic fields and lawns. The infill is now mainly used for large athletic field installations and industry experts estimate that the artificial turf industry now recycles one-twelfth of all automobile tires disposed of each year. One artificial turf athletic field can use 20,000 to 40,000 used tires as crumb rubber infill. Infill is added during installation, and as needed to replace infill that migrates out of the artificial turf area. Artificial turf has an average lifespan of 8-10 years before an athletic field becomes worn out, or a residential lawn loses its formerly lush appearance. The Synthetic Turf Council, an artificial turf industry group, insists that artificial turf is recyclable, and that its members actively recycle the spent turf it sells. Investigative journalists and concerned citizens have documented otherwise in the Netherlands and in the United States. The Netherlands requires artificial turf to be recycled. A few Dutch companies claim to be artificial turf recyclers; these companies accept payment to recycle spent turf and provide removal services. However, investigative journalists have found that several of these companies have no active facilities for turf recycling. The companies do not recycle the artificial turf they accept, but either hold on to it indefinitely in growing piles in municipalities with lax regulations or sell it to new customers who repurpose the turf, rather than recycle its components into new materials. In the United States, there are no regulations that pertain to the disposal or recycling of artificial turf. Most municipalities will accept artificial turf in local landfills. Fees to dispose of large amounts of turf, such as from athletic fields, can be extremely expensive. As artificial turf owners are not held responsible for the turf at the end of its life, it is often illegally dumped, or a small fee is paid to store the turf on an abandoned lot rather than paying disposal or recycling fees. Piles of discarded turf create fire and chemical hazards, just as discarded automobile tires did in the 1990s. Although a Danish artificial athletic field recycler, Re-Match, has plans to open an artificial turf recycling facility in Pennsylvania, and has recently expanded its European operations to the Netherlands and France, life cycle concerns for end-of-life artificial turf athletic fields and synthetic residential landscaping remain an active problem the world over. Harmful Chemicals Artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that are traditionally used to maintain a lawn or sports field; the plastic turf and its base layers block the growth of weeds and pests that otherwise might invade natural grass. However, artificial turf contains many chemicals of concern. These chemicals can migrate into the surrounding environment as the plastic material degrades when exposed to heat and light. The majority of research on artificial turf focuses on athletic fields, and many specifically on the chemicals related to crumb rubber infill. Crumb rubber infill is the cheapest infill material on the market and is often used in athletic field installations. It is less likely to be used for artificial lawns, but the following research discussed can at times apply to residential installations. The cheapest infill material on the market is crumb rubber infill made from recycled discarded tires. Crumb rubber infill is most often used for athletic fields, as it provides a durable playing surface. However, crumb rubber infill has been found to release chemicals as it degrades. Crumb rubber infill has been analyzed and found to contain 197 carcinogenic chemicals. Alternative infill materials include EPDM rubber, TPE plastic, and recycled athletic shoe material, as well as natural materials like sand, cork, and zeolite clay. A study comparing infill materials found that almost all contain chemicals of concern, except natural infill materials, which may conversely be susceptible to mold growth, or cause negative respiratory effects. Studies have found that organic contaminants and heavy metals in crumb rubber leach into stormwater runoff, posing hazards to the surrounding environment, aquatic life, and human health. Studies have also found that Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from crumb rubber infill can aerosolize during play on artificial turf athletic fields. VOCs can cause respiratory irritation and have been linked to the development of cancer. While there are no fully conclusive studies on the human health effects of exposure to artificial turf, studies have been conducted on the effects of crumb rubber infill chemicals on earthworms, an invertebrate, and on chicken embryos, a vertebrate. Two experiments have been conducted on the effects of earthworm exposure to crumb rubber infill. The first experiment tested the effect of exposure to new crumb rubber infill, and found that after one week of incubation in contaminated soil, the exposed earthworms had noticeably lower body weight than those in clean soil. A second, similar, experiment was conducted using recycled tire crumb rubber infill. In this experiment, the exposed earthworms quickly died in a stress test, demonstrating a marked decrease in resilience to stress when exposed to chemicals in recycled tire rubber. Another study that examined the effects of crumb rubber leachate on fertilized chicken embryos during their development process found that approximately half of the fertilized eggs exposed to the leachate developed extreme malformations, while the unexposed group developed into healthy chicken embryos. Although no conclusive studies have been conducted on the direct effects of artificial turf on human health, anecdotal collections of statistics have raised concerns about artificial turf’s potential connection to cancer development in humans. In 2013, one women’s soccer coach compiled a list of 38 US soccer players who had developed cancer, mainly leukemia and cancers of the blood. Many of the players were goalies, who regularly dive into artificial turf. Health experts have been unable to reach consensus on whether artificial turf and the use of crumb rubber infill can be linked to cancer or other human health effects. Despite this lack of consensus, the presence of known carcinogens in artificial turf blades and infill and the results of the animal studies have raised alarm. PFAS Contamination PFAS chemicals are widely found in artificial turf because they are used in the artificial turf production process and are typically added as a coating to the grass blades as they are manufactured. The chemicals can break down and leach into the environment when exposed to heat and light after artificial turf is installed. PFAS chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down under normal environmental conditions, and can last in the environment for hundreds of years, or longer. PFAS chemicals are also associated with negative health effects in humans and wildlife. Studies on the human health effects of PFAS chemicals have found that the chemicals bioaccumulate in human tissues and can lead to liver effects, immunological effects, developmental effects, endocrine effects, decreased fertility, cardiovascular effects, and can contribute to the development of cancers. PFAS can cause similar problems in animals and can also bioaccumulate in plants. In 2020, one New Hampshire community attempted to purchase PFAS-free artificial turf to minimize exposure risks. The community tested the turf they had been sold, and found that it did contain PFAS chemicals. The company claimed that the levels of PFAS in the turf were below EPA accepted maximum levels of the chemical and could safely be labeled “PFAS-free”. However, the EPA has recently concluded that no amount of PFAS chemicals are safe in drinking water, which is concerning as many components of artificial turf installations regularly make their way into surrounding waterways. Microplastic Contamination In addition to the chemical concerns surrounding artificial turf, there are also significant concerns relating to microplastic pollution. Artificial turf plastic grass blades can break off from the turf surface and migrate into the surrounding environment, creating microplastic pollution as they break down into smaller pieces over time. Artificial turf athletic fields that use crumb rubber infill can be even greater sources of microplastic pollution. One study in Norway found crumb rubber infill pieces in 85% of water samples taken in waterbodies downstream from artificial turf fields, and in 42% of samples taken from locations upstream. Microplastic pollution from artificial turf fields accounts for over one third of total microplastic pollution in Norway. Similarly, researchers have found that artificial turf fields are the second highest source of microplastic pollution in Sweden. Swedish authorities estimate that large artificial athletic fields lose 2-3 tons of infill to the surrounding environment per year. Microplastic pollution is a concern for actively used artificial turf fields, and for discarded fields that await recycling or incineration or are illegally dumped. Discarded fields have the potential to release microplastic pollution into the surrounding environment indefinitely. Artificial turf lawns also can release microplastics via the grass blades’ degradation over time, and depending on the choice of infill will also release infill particles into the environment. Researchers are only beginning to understand what the effects of this pollution might be. Study of the effects of microplastics is relatively new. Studies have found the tiny particles worldwide, including in remote wilderness areas that have no human visitors, and in the umbilical cords of newborn babies. The effects of microplastic pollution on human health and the environment are still relatively unknown, but some early studies suggest that microplastic exposure and ingestion can cause harm to human health and the environment. One study in particular found that microplastics added to soil disturb natural biological processes and change soil structure. Knowledge of the long-term effects of microplastics will continue to develop over time. Soil Quality Artificial turf installation requires the removal of the existing top level of soil and heavy soil compaction to create a smooth surface for the turf. Compaction negatively effects the soil structure, disturbs the soil’s microbial activity, and can damage tree roots. After soil is compacted for athletic field installation, several layers are added between the soil and the artificial turf surface to level the playing field, improve storm water drainage, and provide cushioning. In artificial turf lawn installations, plastic and wire layers may be added beneath the turf for protection from burrowing animals, and weeds. In addition to the effects of soil compaction, artificial turf changes the quality of the soil beneath it by starving the soil of water, air, and light. Artificial turf has also been shown to degrade over time, leaching chemicals from the plastic turf material and the infill materials into stormwater runoff that can soak into surrounding soils, further disturbing soil health. Pet Waste Buildup Pet waste can build up over time on artificial turf, and additional maintenance is required to keep artificial lawns fresh. Artificial turf companies have designed special types of turf to improve pet waste drainage and claim that it can better eliminate waste than natural grass. Pet-friendly infill has also been created with a special coating to prevent odors and the growth of bacteria. Despite these measures, artificial turf needs to be rinsed off after use by pets. To fully sanitize artificial turf when pet waste builds up, infill must be vacuumed out and a special cleaner applied to break down urine and other waste. Natural grass and other plant installations do not need this type of maintenance and special products; the elements naturally break down remnant pet waste. Cost A New York Times investigation compared costs for artificial turf lawns. Bids to install a large artificial turf grass lawn averaged $10,000. The average lifetime of artificial grass is 10 years or less and there are maintenance costs associated with artificial turf, and costs associated with removal and replacement at end of life. Natural grass lawns are likely to have longer lifespans if managed sustainably. Natural lawn costs increase substantially if located in an area that requires supplemental irrigation. One way to lower such costs is to install drought-resistant or low-water species of grass in drought-prone regions, though irrigation systems will likely be needed even if used less frequently. Regarding athletic fields specifically, many schools and universities choose to install artificial turf rather than natural grass fields because artificial turf is a durable play surface that allows for continuous use, while natural grass can require rest between athletic activities. Artificial turf can also save on maintenance costs associated with irrigation and mowing. However, artificial turf has been shown to require heat related closures, maintenance such as brushing and sanitization, regular replacement of infill material, and even irrigation to improve heat conditions and playability. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) has conducted several studies comparing costs between artificial fields and natural grass fields that show that organically managed natural grass fields can improve play conditions, reduce wear and tear related closures, and lower maintenance costs. Costs to install a variety of natural grass field installations range from $0.60-$5.00 per square foot, and estimates for artificial turf costs range from $4.50-$10.25 per square foot. TURI’s research concludes that artificial turf athletic fields can cost 2 to 10 times more than organically managed natural grass fields over their life cycles when accounting for installation fees, maintenance fees, and disposal and replacement fees at the end of an artificial turf’s lifecycle. Many sports facilities decide that the investment is worth it because artificial turf can extend playing time, and be used in any season or weather condition, including in snow. Conclusion Artificial turf has gained popularity, particularly in the increasingly arid West, as it conserves water used on outdoor landscapes and sports fields, among other reasons, like extending playing time for athletic activities. While artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on natural grass, it can have considerable drawbacks. Artificial turf can have unexpected negative impacts to water supplies including requiring watering for cooling on hot days and hindering groundwater recharge. The heat generated by artificial turf can increase urban heat island effect and cause heat- related injuries. To date, there are few sustainable options for artificial turf recycling, leading to stacks of discarded artificial turf building up the world over. In addition to the above issues, the chemicals and microplastic particles that make up artificial turf can leach into the environment, causing environmental and health impacts not yet entirely known. And, while many artificial turf companies tout the material as more cost-effective, cost comparisons with natural grass show that in some cases artificial turf is significantly more expensive. Better alternatives to artificial turf exist in the form of water wise landscaping, including drought-resistant and native species of grasses, trees, shrubs, and perennials. Water-wise landscaping can reduce irrigation water use significantly, with some native plants and grasses requiring no or very little supplemental irrigation. While water savings vary depending on what is installed, compared to cool season turf, water-wise plantings provide numerous other benefits such as pollinator habitat, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use, and groundwater recharge. As the West faces a hotter and drier future, we must continue to research and assess opportunities for reducing landscape water demand while maximizing benefits and minimizing negative consequences. For residential property owners seeking to be more water efficient or wanting lower maintenance landscaping, artificial turf is likely not the hoped-for solution due to costs and wide-ranging environmental and potential health impacts. From: Christopher C. Nixon To: Planning Public Comments; nannette@slcgov.com Cc: jan Nixon Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment on Landscaping, Park Strip Changes to Code 21A.48 Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:25:04 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom It May Concern, I just learned of this public comment opportunity through our neighborhood social media, not from city officials. Apparently, the first comment opportunity has come and gone with little publicity. Salt Lake City must try harder to not only save water, but also to provide the public with more chances to have a say in what we can do as individuals and neighbors. The water crisis is serious. City officials need to get serious, too. What Salt Lake City needs to do first is to stop all the water waste on park strips and adjoining properties. Every day in the summer, I see broken and badly adjusted sprinklers watering the street and sidewalks. I’ve received two citations from SLC Civil Enforcement wanting to penalize me for getting rid of park strip turf and putting in a water-wise, attractive rock garden. What is Civil Enforcement doing about the gutter rivers from the wastrels that are mismanaging their landscape and park strip water? Do city planners need water-wise residents to submit photos and addresses of these residential, commercial, and industrial wastrels across the city? I know neighbors who would like to have a say in this but also missed the opportunity. The city planning division should re-open the public comment period and have it properly noticed in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune. KSL and KUER would air PSAs to let people know. Please get serious about the drought situation and bring the residents onboard to find solutions. Thank you. Jan Nixon Salt Lake City Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Margaret Holloway To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) design presented on landscaping last night Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:25:34 AM I see a design with a tree in the corner with mulch and drought bushes spotted around. The problem with mulch is that leaves that fall from the tree can not be raked or blown without removing the mulch with the leaves. So that is a problem I was going to put bark and mulch like this buyt my trees drop small leaves and large leaves during the year. WHich i saw before i did this new landscaping. So it sounds and looks good until the trees drop leaves. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north Salt Lake City, Utah Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Kyle Deans To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) PC Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 12:41:42 PM Nannette, I am sending this in regards to the Landscaping and Buffers Amendments. I am in full support of anything that can help reduce the consumption of water by SLC residents, especially when it comes to non essential ornamental landscapes. Kyle Deans SLC Resident August 1, 2023 Re: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Amendments Dear Nannette, Mayor and City Council Proposed Park strip requirements allowing up to 50% rock and not allowing any turf grass as approved in the Planning Commission's final draft of the landscape requirements is a bad idea and defeats the larger goal of reducing the heat island effect and promoting mature tree growth. Park strip water use needs improvement, but the code as written needs revision. Rock mulch and no turf at all hurt our city. No turf is a negative for families with children that like to play in thei r front yard. North Dakota State Horticulturist Tom Kalb has written, "Do you enjoy torturing plants? If yes, get some rock mulch and put it around your plants. Rock mulch does nothing for a plant. A rocky bed may look good to us, but the plants are crying in pain." https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/extension/extension-topics/gardening-and-horticulture/trees-and- shrubs/choosing-mulch-trees-and 50% rock will add to the heat island effect and hurt tree growth! Rock is a material that absorbs heat and bakes the surface roots of any plants and trees within the park strip. It retains heat throughout the day and contributes to the heat island effect and evaporation of water in the soil. Also rocks add no nutrients to park strip plants or trees. Rock mulch should not be encouraged as it contributes to the heat island effect. Families with children have front yards where children play soccer and other sports. Turf grass in a residential mow strip should be allowed to extend this play area for families. Turf is easy to maintain, fun to play on, and when it is under a large, shaded canopy of trees uses much less water. Native turf is available. Products like Habiturf offers waterwise planting, "The resulting Habiturf®is a blend of Bouteloua dactyloides (buffalograss), Bouteloua gracilis {blue grama) and Hilaria belangeri curly mesquite). It establishes quickly and, best of all, conserves precious resources once established. It does especially well in the dry regions of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona." Obviously not everyone should have turf for their mow strip and when poorly irrigated they can waste water, but in many places, it makes good sense. For example, our family and many other families sat on grassy mow strips downtown to watch the Pioneer Day parade. Also, our family with small children play sports in our yard and the mow strip turf extends that play area. In addition, the turf mow strip areas are cooler, tend to have trees that grow better because it is cooler than rock mulch and hardscape. Turf absorbs rain and snow moisture and contributes to city cooling better than rock mulch. I would recommend that turf be allowed with an approved irrigation plan that minimizes any water run off into the street and includes shade trees that at mature canopy cover 75% of the mow strip. A balance of shade trees and turf grass can be water efficient and urban cooling. We can save water in other ways by reducing the width of our wide streets, reducing the amount of surface parking lots and all the unnecessary asphalt. Of course, other mow strip plants and shrubs and grasses can be beautiful and should be encouraged, but turf should not be banned completely. Rock is not a good alternative to turf grass. Sincerely, Josh Stewart Architect and Urban Designer 1867 Princeton Ave Salt Lake City Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Larsen Nannette Planning Public Comments; City Council Liaisons; (EXTERNAL) Second Public Comment on 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:57:24 PM West Side Street UHI Despite Park Strip Trees jpg Freshly Black Topped West Side Street UHI.jpg Public Comment Follow-Up to 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 7-20-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Division, As a follow-up to my 4-25-202 public comment [copied further below] urging the S.L.City Planning Commission to reject the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates, I submit the following inquiry along with suggestions for improvement of your Urban Forest Action Plan adopted Feb. 2023. First, the inquiry. Some residents have asked me whether the new park strips street tree requirement applies to park strips abutting existing homes as well as to new homes and remodeled homes. My responses have included references to the Salt Lake City Planning Division's ordinance revision proposal report that was submitted to the SLC Planning Commission on April 26, 2023, the day the Commission considered proposed Landscape and Buffers Chapter [21A.48] Amendments. That report included the Planning Commission Draft as Attachment B. My counsel to residents for whom the ordinance revision is unclear is that, as worded, the new park strips street tree requirement applies everyone, with few exceptions. I point to the following document components which, taken together, substantiate this: The 4-26-2023 document states that it is intended to "Specify responsibilities of the property owner." Applicability [21A.48.020] chapter provisions state that the ordinance "[A]pplies to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted in another chapter." Responsibility & Maintenance [21A.48.040] chapter provisions state that, with reference to park strips, "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping vegetation..." and include "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." That section proceeds to list multiple requirements for irrigation systems. The Landscape Plan chapter, 21A.48.050, indicates that a landscape plan is only required for "[New] construction of a primary structure" and alterations to an [existing] property that increase the floor area by 50% or more. The next chapter, Landscape Requirements [21A.48.060], however, makes no distinction between properties requiring a landscape plan and those that do not, when it states that "Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive requirements shall apply." Park Strip Standards include "Minimum of 1 street tree..." and, for overall vegetation, "Minimum 33% coverage." The General Standards chapter, 21A.48.080, states that "All landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.70 shall meet the regulations described in this section." Under the chapter's Specific Park Strip Standards section, the Street Trees:Substitutions rule is that the Urban Forester "may approve a substitute of the required street tree provision for a cash in lieu payment..." In the Key Considerations section, under Consideration 2, the SLC Planning Division's 4-26-2023 document references its Urban Forest Action Plan, then concludes that the proposed landscaping chapter will include the requirement that "[S]treet trees are required in every park strip depending on the length of the park strip." [Attachment A, Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations Council Briefing Report, includes specific observations and recommendations in its Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations. It acknowledges that "property owners are not aware" of landscape zoning rules and criticizes the current landscape chapter's "lack of Gliot Tony; clarity" and consequent problems that include resident violations and subsequent [civil] enforcement actions. My takeaway is that the Division has identified a problem, but not corrected it.] Looking again at the Planning Commission Draft: The first textual content specifying applicability to new construction does not occur until chapter 21A.48.050, Landscape Plan, where it states that such a plan shall be required for new construction and modification of an existing property's floor plan by 50% or more. Up to that point, the revision suggests that requirements apply to all residences...with a few exceptions. Prior to 21A.48.050 we have: ~ 21A.48.020: Applicability... "The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted..." ~ 21A.48.040: Responsibility and Maintenance ... "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for...all landscaping vegetation." "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." "shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each street tree..." Then, in 21A.48.060 under Park Strip Standards, the document sets a minimum of one street tree per park strip and a minimum 33% vegetation. No distinction is made between existing properties and those requiring a landscape plan. If the Commission intended to exempt existing properties, it should have stated that. I therefore conclude that the SLC Planning Division document fails to convince me that the revised ordinance requirements would only apply to new projects or non-residential landscape sites. While there are separate chapters in the Division and Commission portions of document that apply to new projects and changes to existing residential property floor plans, and there are later chapters citing variations for certain areas, such as the Northwest Quadrant, there are no residential park strip requirement waivers or exemptions specified in prior chapters. Nor is it stated in introductory sections, such as Project Description or later in Purpose & Intent, that the ordinance update does not apply to most existing residential properties. General applicability of the park strip street tree requirement should have been clearly stated up front, but was not. Since the proposed ordinance update is not clear about all who would be subjected to the new park strip street tree requirement, my counsel is that SLC residents whose park strips have no trees should assume they will be required to make changes if the Commission-approved ordinance update is adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. What would you say to SLC residents who feel threatened by the proposed ordinance update? Finally: Some comments on the Urban Forest Action Plan (UFAP)… Inasmuch as the City is concerned about the urban heat island (UHI) effects of <33% vegetation covered park strips, and is focusing on irrigated park strip street trees as a solution, I am surprised that the UFAP lacks details about the UHI of super-wide residential streets, especially on the West Side. For example, 1100 West and 400 North are 77 feet wide. That's the width of seven or eight car lanes…all imposing intense UHI effects and trying-to- stay-cool cost burdens on economically vulnerable families. The only [passing] reference to the option of street trees median strips is a sketch on page 76. There's no discussion of the functionality of street trees median strips, which could be quite useful in reducing UHI on wide residential streets. I have attached to this comment the photo of a West Side street block whose park strips are full of trees. Notice the huge area of exposed street pavement still drawing and radiating heat. Another attached photo shows a recently black-topped street. Why is the City still coating streets with black when lighter alternatives are available? There are other cost-burden, mitigation responsibility, and water conservation topics that should inform improvements to the Urban Forest Action Plan and the revision of city ordinance 21A.48 prior to the City Council's scheduling of public hearings and its final vote. Thank you for your attention to questions and suggestions raised in this, my second, public comment to the City regarding plans, policies, and programs to address climate change impacts that threaten our quality of life. And please let me know when any potential revisions are available to the public prior to City Council hearings. Thanks. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Quoting "Larsen, Nannette" <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>: Stanley, Thank you for your comments. I will forward them to the Planning Commission for commission members to view before the public hearing tomorrow. Best, NANNETTE LARSEN | (She/Her) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Mobile: (801) 535-7645 Email: Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV From: Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:52 PM To: Larsen, Nannette <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>; Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Cc: Wharton, Chris <Chris.Wharton@slcgov.com>; City Council Liaisons <City.Council.Liaisons@slcgov.com>; slcgreen <slcgreen@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45- day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of-way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02_2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: 5) PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR STATEMENT From: Briefer, Laura To: Larsen, Nannette Cc: Thompson, Amy; Bench, Nikole; Rice, Marian; Duer, Stephanie; Draper, Jason Subject: RE: Landscaping Chapter Planning Commission Public Hearing Tonight Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:02:05 PM Attachments: image002.png image003.png Good afternoon, Nannette – please let me know if this will be useful tonight for the questions concerning artificial turf– see below: Artificial turf has the potential to impact water quality and stormwater runoff in the following ways: 1. The combination of soil compaction in the installation of artificial turf and the material that is used does not allow water to be retained onsite. As such, this is considered an impermeable surface. This contributes to additional stormwater runoff from a site, which can have negative downstream impacts, such as flashier and increased stormwater flows. 2. As stormwater flows across impermeable surfaces it picks up and carries pollutants that get deposited in receiving water bodies, such as the Jordan River and streams that flow through our city. All stormwater that flows through Salt Lake City ultimately heads toward Great Salt Lake. 3. Pollutants of concern that can emanate directly from artificial turf include micro-plastics and PFAS compounds (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained). PFAS compounds are “forever chemicals” that pose health risks to people and animals. It is unclear whether all artificial turf contains PFAS compounds, but there is evidence that at least some of it does. To our knowledge, it is not currently tested and certified regarding the presence or absence of PFAS. Microplastics also pose health risks to people and animals. Both PFAS and microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, and there is much concern nationally and globally about this pollution. 4. Artificial turf also needs to be washed periodically, which could contribute runoff that contains cleaning chemicals. Pet feces needs to be removed from artificial turf, and pathogens from pet feces could be introduced into stormwater during cleaning. Regulatory and health considerations with respect to PFAS compounds: Salt Lake City Public Utilities is obligated to comply with drinking water and clean water regulations promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and enforced by both the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA. The EPA is prioritizing the regulation of PFAS in drinking water and in cradle to grave hazardous materials regulations (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions- address- pfas#:~:text=On%20August%2026%2C%202022%2C%20EPA,for%20cleaning%20up%20their%20c ontamination). In March 2023, EPA proposed new very stringent regulations for six PFAS compounds with a proposed maximum contaminant level of four (4) parts per trillion, showcasing that EPA is extremely concerned about the health risks associated with PFAS in drinking water. The EPA is also considering new regulations under the Clean Water Act which would affect stormwater and wastewater discharges. Finally, EPA is considering new PFAS regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund). This primarily impacts environmental remediation for PFAS-contaminated soil and water, and there is some concern about the potential long thread of liability associated with PFAS contamination. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I have added Jason and Stephanie to this email thread too. LAURA BRIEFER, MPA | (She/Her/Hers) DIRECTOR Department of Public Utilities | Salt Lake City Corporation Office: (801) 483-6741 Cell: (385) 252-9379 Email: Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/utilities www.slc.gov Signature: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 4, 2023 13:15 MST) Email: alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com 11152023 Transmittal FINAL Final Audit Report 2023-12-04 "11152023 Transmittal FINAL" History Document created by Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:43:40 PM GMT Document emailed to Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 6:46:21 PM GMT Email viewed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:54:35 PM GMT Document e-signed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-27 - 8:29:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 8:29:57 PM GMT Email viewed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 8:31:28 PM GMT New document URL requested by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 8:11:11 PM GMT Document e-signed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 8:15:44 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-12-04 - 8:15:48 PM GMT Email viewed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 10:33:18 PM GMT Document e-signed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT - Time Source: server Created: 2023-11-27 By: Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA0PzvbpGjNz77WUcjaXmTX2mPGTprNRHF Agreement completed. 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/16/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/16/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/16/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Matt Gray member of the Transportation Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 16, 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 Transportation Advisory Board. Matt Gray to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on September 28, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 9/5/23, 9:17 AM BCA-00508 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000000wkOZUAY/p 1/2 Close Window Print This Page Expand All | Collapse All BCA-00508 BC Boards and Commissions Application Name BCA-00508 Outcome Board Applied For Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee Case 00100756 Second Choice Owner SLCCRM Third Choice Stage New Profession Salt Lake City Fire Department (Hired August 15, 1985 - Retired February 1, 2019 Firefighter/Paramedic - Captain - Battalion Chief - Assistant Chief Previous contact with board or members Yes Previous Contact Details As a leader in the Salt Lake City Fire department (Assistant Chief)I was involved in annual negotiations with local 81. The CCAC recommendations played a role in coming to reasonable resolution in these labor discussions. How Heard Current Board or Commission member Applicant Applicant James "clair" Baldwin Applicant City Council District Applicant Email jamesbaldwin4862@msn.com Contact James "clair" Baldwin Applicant Phone 8015996531 Contact Email jamesbaldwin4862@msn.com Applicant Address 8303 Hayes Street Midvale, UT 84047 Questionaire Reason for interest in this board I was approached by my good freind Ray Shelble who has served on the CCAC for quite some time. He is stepping down and asked if I might be interested, I very much am. I served the citizens of Salt Lake City for nearly 34 years as a firefighter and am currently retired. I would love the opportunity to once again serve the citizens and firefighters of Salt Lake City. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so. Civic/Professional Org Memberships Salt Lake Firefighters Credit Union Board Member (Current) Utah Joint Council of Fire Service Organizaions (Retired Firefighters of Utah Representative, Current) Utah Task Force 1 (FEMA Team) member 1999 - 2019 Multiple deployments to national disasters. Salt Lake City Professional Employees Council (Vice Chair) Community Service activ. past/present Babe Ruth Baseball Youth Coach 2021 - Present Salt Lake Retired Firefighters Association Vice President Current Camp NAH-NAH-MAH Burn Camp Counselor 2006 - 2021 Volunteer Firefigher Midvale City Fire Department 1982 - 1992 Other Information I know there are many that are qualified for this position. I appreciate being considered and if chosen I will do my best to fullfill the responsiblities expected of me. References Reference 1 Name Karl Reference 3 Name Thomas 9/5/23, 9:17 AM BCA-00508 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000000wkOZUAY/p 2/2 Reference 1 Last Name Lieb Reference 3 Last Name Gourdin Reference 1 Phone 801-799-4203 Office 801-664-5694 Mobile Reference 3 Phone 382-465-5594 Reference 2 Name Raymond Reference 2 Last Name Schelble Reference 2 Phone 801-244-0156 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Male Disabled No Veteran No Languages English Samoan (limited0 Housing Own Home ID as LGBTQ No Education Level Some College Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 8/22/2023 3:27 PM Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 8/22/2023 3:27 PM Copyright © 2000-2023 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved. City Council Announcements Tuesday, December 5, 2024 Information Needed by Council Staff A. Review and Approval of the 2024 Annual Calendar (attached) The 2024 annual meeting calendar is attached. Each year, an annual calendar of the Council meeting dates must be posted for the public on the State’s website. The annual calendar is posted ahead of time, however times or meetings may change throughout the year as unexpected needs arise. Adjustments/Questions: • January o Council retreat generally held this month – Council prefers a Tuesday since those days are blocked off already. Would the Council like to hold a retreat on the 23rd or the 30th ? March o NLC is scheduled for March 11 – 13. We have an RDA and work session scheduled on March 12. Do we need to change that meeting? April o APA is scheduled for April 13-16. We have a meeting scheduled for 4/16/24. Do we need to change that? • May o As a reminder, Thursday, May 9, 16, 23, 30 are reserved as tentative Work Sessions to allow additional time for budget briefings. During the budget season, the Council will determine if those briefing times are needed. o Would the Council like to start the May & June meetings at 1:00 p.m.? o May 28th will be a work session only. This year, the Council preferred a Thursday meeting instead of meeting the Tuesday after Memorial Day during budget. Do we want to do that again? • June o As a reminder, Thursday, June 6 and 13 are reserved as a tentative work session to allow additional time for budget briefings. During the budget season, the Council will determine if that briefing time is needed. o Typically, the Council will take action on the budget on the second Tuesday in June (June 11), but staff has listed a tentative formal meeting on June 18th in case budget adoption is needed later. • August o In August, we hold the Truth-in-Taxation hearing. Would the Council like to reserve August 6th or 13th for that hearing? • November o Due to elections, do we want to change the meetings on November 12 (RDA, Work Session, and Formal) to November 19? Or the 26th (on the week of Thanksgiving) in case a board of canvassers is needed?  Does the Council approve of the 2024 Annual Meeting Calendar? 2024 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/16/2023 1 Public Notice is hereby given that the 2024 Annual Meeting Schedule of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency (RDA) & Local Building Authority (LBA) of Salt Lake City, Utah, shall be as follows: The Board of Directors will hold regular meetings from time to time as the Board deems necessary. When held, regular meetings will be on the same dates and at the same times and places as regular meetings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah. Council Meetings generally include a 2 p.m. WORK SESSION and a 7 p.m. FORMAL SESSION All meetings of the City Council are open to the public unless closed pursuant to Sections 52-4-204, 52-4-205 and 78B-1-137, Utah Code Annotated. Notice of each meeting is given at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting as required by State law. An agenda of each meeting is posted at: • Salt Lake City Council website www.slc.gov/council • State of Utah Public Notice website www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html Meetings in addition to those listed below may be held or canceled as circumstances may require, subject to applicable public notice requirements. Notice: • The City & County Building is an accessible facility with a street-level entrance located on the east side of the building. 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. • In accordance with State statute, City ordinance, and Council policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 2024 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/16/2023 2 January Meetings • Tuesday, January 2 Oath of office • Tuesday, January 9 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session, & Formal • Tuesday, January 16 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • TENTATIVE - Tuesday, January 23 Council Retreat • TENTATIVE - Tuesday, January 30 Council Retreat February Meetings • Tuesday, February 6 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, February 13 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • Tuesday, February 20 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting March Meetings • Tuesday, March 5 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, March 12 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • Tuesday, March 19 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting April Meetings • Tuesday, April 2 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, April 9 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • Tuesday, April 16 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting May Meetings • Tuesday, May 7 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 9 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) • Tuesday, May 14 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 16 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) • Tuesday, May 21 Council Work Session and Formal • TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 23 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) • Tuesday, May 28 Council Work Session only • TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 30 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) 2024 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/16/2023 3 June Meetings • Thursday, June 4 Council Work Session Only • TENTATIVE - Thursday, June 6 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) • Tuesday, June 11 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • TENTATIVE - Tuesday, June 13 Council Work Session (as needed for budget) • TENTATIVE - Tuesday, June 18 Formal (as needed for budget) July Meetings • Tuesday, July 2 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, July 9 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session & Formal Meeting August Meetings • Tuesday, August 6 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, August 13 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session & Formal Meeting September Meetings • Tuesday, September 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, September 10 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • Tuesday, September 17 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting October Meetings • Tuesday, October 1 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, October 8 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session • Tuesday, October 15 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting November Meetings • Tuesday, November 5 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, November 12 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session, and Formal Meeting December Meetings • Tuesday, December 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, December 10 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session, & Formal Meeting INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 January 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Year’s Eve New Year’s Day Oath of Office Ceremony 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RDA, Work Session, & Formal 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Work Session, Formal *Legislative session 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Tentative Council Retreat 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 Tentative Council Retreat Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. • *Legislative session begins Tuesday, January 16. *This could change due to Utah Constitutional Amendment F and subsequent bills. • School dates at the end of this doc. INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work Session, Formal 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RDA, Work Session 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 President’s Day Work Session, Formal 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. February 2024 INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 March 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 *Legislative session ends 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NAEH Work Session, Formal NAEH NAEH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NLC RDA, Work Session NLC NLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Work Session, Formal 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 Notes: • National League of Cities Congressional City Conference March 11-13 • *Legislative session ends March 1st • National Alliance to End Homelessness 2024 Conference (NAEH) March 4-6 INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work Session, Formal 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NAHRO RDA, Work Session NAHRO NAHRO APA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 APA APA Work Session, Formal APA ULCT ULCT ULCT 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 Notes: • Utah Leagues of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Midyear Conference April 17-19 at St. George • American Planning Association (APA) originally scheduled for April 13- 16 at Minneapolis Convention Center • National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials Washington Conference (NAHRO): originally scheduled for April 8-10 April 2024 INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 May 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesda Thursday Friday Saturday 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Work Session, Formal APA Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) APA APA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RDA, Work Session Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Work Session, Formal Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 Memorial Day Work Session Only Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. • Virtual - American Planning Association (APA) May 8-10 INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 June 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 Work Session Only 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Work Session, Formal Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RDA, Work Session & Formal Work Session (tentative - as needed for budget) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Juneteen th Formal (tentative - as needed for budget) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 . 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 Budget adoption deadline Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. • Legal deadline to adopt the annual budget is June 30. • Downtown Alliance Urban Exploration – dates not posted yet INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 July 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesd Thursday Friday Saturday 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work Session, Formal Independ ence Day 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RDA, Work Session, & Formal 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pioneer Day 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 August 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesd Thursday Friday Saturday 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 Night Out Against Crime events 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work Session, Formal 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RDA, Work Session, Formal, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 September 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Labor Day Work Session, Formal ULCT ULCT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 RDA, Work Session 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Work Session, Formal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. • ULCT Annual Convention – September 4 – 5th at SLC INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 October 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 Work Session, Formal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RDA, Work Session 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Work Session, Formal 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mpact Mpact Mpact Mpact 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. • Mpact: Transit + Community Conference: October 20 – 23 in Philadelphia INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 November 2024 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Work Session, Formal 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Veteran’s Day RDA, Work Session, Formal, & Board of Canvassers NLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NLC NLC 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Thanks- giving Day Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. Our Office is also closed the Friday following Thanksgiving. • Board of Canvassers meeting is needed two weeks following the election. • NLC City Summit November 16-18 in Atlanta • School dates at the end of this doc. INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Work Session, Formal 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 RDA, Work Session, Formal 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Christmas Eve Christmas Day 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 New Year’s Eve New Year’s Day Notes: • Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in gray. December 2024 INTERNAL – COUNCIL OFFICE ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR As of 10/3/2023 School Dates: • SLC school district o 2023 School Year Winter Recess December 21, 2023 – January 3, 2024 o Spring Recess April 1, 2024 – April 5, 2034 o Classes end May 30, 2024 o 2022-23 School Year Classes begin Aug. 20, 2024 o Fall Recess Oct. 17-18 o Winter Recess begins Dec. 23 – Jan. 3, 2025 • U of U o 2023 School Year Winter break December 16, 2023 – January 7, 2024 o Classes begin Jan. 8 o Spring break scheduled for March 3-10 o 2023-24 School Year Classes begin Aug. 19 o Fall break Oct. 6-13 o Winter break Dec. 14- Jan. 5, 2024 • Westminster o 2023 School Year Winter break Dec. 25- Jan. 1 o Classes begin Jan. 16 o Spring break March 11-15 o 2024-25 School Year Classes begin Aug. 21 o Fall Break Oct. 14-18 o Winter break Dec. 23 – Jan 1, 2025 • SLCC o 2024 School Year Classes begin Jan. 8 o Spring break March 4-9 o 2024 School Year Classes begin Aug. 20 o Fall break Oct. 17-18 o Classes end Dec. 5 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________ Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Salt Lake City CouncilDarin Mano December 5, 2023 4 44 Darin Mano (Dec 13, 2023 15:47 MST)12/13/2023 Closed Session - Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-12-13 Created:2023-12-05 By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAALXm4nBIonUzydbn8S-wWr_9y_b-96cm1 "Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) 2023-12-05 - 11:36:04 PM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-12-05 - 11:38:44 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-06 - 4:50:27 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-07 - 7:58:55 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-08 - 6:20:22 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-09 - 5:43:14 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-10 - 6:23:32 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-11 - 5:18:31 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-12 - 5:38:39 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-12-13 - 5:31:18 AM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-13 - 10:47:00 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-12-13 - 10:47:00 PM GMT