Loading...
02/06/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   February 6, 2024 Tuesday 7:00 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   CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Victoria Petro, Chair District 1 Chris Wharton, Vice Chair District 3 Alejandro Puy District 2 Eva Lopez Chavez District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7   Generated: 09:41:39 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES   A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of January 9, 2024, and January 16, 2024, as well as the formal meeting minutes of December 12, 2023. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing February as Black History Month in Salt Lake City. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Rezone at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East from RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district. This proposal would allow for ground-floor retail with residential units above the first floor, though the applicant has not included development plans with this request. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners, on behalf of the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00403. For more information visit tinyurl.com/500South400EastRezone.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes a 1% cost of living increase for all Library employees and a new full-time employee for the Safety Team, among other items.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:   1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. 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. The Council may also consider a resolution requesting admission to the firefighters retirement system for emergency medical service personnel and social workers, as well as an ordinance amending Chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code creating a Legislative Affairs Division and clarifying functions of the City Attorney's Office. The resolution and ordinance are related to items proposed in the budget amendment. 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; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 9, 2024; Tuesday, January 16, 2024; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE.   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund – Eats, LLC. The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for Eats, LLC, doing business as Eats Bakery at 159 West Broadway Suite #200 from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Eats, LLC is a vegan bakery specializing in donuts, sweet rolls, and cookies. This loan will assist in the creation of three new jobs in the next year and the retention of two current jobs.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance Clarification: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1435 South State Street The Council will consider clarifying its intent for ground floor uses on the State Street façade of 1435 South State Street. It is the Council’s intent that a minimum of 40% of the ground floor façade fronting State Street is included as active uses allowed in the zoning district, other than residential or parking.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Avenues Restrictive Covenant The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would relinquish Salt Lake City’s interests in restrictive covenants on 18 single-family properties in the Avenues neighborhood near LDS Hospital in Council District 3. The proposal would not change the zoning of the affected properties.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Rezone at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to CB (Community Business District). The proposal would allow for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Tyler Morris, representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00385.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Ordinance: Community Benefit and Tenant Displacement Amendments The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance designed to prevent the loss of existing affordable housing, counteract tenant displacement, and provide tenant relocation assistance when they are displaced by new development. The amendments to Salt Lake City Code would enact a new ordinance on General Plans (Title 19) and make corresponding changes in sections related to zoning (Titles 18 and 21A). These changes are designed to help implement policies approved by the Council in 2023 in the Thriving in Place anti-displacement plan. For more information visit tinyurl.com/ThrivingInPlace.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes over $1.8 million for police officer overtime related to the Clean Neighborhoods Program, three new full-time mechanics in the Fleet Division, $230,000 to expand a City air quality incentives program, and a new software tool to identify non-compliant short-term rentals among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 13, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date.   5. Resolution: University of Utah Baseball Stadium Public Benefits Analysis The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider authorizing a 99-year below-market ground lease to the University of Utah of 1.175 acres of City-owned property at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue. This lease would facilitate the expansion of the University’s baseball field to meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requirements for a competition field, but also result in the removal of one existing City-owned softball field and one multi- purpose field located at Sunnyside Park. In exchange for this lease, the University would commit $4.2 million to the City for improvements and new amenities at Sunnyside Park, as well as, possibly, other public benefits. The types of improvements and amenities would be determined through a community engagement process. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/UofUBaseballSunnysidePark.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   6. Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4) for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 4) for Fiscal Year 2023-24.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2024, 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, January 16, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Megan Yulli – Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Kelsey Lindquist – Senior Planner, Roberta Reichgelt – Business Development Director, Kristina Gilmore – Senior Planner, Ashley Cleveland – Mayor Executive Staff, Eric Daems – Senior Planner, Lisa Hunt – Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Greg Cleary – City Budget Director, Andrew Reed – Financial Analytics Manager The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Ashley Cleveland provided updates regarding: • Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Civic Engagement Highlights ◦ Reimagine Donner Trail Park - webpage and engagement report ◦ Reimagine Liberty Park Playground - webpage, upcoming event updates and engagement report ◦ Connect SLC (City-wide Transportation Plan) - webpage, draft plan, and comment form in English and Spanish ◦ Livable Streets - survey ◦ Accessibility in parks - survey ◦ Allen Park Concepts Survey - survey ◦ Making the Emerald Ribbon - story map and story sharing form ◦ Fleet Block Art Healing Comment Form - webpage and comment form ◦ Capitol Hill traffic calming - webpage ◦ Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendment - webpage ◦ Fighting the Freight Train Crisis - webpage and story sharing form in English and Spanish • Mayor’s Office – Annual Community Meetings series • Mayor’s Office ◦ Weekly Community Outreach Newsletter- https://slcgov.my.site.com/slccrm/s/newsletters?Start=Community% 20Outreach ◦ Community Office Hours - https://www.slc.gov/mayor/community- office- hours/ ◦ 29 Boards & Commissions representing over 280 residents, consultants, and partners City-wide https://www.slc.gov/boards/ ◦ Civic Engagement opportunities available at https://www.slc.gov/feedback/ Andrew Johnston provided updates regarding: Homeless Resource Center Utilization • 99% Full-base shelter capacity + winter beds • Code Blue beds have not been full yet Encampment Impact Mitigation: • No planned events due to Code Blue and recent storms • Still cleaning and some situational interventions occurring as needed Resource Fair: • February 9, 2024 – location to be determined MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2 Medically Vulnerable Persons (MVP) Program: • Opening as soon as next week Point In Time Count: • Thursday, January 25 to Saturday, January 27, 2024, 4:00-6:00 am • Volunteers are needed Code Blue Shelters: • 2nd & 2nd Coalition, Valley Behavioral Health, West Valley Winter Shelter, HRC's • Volunteers are needed 2.Ordinance: Rezone at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 (Single- Family Residential District) to CB (Community Business District). The proposal would allow for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Tyler Morris, representing the property owner. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 3 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the rezone proposal. Eric Daems presented the rezone, including: • Details of the request • Site context • What would change with the proposed zoning • Implementation of Master Plan objectives Council Members, Eric Daems and Kelsey Lindquist discussed: • Front facing access on 1300 South and 2300 South • Ownership of the surrounding properties • Planning Commission’s discussion on affordable housing within this development • Adding a community benefit to the development Tyler Morris (Applicant) reviewed the development, including: • Properties included in the redevelopment • The restaurant would be retained as a retail option • Access to the property • How the development would benefit the area • Project was consistent with the existing Master Plans Council Members, Nick Norris, Eric Daems and Tyler Morris discussed: • Parcels included in the proposal • If Commercial (CB) zoning had maximum parcel sizes • Affordable Housing Initiative and if it was applied to this development • The proposed development would eliminate the vast parking lot, but affordable housing was not a viable option for the development at this time • The number of units in the apartments and if the units would be included as part of the affordable housing • The Council wanted to know if the applicant would be amenable to entering into a development agreement to include affordable housing as part of the development ◦ Tyler Morris stated conversations would be needed between the development partners. The preference would be to not have any restrictions on unit rates, however; if it was the only way to get the development approved, options could be considered • The Council preferring some type of affordability be included in the project prior to approving the final rezone 3.Ordinance: Avenues Restrictive Covenant ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4 The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would relinquish Salt Lake City’s interests in restrictive covenants on 18 single-family properties in the Avenues neighborhood near LDS Hospital in Council District 3. The proposal would not change the zoning of the affected properties. Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the amendments. Krissy Gilmore presented the proposal including: • Background of the covenant •Restricted uses allowed on properties in the R-2 zone in effect at the time • Uses currently allowed in the SR-1A zone that were prohibited due to the restrictive covenant and the impact the restrictions had on property owners Allison Rowland gave a brief overview of the amendments. Nick Norris, Krissy Gilmore, and Kelsey Lindquist presented the proposal, highlighting: • Background of Thriving in Place • Key findings • Policy goals • Proposed amendments to Title 19, Chapter 21A.50, Title 18, Title 18.97, and Title 18.64.050 • Community Benefit Policy • Tenant relocation • Housing replacement • Standards for amendments • Data collection • Public engagement Council Members, Nick Norris, Krissy Gilmore, and Kelsey Lindquist discussed: • The amendments applied to both the zoning map and the Master Plan • Enforcement of the proposed amendments and cost involved in the process • Housing replacement fund and tenant relocation funds and how both would be maintained • How to ensure tenants were not evicted just because, or for wrongful purposes • Council’s discretion to waive requirements on a case by case basis • How the code applied to City-owned properties • If the benefits were expected to be provided on-site or if they could be provided off- site • The Council requested clarification on why housing was listed as a benefit - should have to prove it fit in to some form of deficit • Listing sustainability as a community benefit • Listing walkability under infrastructure • Tenant to chose where they were relocated • Clarification on the use of rental rates versus Area Median Income (AMI) in the ordinance MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 5 4.Ordinance: Community Benefit and Tenant Displacement Amendments ~ 2:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance designed to prevent the loss of existing affordable housing, counteract tenant displacement, and provide tenant relocation assistance when they are displaced by new development. The amendments to Salt Lake City Code would enact a new ordinance on General Plans (Title 19) and make corresponding changes in sections related to zoning (Titles 18 and 21A). These changes are designed to help implement policies approved by the Council in 2023 in the Thriving in Place anti-displacement plan. in the next year and the retention of two current jobs. Allison Rowland gave a brief overview of the proposal Roberta Reichgelt presented the proposal for Eats, LLC including background and loan request. 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:25 p.m. 35 min. The Council will receive a follow-up 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6 5.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund – Eats, LLC.~ 3:15 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for Eats, LLC, doing business as Eats Bakery at 159 West Broadway Suite #200 from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Eats, LLC is a vegan bakery specializing in donuts, sweet rolls, and cookies. This loan will assist in the creation of three new jobs Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview of the A-1 proposal for the Fire Department and the items listed on the Formal Meeting Agenda for the evening. Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt, Greg Cleary, and Andrew Reed presented the financial update as outlined in the presentation titled Revenue Update for Council located in the meeting materials. Council Members, Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt, and Greg Cleary discussed: • Difficulty in hiring employees in 2023 • Report did not include the proposed employees for the Fire Department or Attorney’s Office • $30M was one-time cost savings, not ongoing savings • Fund balance included Budget Amendment #3 • Compliance percentage • How funds could be used and spread out over time on projects • Information classified under marketing, tech companies in regard to sales taxes • Vacancy rates proved departments were trying to hold onto their employees • November tax information should be reported to Finance around January 20, 2024 A-2: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Management Employee Expenses ($14,225 from ARPA). •Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: ◦Why A-2 was coming to the Council in a Budget Amendment versus during regular budget season A-5: Additional Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction in Sugar House ($3,323,950 from Transportation Impact Fees) with the addition that a left hand turn from the property remain on Douglas Street. •Straw Poll: Support for Item A-5 and leaving a left hand turn on Douglas Street. Supported by all Council Members present. A-6: Additional Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction ($3,204,371 from Transportation Impact Fees) A-7: Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 from General Fund Balance) A-8: Additional Funds to Purchase Electric Trucks instead of Sedans for the Compliance Division ($20,000 from General Fund Balance) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 7 A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget ($200,000 from General Fund Balance) • Council Members stated: ◦ This fund should be ongoing ◦ Wanting secure bike storage on the Westside as bike locks were not reliable A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) • Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: ◦ Council wanted information on how many people used the kiosks versus the phone app (did the kiosks need to be updated if they were not being used) ◦ Different options for parking kiosks that could better serve the community ◦ Whether or not to approve this item now or wait until more information was available ◦Straw Poll: Support to separate this item from the rest of the budget amendment until more information was gathered. Supported by all Council Members present. A-11: Re-appropriation for Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund) • Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: ◦ Why a CIP project was lapsing when it was approved last year ◦ Who was the contract with and why was the rail spur required to be removed ◾Staff could not answer the questions at this time but would send the information to Council Members A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) • Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: ◦ If this was required since the Request for Proposal from the State required security from the provider ◦ Dictating the need for extra security 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) A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems ($250,000 from the IMS Fund Balance) • Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: ◦ Items that were approved at prior meetings ◦ Item I-1 regarding building security would be discussed during Closed Session MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 8 body. Mary Beth Thompson presented the assessment and questionnaire packet. 8.Tentative Break ~ 4:05 p.m. 20 min. 9.Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 4:25 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes a 1% cost of living increase for all Library employees and a new full-time employee for the Safety Team, among other items. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9 7.Informational: State of Utah Fraud Risk Assessment for 2023 ~ 4:00 p.m. 5 min The Council will receive a briefing from the Administration on the 2023 official fraud risk assessment. This annual report is required by state law to be presented to the legislative Ben Luedtke gave a brief introduction. Noah Baskett (Library Executive Director), and Tyler Bahr (Library Finance Director) presented the budget amendment, including: • Importance of libraries in City’s • Reasoning for the budget amendment request • 1% Cost of living adjustment (COLA) to all library employees and higher than budgeted medical insurance premiums ($166,240 from Library Fund Balance) • One new safety associate full-time employee (FTE) ($63,430 from Library Fund Balance) • $395,310 Revenue above recommended FY2024 annual budget Council Members, Noah Baskett, Dave Corrington (Library Public Safety Manager) and Tyler Bahr discussed: • The Council wanting more information on the increase in criminal activity/misbehavior at libraries and how it was defined • Benefits of security staff not being contracted and instead being full time City employees • Cost of living increase for library employees in the middle of the year when other City departments were not receiving it ◦ Library funds were based on sales tax and numbers came in after the FY2023 budget was approved • Measures used to determine the success of the Mobile Patrol • Why the new safety associate FTE was for a full year not just through June 2024 ◦ Needed to ensure the funds were available prior to funding the position ◦ If there was a plan to make sure there was a contingency for the FY2024 budget to ensure this type of thing did not happen again • Council requested regular reporting on safety incidents and suggested working with the Police Department on common terms/metrics for reporting 10.Informational: Central Wasatch Commission Update ~ 4:40 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update from the Central Wasatch Commission (CWC) about engagement and other activity related to local mountain areas, such as Millcreek, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood canyons. Lindsey Nielsen (Executive Director Central Wasatch Commission) presented the update, highlighting: • The Central Wasatch Commission (CWC) background and mission • Member jurisdictions • Member jurisdictions benefits • CWC stakeholders • Youth Council MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10 • 2023 Short-term projects • CWC led transit and transportation projects • Environmental Dashboard webpage Council Members and Lindsey Nielsen discussed: • Council requested more information on grants to provide to Community Councils and be made shareable in Council newsletters 11.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 5:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session. Angela Price (Legislative Affairs Director) and Kate Bradshaw (Director of Government Affairs – Holland & Hart LLP) reviewed: • Salt Lake City and five policy priorities: ◦ Homelessness ◦ Housing ◦ Energy ◦ Water ◦ Environment • HB298 – Homeless Services Amendments • HB207 – Utah Homelessness Council Amendments • Changes to Code Blue • HB306 – Residential Housing Amendments • Energy bills • Local control bills • Active transportation and railroad bills • Gratitude to the Recorder’s Office team for the refined tracking system • 1400 Bills having been requested so far this year at the session and 424 number bills having been released • HB261 - Equal Opportunity Initiatives Council Members, Angela Price, and Kate Brandshaw discussed: • Response from other City’s regarding HB261 ◦ Still reviewing impacts to training, hiring, how wide spread the impact was, and the local control • Utah League of Towns and City’s opinion of HB261 ◦ Bill was presented after the last meeting therefore a formal opinion was not known at this time ◦ Local control was the main concern • Council Members expressed willingness to assist in any way to amplify voices and the precedent this bill would set Angela Price and Kate Bradshaw presented: • HB453 – Airport Weapons Possession Amendments MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11 • HB13 – Infrastructure Financing Districts • HB84 – School Safety Amendments • HB56 – Highway Patrol Providing Security at the Airport ◦ Will remain in Rules Committee • HB223 – contained agreed upon Airport security measures and was still being worked on with the sponsor prior to moving forward • HB84 – School Safety Amendments • Bills Council Member wanted to be involved in: ◦ Mano – HB306 • Upcoming events where the Council could interact with the Legislators: ◦ Ice Skating – January 29, 2024 from 6:00 to 8:00pm ◦ Legislative Snack Break – February 14, 2024 ◦ Local Officials Day on the Hill – January 17, 2024 ◦ Friday’s at 3:00pm lobbyists were available for questions virtually for those not on the Legislative subcommittee, please no more than three Council Members at a time 12.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Sheridan Mordue ~ 5:30 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Sheridan Mordue prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 12 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Sheridan Mordue’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 13.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Barri Allaire ~ 5:35 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Barri Allaire prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. Interview held. Council Member Petro said Barri Allaire’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 14.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board –Travis English ~ 5:40 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Travis English prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council Board for a term ending January 16, 2027. Interview held. Council Member Petro said Travis English’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 15.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – Lisia Santini ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Lisia Santini prior to considering appointment to the Human Rights Commission Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. Interview held. Council Member Petro said Lisia Santini’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 16.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – Lucia Rodriguez ~ 5:50 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Lucia Rodriguez prior to considering appointment to the Human Rights Commission Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 13 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Lucia Rodriguez’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 17.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report 18.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. No report 19.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; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 14 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. The Closed Session started at 6:10 pm, ending at 6:30 pm relating to security personnel, devices or systems. Minutes and Recording not created for the topic of deployment of security personnel, devices or systems pursuant to UCA 52-4-206(6)(b) Minutes: Closed Session Started at 6:10 pm Held in the Work Session Room, ,Room 326 Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Petro, Lopez-Chavez, Dugan, Wharton, Mano, Puy, and Young. City Staff in Attendance: Megan Yulli, Katherine Lewis, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Whitney Gonzalez Fernandez, Lehua Weaver, Ben Luedtke, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 6:56 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Puy to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems and advice of Counsel for attorney-client matter. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez ABSENT: Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to exit Closed Session and adjourn. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 15 Meeting adjourned at 6:56 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Victoria Petro _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, January 16, 2024 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 16 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, January 9, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff, Sara Javoronok – Senior Planner, Chief Karl Lieb – Fire Administration, Chimalli Hernandez-Garcia – Neighborhood Specialist- Mayor Office, Katie Riser – Community Outreach Special Projects & Equity Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 4:48 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 1 Work Session Items 1.Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2024 ~ 4:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will take a straw poll to nominate the Council Chair and Vice Chair for calendar year 2024. The process includes expressions of interest from Council Members, nominations for each position, and then voting each for the Chair and Vice Chair positions. Council Member Mano stated it had been an honor to serve as the Chair for 2023 and reviewed the process of electing a Chair and Vice Chair for 2024. Council Member Puy nominated Council Member Petro for Chair. Council Member Petro accepted the nomination and expressed gratitude for the ability to watch/experience the expertise of past and current leadership. Cindy Lou Trishman read the ballot results. Council Members unanimously elected Council Member Petro as 2024 Chair of the City Council. Council Member Mano nominated Council Member Wharton for Vice Chair. Council Member Wharton accepted the nomination. Council Member Mano spoke to the reason for nominating Council Member Wharton as Vice Chair. Council Members unanimously elected Council Member Wharton as 2024 Vice Chair of the City Council. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2 Katie Riser provided updates regarding: Community Engagement •Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Planning Commission projects/events: ◦Historic Overlay Enforcement ◾January 10, 2024 ◦ Gas Stations New Water Bodies ◾January 10, 2024 • Other ◦ Demolition in Historic Districts •Public Lands projects/events: ◦ Emerald Ribbon – Phase 1 of engagement was now closed ◦ Warm Springs and North Gateway Park ◦ Park Survey closed December 30, 2023 Chimalli Hernandez-Garcia presented: Love your Block Program • Newly hired Neighborhood Specialists – Chimalli Hernandez-Garcia and Diana Ramirez • Expansion into Ballpark and Guadalupe • Open application March 1 to March 30, 2024 2022-2023 Recap • 72 website Community Improvement Projects • $110,000 invested into the Westside • 4,197 volunteers activated • www.slc.gov/mayor/love-your-block/ MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 3 2.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. • We still have three months for snowpack to build (or not) before the official start of the water year on April 1, 2024 • Monitoring was ongoing and continued conservation was important Andrew Johnston provided updates regarding: Homeless Resource Center (HRC) Utilization • 99% full-base shelter capacity + winter beds • Code Blue beds have not been full yet Encampment Impact Mitigation: • None – due to Code Blue and recent storms Resource Fair: • January 12, 2024, at Gail Miller HRC (inside for guests) • Fairs would be moved to all emergency shelter locations through the winter Point In Time Count: • Thursday, January 25 - Saturday, January 27, 2024 4:00 pm – 6:00 am • Volunteers were needed Code Blue Shelters: • 2nd & 2nd Coalition, Valley Behavioral Health, West Valley Winter Shelter, HRC's • Volunteers were needed MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 4 Lindsey Nikola presented: Hydrologic Update • Snowpack percent of median (1991-2020) for local watershed basins that were our primary sources of drinking water: City Creek Canyon - 87%, Parleys Canyon - 82%, Big Cottonwood Canyon - 73% Little Cottonwood Canyon - 92% • Snowpack percent of median (1991-2020) for other watershed basins of interest to Salt Lake City: Emigration Canyon - 87%, Mill Creek Canyon - 78% Jordan River - 72%, Great Salt Lake Basin - 78% • Deer Creek Reservoir, a critical water source and storage for SLC and the Wasatch Front is 94% full as of January 7, 2024 • Utah Lake, an important lynchpin for SLC water supplies and the entire Wasatch Front was currently at 93.71% full • Drought monitor as of January 2, 2024 – no drought listing for Salt Lake County and 68% of state; however, hydrologic drought persisted for the Great Salt Lake • While not as large as last year’s snowpack, we have seen much worse snowpack over the last several years. Over the next week, canyon watersheds were expected to receive several feet of snow, adding more water to our stored supply Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the proposal. Sara Javoronok presented the proposal including: • Project request – change from RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area-Urban Center-Core) Zoning District • What was allowable under each zoning district such as height and use • Future development plans were not submitted with the rezone application • Considerations of compatibility with planning documents and nearby properties • Planning Commission having forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council regarding the proposal • Positive feedback was received during the Planning Commission public hearing Council Members, Sara Javoronok, and Nick Tarbet discussed: • Ground floor activation requirements under current and proposed zoning • Size of units that would be constructed in the development ◦ A development plan was not required to be submitted with the application MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 5 •Affordability of units • Property included in the proposal • What public benefit would the development provide with the rezone request ◦ Street activation ◦ Options could be discussed when construction was underway 3. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East from RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district. This proposal would allow for ground-floor retail with residential units above the first floor, though the applicant has not included development plans with this request. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners, on behalf of the property owners. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/500South400EastRezone. Ordinance: Rezone at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 ~ 4:45 p.m. South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East Zack Jones (Applicant) and Lee Dial (Cowboy Partners Developer) stated the development was for 54 market rate two-bedroom units to provide affordable housing for downtown. Council Members, Zack Jones and Lee Dial discussed: Dee Brewer (Downtown Alliance Executive Director), Jessica Thesing (Downtown Alliance Deputy Director), and Carly Gillespie (Downtown Farmers Market Deputy Director/Urban Food Connections of Utah) presented: • Downtown Alliance 2023 report (full version of the report contained in the meeting materials) ◦ Downtown Alliance responsibilities ◦ Operating Budget FY2024 – $5,150,000 ◦ Key Objectives FY 2024 ◦ 2023 Stakeholder Engagement ◦ 2023 Economic Benchmark Report ◦ 2023 Marketing Highlights ◦ Downtown Visitation Trends 2022/2023 Current • Farmers Market Update ◦ Downtown Farmers Market impact 2023 ◦ Downtown Farmers Winter Market ◦ Downtown Farmers Market new location 2025 • Ambassadors Update ◦ 2023 Metrics • Open Streets 2023 Report ◦ Programming ◦ 2023 cost categories ◦ Activation comparison by year ◦ Costs and funding comparisons by year ◦ Future considerations MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6 and developments in downtown such as the Street Ambassador Program, Open Main Street, the increasing residential downtown population and visitors among other topics. The Downtown Alliance is funded by a special assessment of commercial properties downtown to pay for economic promotion activities and holiday lighting. The assessment was originally established in 1991 and has been reviewed, adjusted, and renewed every three years. 4.Informational: Downtown Alliance Updates ~ 5:05 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Downtown Alliance about program updates Council requested the Applicants meet with development partners and return with more information/options on what the public/community benefits would be if this rezone and additional height were allowed on this property. • Adding more units to a project did not justify a rezone of the property and was not a greater benefit to the community • Discussion of the end result needed to be brought to the table before the higher density could be granted • Setting a precedent for other projects asking for the same concession in the future • Requiring affordable housing could create an issue for the property and would not move forward • Difference with this application was the current and proposed zones were similar and allowed similar uses • Options for the proposal without denying or putting constraints on the application at this time • Next steps for the proposal among other items. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, and Karl Lieb discussed the Modified Proposal for item A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics Request for Two New full time employees (FTEs) and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs including: • The cost the current fiscal year would be neutral but in FY2025 the cost would be $133,266 • Purpose of staffing changes • Paramedic’s role versus an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT’s) • The need to do these types of changes in staffing during regular budget seasons and not in the interm Straw Poll Support for the modified proposal of item A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics Request for Two New FTEs and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs. Supported by all Council Members present. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 7 5.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 5:35 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up 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 Council Members, Dee Brewer, Jessica Thesing, and Carly Gillespie discussed: • How visitor statistics were tracked • Growth rates in the City • New location of the Farmers Market – importance of addressing parking, seating, and amenities • Ensuring a contingency plan was in place for moving the Farmers Market in 2025 in case the new location was not ready • What expanding the footprint of the Farmers Market included • Invite the Council into the conversations regarding moving the Farmers Market and budget line items to help Council Members make better decisions 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: • Review of the 2024 Calendar; • Financial Disclosure; • Newsletters for Public Utilities; and • Scheduling items. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 8 6.Board Appointment: Airport Board – Luz Escamilla ~ 6:05 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Luz Escamilla prior to considering appointment to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028. Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Senator Luz Escamilla’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 7.Board Appointment: Airport Board – Nathan Rafferty ~ 6:10 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Nathan Rafferty prior to considering appointment to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028. Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Nathan Rafferty’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 8.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report. (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. Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 9 - - 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 ment health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargainin c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigatio d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real propert 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 un consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of water right or water shares, if: (i)i) public discussion of the transaction wou (A)A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property un consideration; or (B)B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the b possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property woul offered for sale; and Cindy Gust- Jenson reviewed items needing the Council’s final approval: • Group Photo – scheduled for February 20, 2024 • Meeting Calendar ◦ Council to notify Staff of any conflicting dates • Financial Disclosure ◦ Council to notify Staff if they need any documents • Council District Newsletters for Public Utilities Mailing ◦ April – Mano ◦ August – Lopez Chavez ◦ December – Petro, Puy ◦ Will inform Liaison – Wharton Meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, January 9, 2024 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, December 12, 2023.  The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall  Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson –  Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst  The meeting was called to order at 7:00PM. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. Item not held. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of October 17, 2023, and November 7, 2023. Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the formal meeting minutes of October 17, 2023, and November 7, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 5.Recognition of Ana Valdemoros for her service as Council Member for District 4 from January 2019 to December 2023. Council Member Ana Valdemoros provided a video, played during the meeting detailing District 4/Council accomplishments and gratitude for her family, colleagues, staff, etc. Council Member Mano provided a statement from the City Council detailing Council Member Valdemoros’ achievements and contributions, gratitude for her service to the City, and presented a gift to the outgoing Council Member.  Council Member Puy thanked Council Member Valdemoros for her service to the City and commitment to the community.   6.Recognition of City Council Member Darin Mano for his service to Salt Lake City as 2023 Council Chair. Council Member Petro provided her congratulations and gratitude to Council Member Mano as the Council Chair, detailed many of his accomplishments, and presented a gift from Council Staff. Council Member Valdemoros offered her gratitude and said it was a honor to serve on the Council and work alongside Council Member Mano. Council Member Puy said he looked forward to Council Member Mano’s continued service on the Council and noted the sacrifices of holding the Chair/Vice Chair positions.  Council Member Wharton thanked Council Member Mano for his collaboration on MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2 challenging issues facing the Council and for his leadership. Council Member Dugan thanked Council Member Mano for his collaboration throughout his time as Council Chair. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. 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. The Council may also consider a resolution requesting admission to the firefighters retirement system for emergency medical service personnel and social workers, as well as an ordinance amending Chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code creating a Legislative Affairs Division and clarifying functions of the City Attorney's Office. The resolution and ordinance are related to items proposed in the budget amendment. 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 and Tuesday, December 12, 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    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Ben Luedtke provided a brief introduction to the budget amendment. There were no public comments.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing adopt Ordinance 81 of 2023 Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 as seen on the motion sheet. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3 AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Alejandro Puy Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:   1. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1380 South 900 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant owns the property located at 1380 South 900 West and intends to only develop that property. The other two properties are owned by a separate organization that asked to be included in this request to enable additional development flexibility. This proposal would accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Drake Powell of TAG SLC, representing the various property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00172.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 82 of 2023 Rezone at Approximately 1380 South 900 West. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Alejandro Puy Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Rezone at 2157 South Lincoln Street The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street from RB (Residential/Business District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). This proposal would facilitate the redevelopment of this, and the adjacent parcels into a multi-family residential project. The property is currently occupied by a Victorian home used as an office building. Under MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4 the proposal, the home would be preserved and used as part of the project. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Mark Isaac, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00239    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Young, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 78 of 2023, subject to the property owner entering a development agreement with the City that includes the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall, at its cost, maintain and repair the exterior of the Victorian home located on the property in approximately its current condition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the property owner may make exterior improvements on the interior facades (i.e., not facing Lincoln or Elm Streets) in order to comply with current building occupancy codes. 2. In no event shall the owner directly, or through its agents, employees, or tenants (1)-materially alter the architecturally significant exterior features of the Victorian home, (2) increase or decrease the Victorian home’s height, or (3) adversely affect the structural integrity of the Victorian home. 3. The property owner shall construct sidewalks a minimum of seven feet wide abutting the Lincoln Street, Elm Avenue, and 1000 East sides of the properties currently owned by the property owner. Park strips abutting the 7-foot sidewalk shall be either maintained in their current turf-covered state, or, if replaced, landscaped with mulch, pavers, or concrete, and street trees shall be installed in order to achieve 33% vegetation at maturation. 4. This development agreement shall run with the land for a period of 50 years. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Alejandro Puy Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 5 There were no questions/comments. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   Council Member Mano provided the rules of decorum. En Canada (District 5 resident), Jaz Dumas (District 6 resident), Josefa Martinez, Frank Vales, Ambreen Khan (District 2 resident), William (no last name), Stephanie Mortensen, Olivia Marron, Tania Heisten, Christina Christensen, Tensor Elmikawy, Venus Tea, Cael Crosby, Annastina Sims, Leafa Vai, Darik Avak, Aziz Guzay, Cristobal Villegas, Cael Crosby, Annastina Sims, Leafa Vai, Darik Avak, Aziz Guzay, and Naomi (no last name), spoke regarding the current conflict in Palestine. Comments included: the Council needing to represent their residents by supporting a cease-fire, an ordinance or resolution was needed to end all foreign aid to Israel, Egypt and any nations involved in the genocide, supporting a cease- fire was needed to release hostages, atrocities were being committed in Palestine, lives could be saved by setting a precedence that Salt Lake City stood with human rights, a statement in support of Palestine from the Council would be meaningful and would set an example for the way cities could use their platform to spread important messages, and the Council had failed its constituents by continuing to fund the Israeli occupational forces across seas.  Daniel McRae thanked first responders for assisting his family member involved in an accident, expressed appreciation to the Mayor for visiting the family member in the hospital, and detailed ongoing issues/concerns with the Salt Lake City Engineering and Planning Departments.  Stan Holmes spoke regarding Consent Item – G1 (Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment ordinance) and provided a handout further detailing his comments regarding the item, including water conservation information, Urban Forestry cooperation issues, landscaping requirements being burdensome for low-income families, etc. Trent (no last name) spoke to the history of Utah and its connections to the genocide of indigenous people and urged the Council to be on the right side of history.  C Brown spoke of appreciation to the community for coming out to speak/sharing their voices and hoped the Council would listen and stand on the right side of history by calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. Council Member Petro took a moment of personal privilege and asked the community to stay curious and invited them to consider what a cease-fire demand looked like (what would be significant) to them and to provide the Council with suggestions, and furthermore consider how would the Council still protect its constituents while staying on the right side of history. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 6     E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Code of Conduct The Council will consider approving a resolution that would adopt the Code of Conduct.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider options.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to adopt Resolution 36 of 2023, officially adopting a Code of Conduct for the Salt Lake City Council. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations The Council will consider adopting an ordinance authorizing a temporary shelter community at approximately 255 South 600 West for up to six months. The temporary shelter is a pilot program managed in collaboration with the State Office of Homeless Services. The site has 27 portable living structures intended to provide temporary living quarters for up to 50 persons experiencing homelessness and office space for at least two on-site support staff.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7 motions.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to adopt Ordinance 79 of 2023 enacting temporary land use regulations authorizing a temporary shelter community at approximately 255 South 600 West Street. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Tentative Resolution: Requesting Emergency Medical Service Personnel Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System The Council may consider adopting a resolution requesting that emergency medical service personnel including paramedics and social workers be admitted to the Tier 2 Firefighter Utah Retirement System. This resolution relates to an item in Budget Amendment No.3 proposing new civilian single-role paramedic full-time employees in the Fire Department.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 and Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Petro to defer action to a future date. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Tentative Ordinance: Creating a Division of Legislative Affairs and Clarifying Functions of the City Attorney’s Office The Council may consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Salt Lake City Code MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 8 2.08.040 creating a Division of Legislative Affairs and clarifying functions of the City Attorney’s Office, including the City Recorder and outside executive or legislative counsel.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 and Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 80 of 2023 amending section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake Cty Code creating a Division of Legislative Affairs and clarifying functions of the City Attorney’s Office. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass   G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting 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 and Tuesday, December 12, 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   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9  Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Brian Scott The Council will consider approving the appointment of Brian Scott to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 12, 2027.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   3. Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Lana Taylor The Council will consider approving the appointment of Lana Taylor to the Arts Council Board for a term ending December 12, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   4. Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Sabrina Martinez The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sabrina Martinez to the Arts Council Board for a term ending December 12, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   5. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Luz Escamilla The Council will consider approving the appointment of Luz Escamilla to the Airport Board for a term ending December 12, 2027.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Reappointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Durga Ekambaram The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Durga Ekambaram to the Cultural Core Finance Committee Board for a term ending December 12, 2027    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 11   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to approve the Consent agenda except for items G2 and G5. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to approve item G2. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro RECUSED: Darin Mano Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Minutes: Council Member Mano noted that Item G5 would be revisited when the board appointee could be interviewed and recused himself for the vote on Item G2. H.ADJOURNMENT:       MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 12 Meeting adjourned at 8:28 PM. Minutes Approved:  _______________________________  City Council Chair - Victoria Petro _______________________________  City Recorder - Cindy Trishman Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely.  This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, December 12, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 13 JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2024 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, Black History Month is a time to celebrate the far-reaching contributions made by Black Americans throughout our country’s history, that have shaped our nation and our city for the better; and WHEREAS, the origin of Black History Month can be traced back to 1926 when Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which he co-founded, declared the second week of February “Negro History Week;” and WHEREAS, expanding upon the work of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Black History Month was first proposed by Black educators, students, and the Black United Students group at Kent State University in 1969; and WHEREAS,In 1970, the first celebration of Black History Month took place at Kent State and six years later, in 1976, was recognized by President Gerald Ford urging Americans to “honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history;” and WHEREAS,contributions by Black Americans have influenced all facets of society, from culture to religion, from education to business and public service, and more; and WHEREAS,it is our honor to acknowledge and celebrate the heritage, perseverance, and achievements of Black Americans in our nation’s history. We acknowledge their struggle as an American struggle and at its core reflects upon our society; and WHEREAS,in Salt Lake City and Utah, we have many heroes to look up to and learn from. From trailblazers of the past, current leaders, as well as the luminaries of the future. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Salt Lake City recognizes the month of February as Black History Month and the importance of Black History Month as an opportunity to reflect on the complex history of the United States, while remaining hopeful and confident about the path ahead. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City remain dedicated to dismantling racial inequality while advancing equity and justice to all. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City is committed to continuing the progress made throughout Black history, but also to ensure a positive Black future. We create history every day, and if we work together to make our today better than yesterday, our tomorrow will only be that much brighter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the theme for Black History Month 2024 is “Black Resistance.” We have the opportunity and responsibility to not only reflect on the obstacles overcome but to also make the present a time where Black Americans equitably excel and thrive. Adopted this _____ day of February 2024 __________________________ ______________________ Erin Mendenhall Victoria Petro, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District One __________________________ ________________________ Chris Wharton, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two ______________________________ ____________________________ Eva Lopez Chavez Darin Mano Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five __________________________ __________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Item B1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 6, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 357 East 500 South, 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East PLNPCM2023-00403 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. (Additional information will be provided by the petitioner after the public hearing. The Council may want to consider continuing the hearing.) MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 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:February 6, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 357 East 500 South, 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East PLNPCM2023-00403 BRIEFING UPDATE Much of the discussion at the January 9, 2024 briefing was focused on what community benefit would be provided if the properties are rezoned. Affordable housing, family-sized units, and green space were among the considerations Council Members suggested. The petitioner said they planned for market rate units but would consider some affordable units. They noted that, given current market conditions, it may be years before a project is developed on the parcels. They also discussed a multi-family project with 54 two- bedroom units that is under construction on one of the parcels. This building is being constructed under the existing RMU-45 zoning. Some Council Members expressed concern with approving the zoning map amendment before more information about what is planned for the site is provided. The petitioner will provide more information to the Council after discussing it with the property owner and other applicants. The following information was provided for January 9, 2024 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for parcels at 357 East 500 South, 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East in City Council District Four from their current RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) zoning designation to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Item Schedule: Briefing: January 9, 2024 Set Date: January 16, 2024 Public Hearing: February 6, 2024 Potential Action: February 20, 2024 Page | 2 Area-Urban Center-Core). The proposed zoning would allow greater building height than the current RMU-45 zoning. Current zoning allows residential buildings up to 45 feet high (up to 55 feet through design review). The proposed zoning allows buildings up to 90 feet, with potential for an additional story if the development score qualifies for administrative review. Though plans have not been submitted, the petitioner’s stated intent is to construct a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial and retail, with residential uses above. The four subject properties total approximately 1.28 acres and include one- and two-story buildings used for commercial purposes. A single-story commercial building at 357 East 500 South was recently demolished. In 2010 the Central Community Master Plan was amended with the block’s various land use designations changing to “Civic/Mixed-Use.” Prior to that time the subject parcels were designated as Residential/Office Mixed Use. A City initiated zoning map amendment was adopted in 2012 which changed the zoning from RO (Residential/Office) to the current RMU-45. Zoning on the block includes a mix of R-MU-45, TSA-UC-C, and PL-2 (Public Lands (the Public Safety Building is west of the subject properties). Zoning on adjacent blocks consists of TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area - Urban Neighborhood – Core), RO, R-MU, and PL-2 as shown in the zoning map below. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in yellow. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke in support of the proposal. Planning staff received email comments expressing concern with loss of mountain and downtown views, traffic, parking, congestion, pollution, and construction issues. Planning staff recommended and the Commission Page | 3 voted 8-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner who voted against the motion did not state why he was opposed. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Affordable Housing Incentives may impact this petition or development potential on the property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 - How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment generally aligns with Plan Salt Lake, the Central Community Master Plan, and Housing Salt Lake’s goals and initiatives. It would provide redevelopment potential for additional density in an area with existing infrastructure and served by transit. Consideration 2 – Compatibility with nearby properties. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed TSA-UC-C zoning is appropriate based on land to the north of the Public Safety Building with the same zoning, and the site’s proximity to the Trax Library Station. It should be noted that the current RMU-45 zoning requires one parking space per dwelling unit, and 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail goods and services establishments. The proposed TSA-UC-C zoning does not have a minimum parking requirement. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height, setback, and other requirements for the current RMU-45 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts. RMF-35 (Current)TSA-UC-C (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 45 feet, except that nonresidential buildings are limited to 20 feet and nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor. 90 feet, buildings with a roof with at least two sloping planes may be allowed up to 105 feet. An additional story may be added when a project has a development Page | 4 Buildings up to a maximum of 55 feet, may be authorized through the design review process. score that qualifies for administrative review. Yards/Setbacks Nonresidential, Multifamily, and Mixed Use: Front/Corner side yard: Minimum five feet, Maximum 15 feet. Interior side yard: No setback required. Rear yard: 25% of lot depth, but need not exceed 30 feet. 500 South: Front/Corner side yard: Minimum is equal to the average setback of other principal buildings on the same block face. All other streets: Front/Corner side yard: None Interior side and rear yards: Minimum: None, based on existing surrounding zoning. Minimum Open Space For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential uses, not less than 20% of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. This open space area may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. Open space areas shall be provided at a rate of one square foot for every 10 square feet of land area included in the development, up to 5,000 square feet for core areas, and up to 2,500 square feet for transition areas. Open space areas include landscaped yards, patios, public plazas, pocket parks, courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space area amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to the users of the building(s). Parking Structures/Circulation Parking structures not attached to the principal building shall maintain a 45-foot minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking is prohibited between the street-facing building line and any front or corner side property line. This shall include any drive aisle that is not perpendicular to the front or corner side property line. Lot Area/Width Multi-Family Dwellings: 5,000 square feet for new lots. No minimum for existing lots. 50-foot lot width. Nonresidential Uses: No minimum lot area or lot width. *See table in 21A.24.168.C for additional uses Minimum lot area: 2,500 square feet. Minimum lot width: 40 feet. Do not apply to existing lots Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 31-32) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page | 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. The Police Department said the current placement of communications antennas and dishes would not be impacted by a new building at the subject location. The department wondered whether additional point-to- point connections on a new building would be possible. Discussions about installing equipment on a new building would not involve the City Council. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • May 24, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • June 8, 2023-Petition assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner. • June 15, 2023-Email sent to Central City Community Council informing them of the petition. • August 31, 2023- o Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. o Notices mailed to property owners/residents. o Sign posted on property • September 13, 2023- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 8-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • September 14, 2023-Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s Office. Page | 6 • September 26, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • October 17, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ 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: PLNPCM2023-00403 – 500 S and 400 E STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP Senior Planner sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting a Zoning Map amendment for the properties at approximately 357 E 500 S, 375 E 500 S, 464-466 S 400 E, and 460-462 S 400 E. The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the parcels from the RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area – Urban Center – Core) zoning district. Future development plans were not submitted with the application. The applicant’s anticipated use of the site is for ground floor retail with residential units above the first floor. The four properties are approximately 1.28 acres, or 55,750 sq. ft. The existing properties are occupied by 1-2 story buildings with commercial uses. The land use designation for the property is Civic/Mixed Use. A city initiated zoning map amendment adopted in 2012 for the 400 South Livable Communities changed the zoning of the property from RO (Residential/Office) to RMU- 45 (PLNPCM2010-00647). The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the existing rachel otto (Oct 17, 2023 11:38 MDT)10/17/2023 10/17/2023 land use designation. The 357 E 500 S site was the subject of PLNPCM2021-01109 and PLNPCM2021-01150, a Planned Development and Design Review approved by the Planning Commission in March 2022. There is a building permit in for review for this approval. Zoning map with subject properties outlined in yellow The zoning on the adjacent properties is a mix of districts: North: RMU-45, occupied by a two-story commercial building South: RO, occupied by a two-story commercial building East: TSA-UN-C, occupied by a three-story commercial building, rezoned from RMU- 45 to TSA-UN-C in 2021 with PLNPCM2020-00804 West: PL-2, Public Safety Building The existing and proposed zoning districts permit the anticipated use for the subject properties – a mixed use building with retail on the first floor and residential units on the upper floors. There are several differences as follows: • The RMU-45 zoning district is designed for urban neighborhoods where there is a mix of uses, and the TSA zoning districts are located around light rail transit stations. The Urban Center Core area has a specific emphasis on the proximity to a transit station and supporting rather than competing with downtown. • The RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) zoning district is within Chapter 24: Residential Districts in the city’s zoning ordinance, and the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area – Urban Center – Core) zoning district is within Chapter 26: Commercial Districts. This results in a wider range of permitted and conditional uses in the TSA-UC-C zoning district compared to the RMU-45 zoning district. This is detailed in Attachment D of the staff report to the Planning Commission. • The proposed TSA-UC-C zoning district allows for greater height than the existing zoning district, approximately three additional stories. The RMU-45 zoning district permits 45’ in building height by right. An additional 10’ can be requested and is reviewed through the Design Review process. The previously reviewed proposal requested an additional 5’ through the Planned Development process for a total of 60’. The proposed TSA-UC-C zoning district allows for 90’ by right and an additional story can be added when a proposal meets the administrative review requirements during the TSA Review process. The same as in the RMU-45 zoning district, an additional 5’ could be added through the Planned Development process. • Both zoning districts have smaller setbacks typical for urban neighborhoods. There are minimum open space requirements for both zoning districts and these spaces can be in plazas or courtyards. TSA-Core zoning districts do not have a minimum parking requirement and the RMU-45 zoning district requires 1 space per dwelling unit and 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for retail goods and services establishments. The two zoning districts have extensive design standards. The TSA standards are more restrictive compared to the RMU-45 standards. Less EIFS is permitted, durable materials are required on upper floors, trees are required in yards greater than 10’, building entrances are required more frequently, and there is a limit on the building length. With the rezoning in 2012, the RMU-45 zoning district was established based on the existing and anticipated development in the area. Over the intervening years, significant development has occurred on 400 South and adjacent areas. In this case, the proposed TSA-UC-C zoning district is appropriate for the subject properties based on the existing TSA-UC-C zoned land to the north of the public safety building parking area and the site’s proximity to the Trax Library Station. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposal on September 13, 2023. Two members of the public spoke in support of the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council by a vote of 8-1. The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was submitted: • June 15, 2023 – The Central City Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Staff did not receive a response. • June 15, 2023 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. Staff received a number of comments related to the proposal. Most comments were not in support of the request. The concerns expressed related to loss of mountain and downtown views, traffic, parking, congestion, pollution, and issues with construction. • June-September 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • August 31, 2023 o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property • August 31, 2023 o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of September 13, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of September 13, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of September 13, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance: Final and Legislative Versions 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Mailing List 1. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the zoning of properties located at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464- 466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East from RMU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area – Urban Center – Core District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00403. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 13, 2023 to consider a petition by Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners to rezone four parcels located at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East (Tax ID Nos. 16-06-405-025-0000, 16-06-405-019-0000, 16-06- 405-013-0000, and 16-06-405-012-0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from RMU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area – Urban Center – Core District; and WHEREAS, at its September 13, 2023, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“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 Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be 2 and hereby is rezoned from RMU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area – Urban Center – Core District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 357 East 500 South, 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 26, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 357 East 500 South Tax ID No. 16-06-405-025-0000 Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 35, Plat "B", Salt Lake City Survey and running thence West 7.5 Rods; thence North 193.4 feet; thence East 7.5 rods; thence South 193.4 feet to the place of beginning. 375 East 500 South Tax ID No. 16-06-405-019-0000 Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 35, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey and running thence West 165 feet (South 89°45’41” West 165 feet per county); thence North 82.5 feet (North 00°14’24” West 82.5 feet per county); thence East 165 feet (North 89°45’41” East 165 feet per county); thence South 82.5 feet (South 00°14’24” East 82.5 feet per county) to the place of beginning. 464 - 466 South 400 East Tax ID No. 16-06-405-013-0000 Commencing 5 rods North of the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 35, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey and running thence North 54 feet; thence West 165 feet; thence South 54 feet; thence East 165 feet to the place of beginning. 460 - 462 South 400 East Tax ID No. 16-06-405-012-0000 Commencing 136.5 feet North of the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 35, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey and running thence North 61.5 feet; thence West 165 feet; thence South 61.5 feet; thence East 165 feet to the place of the beginning. 2. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00403 May 24, 2023 Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners submits an application for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties at approximately 357 E 500 S, 375 E 500 S, 464-466 S 400 E, and 460-462 S 400 E. June 8, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00403 assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. June 15, 2023 Email sent to Central City Community Council informing them of the petition. August 31, 2023 Sign posted on property. August 31, 2023 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. Notices also mailed out to property owners/residents. September 13, 2023 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public hearing. The commission voted 8-1 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. September 14, 2023 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00403, a rezone request at approximately 500 S and 400 E. Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties at approximately 357 E 500 S, 375 E 500 S, 464-466 S 400 E, and 460-462 S 400 E. The proposal is for a map amendment from RMU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district. This zoning district allows for greater building height than permitted in the RMU-45 zoning district. The four properties are approximately 1.28 acres, or 55,750 sq. ft. Future development plans were not submitted with the application. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. 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 Sara Javoronok at 801-535-7625 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at sara.javoronok@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00403. 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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 4. MAILING LIST FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP BALIC, BELMA 1029 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DOWNTOWN SLC B RETAIL CONDOLLC 11 PARK PL 1340 NEW YORK NY 10007 EXCHANGE B CONDOMINIUMOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC 11 PARK PL 1705 NEW YORK NY 10007 DOWNTOWN SLC B LLC 11 PARK PL #1705 1340 NEW YORK NY 10007 DOWNTOWN SLC A OWNER LLC 11 PARK PLACE STE 1705 1340 NEW YORK NY 10007 HORSEY SAUCE PARTNERS, LLC 1178 W LEGACY CROSSING BL 100 CENTERVILLE UT 84014 LETE ODENCRANTZ TRET AL 1209 N EIGHTH ST BOISE ID 83702 LYNN & HOLLY WEBSTER IRR TRET AL 1285 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 YUNG, DONALD J & DOROTHEA M;JT 1311 W RIVER ROAD GRAND ISLAND NY 14072 PATIENCE LLC 1366 E ARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ENGLISH, MARY C 1411 S UTAH ST #11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KERBS, HYRUM J 1594 E MEADOWMOOR RD HOLLADAY UT 84117 GRAY, FORREST E &MARI-CRUZ F; JT 1605 S ORCHARD DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 PAULSON, ANDREW 1700 E 4TH ST AUSTIN TX 78702 NEXSTEP GROUP, LLC 176 N 2200 W #200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JENSEN, MARK L &SARA M; TRS 1833 S 1600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 EVANS, JENNIFER A 1902 E MARY DOTT WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 210 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 MS2, LLC 2180 S 1300 E 240 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HEGEHOLZ, KYLE 222 E PEARSON ST #1609 CHICAGO IL 60611 500 SOUTH LLC 2223 S HIGHLAND DR E6331 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BRAY, JEFFERY; JTBRAY, ALEXANDRA; JT 2436 E KENTUCKY AVE HOLLADAY UT 84117 AR DEVELOPMENT LLC 2618 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 MATINKHAH, ALI A 2618 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 TOWNE PARK CONDMN PH 1,2 & 3COMMON AREA MASTER CARD 262 E 3900 S #200 MURRAY UT 84107 Current Occupant 266 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 BEEHIVE BAIL BONDS INC 268 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 270 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 GOL SLC CONDO, LLC 2737 NETHERLAND AVE RIVERDALE NY 10463 LEADBEATER, JOHN C &ALICE P; JT 3006 SLOUGH DR TEMPLE TX 76502 COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC 3007 S STATE ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 Current Occupant 310 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 SCHELL, WILLIAM J I; JTSCHELL, MELANIE N B; JT 3103 SUMMERSET DR BOZEMAN MT 59715 Current Occupant 319 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 324 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 325 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 330 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 332 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 333 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 337 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 SLC REALTY GROUP LLC 3370 N HAYDEN RD STE 123-992 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251 HEMINGWAY, PETER 339 E 600 S 1111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BAUMWOHL, DARREN 339 E 600 S 1201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MADER, JEFFREY SMADER, KATHERINE 339 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BARBER, MATTHEW E; JTBARBER, JESSICA G; JT 339 E 600 S 1206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SAMUEL ANKENY LINCOLN IIIFAMILY TR 339 E 600 S 1212 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FITZPATRICK, CHRISTINA B; JTFITZPATRICK, JEFFREY J; JT 339 E 600 S 1301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DHALIWAL, TISHNA D; JTDHALIWAL, RAMANBIR S; JT 339 E 600 S 1302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FISCHER, KELLIE 339 E 600 S 1307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 STOVRAG, HASA 339 E 600 S 1310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 EGBERT, REBEKAH 339 E 600 S 1311 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MISHLER, ANGELA; JTMISHLER, LUKE; JT 339 E 600 S 1312 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SWAYZE, BRANDON; JTBOLES, ASHLEY K; JT 339 E 600 S 1405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FITZGERALD, JOSEPH T; ET AL 339 E 600 S 1407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LIVINGSTON, JAMES A 339 E 600 S 1408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1101 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1102 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1103 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1104 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1105 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1106 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1107 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1108 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1109 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1110 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1112 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1202 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1204 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1205 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1207 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1208 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1209 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1210 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1211 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1303 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1304 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1305 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1306 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1308 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1309 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1401 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1402 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1403 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1404 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1409 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1410 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1411 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 339 E 600 S #1412 Salt Lake City UT 84111 HEINS, ZOE 339 E 600 S #1101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAELY, JOSHUA R 339 E 600 S #1102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GRANGROTH, REED 339 E 600 S #1105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SAUCEDO, ABELARDO 339 E 600 S #1106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BLOCH, ROBIN A 339 E 600 S #1107 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LUTHI, J RYCK 339 E 600 S #1109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DIAMOND, MATT 339 E 600 S #1110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PIERCE, WILIAM D &ANDREA U; TRS 339 E 600 S #1202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PETERSON, CHARLES R; TR 339 E 600 S #1205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BAUMGARDNER, INGRID 339 E 600 S #1207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OSBORN, JESSE L 339 E 600 S #1209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HOGUE, EDWARD E 339 E 600 S #1210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SCHMIDT, DAVID K &PILAR L; TC 339 E 600 S #1211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SKROBO, ANA 339 E 600 S #1304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HALGRIM, WILLIAM C &ROBERTA R; JT 339 E 600 S #1305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ARNOLD DIAZ LIV TRARNOLD DIAZ; TR 339 E 600 S #1308 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WHITE, TIMOTHY J & CINDY L(JT) 339 E 600 S #1309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MORTENSEN, JEFFREY P 339 E 600 S #1410 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 341 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 347 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 400 S #G1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 400 S #200 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 400 S #300 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 400 S #400 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 351 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 353 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 355 E 500 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 357 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 368 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 370 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 375 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 376 PLACE LLC 376 E 400 S 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KOELLIKER, BRUCE 380 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BAICHWAL, VIHAY R &VARSHA; TRS 398 TAMPA COURT FOSTER CITY CA 94404 Current Occupant 405 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 BOUZEK, JOHN 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 409 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 410 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 412 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 414 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 GANSTER, GAYLE G; TR(NSWG TRUST) 4173 S TROPICO DR LA MESA CA 91941 Current Occupant 420 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 421 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 425 SOUTH LLC 425 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 430 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 4N LLC 4301 S FEDERAL WY BOISE ID 83716 Current Occupant 431 S 400 E #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 433 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 435 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 447 S BLAIR ST #100 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 447 S BLAIR ST #201 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 447 S BLAIR ST #301 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 447 S BLAIR ST #401 Salt Lake City UT 84111 AI&I HOLDINGS, LLC 448 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 460 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 461 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 466 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 PAUL, ADAM L; JTPAUL, DIANNA M C; JT 475 N REDWOOD RD # 84 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 475 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 EIGHTH CORP OF CH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE #FL-22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 RUSSELL, VICENTE J A; JTSOWARDS, JOHN M; JT 500 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 515 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 E 400 S #2303 Salt Lake City UT 84111 ROBINSON, CHARLES; JTKHODAKOVA, ELENA; JT 530 S 400 E 2102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FLANNERY, MEGHAN 530 S 400 E 2106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CANTER, RONALD L; JTCANTER, MARY T; JT 530 S 400 E 2108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 O'NEILL, COLLEEN M &NELSON, JOHN G; JT 530 S 400 E 2110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MCDONALD, LINDA S; TR 530 S 400 E 2112 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FOWLER, ARIN 530 S 400 E 2202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARK, JONATHAN 530 S 400 E 2205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LICCARDO, MARTIN C 530 S 400 E 2207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PEAVIER, SETH T 530 S 400 E 2208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GODDARD, GREGORY; JTGODDARD-WALL, KARMEN; JT 530 S 400 E 2209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DARLING, ETHAN 530 S 400 E 2210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SCHLEMAN, ILANA V 530 S 400 E 2301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KILBURN, MEAGAN M 530 S 400 E 2305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DONA, STEPHEN T 530 S 400 E 2307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WIGHT, BRAYTON A 530 S 400 E 2309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ORR, CARSON F 530 S 400 E 2310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BARNES, KEVIN 530 S 400 E # 2401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KEMMOCHI, TOMOHIRO 530 S 400 E 2405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BAKER, BENJAMIN I 530 S 400 E 2407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LACY, MAREN 530 S 400 E 2410 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 POURAEIN, KIANA; JTBARKESSEH, FARZANEH; JT 530 S 400 E 2412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2101 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2103 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2104 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2105 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2107 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2109 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2111 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2201 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2203 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2204 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2206 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2211 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2212 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2302 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2304 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2306 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2308 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2311 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2312 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2402 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2403 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2404 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2408 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2409 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 530 S 400 E #2411 Salt Lake City UT 84111 BISHOP, MARION &SHIRLEY; JT 530 S 400 E #2103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KAREN ANN TROUT 06/22/2000TROUT, KAREN A; TR 530 S 400 E #2104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHIDESTER, JEFF 530 S 400 E #2105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ABEL, ELIZABETH J 530 S 400 E #2201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WHITE, CONNOR JAMES 530 S 400 E #2211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AGUIRRE, BRENDA J 530 S 400 E #2303 2303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DUTKOWSKI, STEFAN 530 S 400 E #2304 2304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THOMAS, RUBY; TR(RT LIV TRUST) 530 S 400 E #2306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HARRIS, HEATH D 530 S 400 E #2402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CAMERON, JAMES; JTCAMERON, JOAN; JT 530 S 400 E #2404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KORKUT, MAID 530 S 400 E #2408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ZHANG, LIN 530 S 400 E #2409 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HART, SYDNEY 530 S 400 E #2411 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOAQUIN, AUSTIN C 5332 W PEGGY LN WEST VALLEY UT 84120 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 FADDIS, DAVE W; JTFADDIS, ALISON L; JT 550 S 400 E 3103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 POSEY, KATHRYN; JTPOSEY, LOGAN M; JT 550 S 400 E 3104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HAFEN, SPENCER 550 S 400 E 3105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HAFEN, SPENCER 550 S 400 E 3107 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHEKMAREV, YEGOR D 550 S 400 E 3109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THOMPSON, PATTE 550 S 400 E #3202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAYTON, BARBARA J; JTDAYTON, STEVEN L; JT 550 S 400 E 3203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BRADSHAW, PATRICIA L; JTBRADSHAW, AUDREY E; JT 550 S 400 E 3204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TODOROFF, DAVID; JTBRADSHAW, PATRICIA L; JT 550 S 400 E 3205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONRAD, WILLIAM D 550 S 400 E 3207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOBROVA, ANASTASIYA 550 S 400 E 3208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JARRARD, JUDITH A 550 S 400 E 3209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LAW, MARIAH A 550 S 400 E 3210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BACKMAN, MICHELLE L; JTMERRILL, DAVID A; JT 550 S 400 E 3211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GREENWAY, TODD 550 S 400 E 3301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MITCHELL, TRAVIS J 550 S 400 E 3302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TATE, BARBARA A 550 S 400 E 3303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DUBAL, HARSH &JOSHI, DHARA; JT 550 S 400 E 3304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DUBAL, HARSH &JOSHI, DHARA; JT 550 S 400 E 3304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 YOUNG, COURTNEY M 550 S 400 E 3306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KREBS, JEFFREY FKREBS, MICHELLE M 550 S 400 E #3308 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KEARNS, THOMAS; JTKEARNS, JAMIE; JT 550 S 400 E 3309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DEHLAVI, ADAM A 550 S 400 E 3310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MILLER, ANTHONY D; JTMILLER, SUSAN J; JT 550 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BIRCUMSHAW, COLIN F; JTFITZGERALD, J T; JT 550 S 400 E 3403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GONZALEZ, MARLENE F 550 S 400 E 3404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAWICK FAM TRET AL 550 S 400 E 3405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BROWN, JORDAN; JTBROWN, SHAYLEE P; JT 550 S 400 E UNIT 3408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3101 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3102 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3106 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3108 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3110 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3111 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3112 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3201 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3206 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3212 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3307 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3311 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3401 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3402 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3407 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3409 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3410 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3411 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E #3412 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 550 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 WHYTE, CHARLES E;ET AL 550 S 400 E #3106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WRIGHT, NATHAN 550 S 400 E #3108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HIGBEE, KELLER 550 S 400 E #3402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LEBER, JEANNE M 550 S 400 E #3407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BLUTH, JOHN 550 S 400 E #3412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CRUZ, JOSE A &AILEEN T; JT 5543 EMERALED POINTE DR SUGAR LAND TX 77479 OJALA, JANNE; JTOJALA, TUIJA; JT 605 CENTRAL AVE SAINT JOSEPH MI 49085 I & Y PROPERTIES LLC 6076 W DESERT STAR LN HERRIMAN UT 84096 GRIFFITH, MONTE R &NANCY J; JT 62 BENCHMARK VILLAGE TOOELE UT 84074 STERIN, MARK 621 NEWMAN PL MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043 DEVEDZIC, BENJAMIN 6268 S LORREEN DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 KOPF, RICHARD S; TCET AL 64 TRACY CT ALAMO CA 94507 LIBERTY DUET ASSOCIATES, LLC 6440 S WASATCH BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 433 SOUTH 400 EAST, LLC 672 E UNION SQ SANDY UT 84070 435 SOUTH 415 EAST, LLC 672 E UNION SQ SANDY UT 84070 KORTONICK, MICHAEL 68 DENALI CIR 1411 LINDON UT 84042 KRACZEK INVESTMENTS, LLC 721 W PAXTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JAKOB, MICHELE E &KEVIN; JT 7216 S 2780 E COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 466 SOUTH 400 EAST, LLC 75 E 400 S STE 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THE CITIZEN, LLC 7585 S UNION PARK AVE 200 MIDVALE UT 84047 BHOITE, LEENA; JTPATIL, NITIN; JT 7641 S TIMBERLINE DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 HILLER, KRISTIN E; ET AL 8 DUKE AVENUE CC1074 KUNSHAN JIAN SU 21531 FRODSHAM REAL ESTATE I, LC 8098 S COTTAGE PINES CV COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 SAVAGE, JOY L 810 E SEVENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FAIRBANKS, MICHAEL L 83 S 900 E LINDON UT 84042 FIROUZBAKHSH, HOUSHANG &HOMA K; JT 831 EAST 1ST AVE 2 #4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84013 FLETCHER, PATRICIA S; TR(PSF FAM TRUST) 835 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SEASONS AT LIBRARY SQUARE LLC 95 W 100 S #340 LOGAN UT 84321 SEASONS AT LIBRARYSQUARE, LLC 95 W 100 S STE 340 LOGAN UT 84321 PLETT, TREVOR V 972 ROCK LEDGE CT 1409 HENERDAON NV 89012 BLDG CAT, LLC PO BOX 11491 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 DILLMAN, DAVID; TR(DHD IRR TRUST) PO BOX 1763 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 BRAZINSKI, JOHN A & VLASTA K;JT PO BOX 2323 JACKSON WY 83001 HOWE, FRED J &BONNIE K; TRS PO BOX 2732 ELKO NV 89803 HOWARD, ALLEN Q, JR &HENNON, MARGARET R; JT PO BOX 366 WELLSVILLE UT 84339 HARBO, LORA; JTET AL PO BOX 671717 CHUGIAK AK 99567 GOOD ACTION LLC PO BOX 779 RIVER FALLS WI 54022 USUNIER, PHILIPPE &RACHELLE; JT SAINT GILLES LES HAUTS REUNION ISL ND 97435 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Epi Heat To:Javoronok, Sara Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: SLC - Planning Commission meeting info Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:22:33 PM Sara here are my additional comments Please deny any zoning changes I STRONGLY oppose After reviewing factors and standards I think it is a huge stretch to say these zoning changes comply with proposed standards For example A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; The rapid explosion of apartment development is mind boggling and the current road structure will not support this rapid development. This will increase congestion and lower quality of living in downtown SLC B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; I am seeing buildings being built within 10 feet of each other which increases fire danger and decreases Safety in the event of adverse weather or other adverse events C. Provide adequate light and air; This will destroy And completely block my homes current view and create a claustrophobic environment of living in between apartment complexes than are visually unappealing and high enough to block open city line and Mountain View’s D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; Residential development is not being balanced with other uses such as arts and entertainment, eating establishments and businesses . If we allow this type of development to continue we are going end up with a congested downtown community that is near impossible travel around and have no place to go. It will not be and enjoyable place to live F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; The recent Covid Pandemic has created a false sense of residential demand as many people relocated from larger city regions to smaller cities. Now that pandemic has lessoned many small cities are seeing an exodus of people that are now relocating back to the larger city regions creating a real estate crises and other economic problems. Blindly trying to meet a false increased demand will not secure our city economy and will devastate my homes value G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and See comments comments above for item D H. Protect the environment. City developers need to pause and consider climate Issues that will be devastating and must be faced now Examples include our embarrassing air quality we endure by living here and the diminishing great salt lake which has the potential to become and environmental disaster that will make this area uninhabitable Please block this zoning change Sincerely Heath Harris On Sep 11, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Javoronok, Sara <Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com> wrote:  Heath, As we discussed, here’s the page to find out more about the Planning Commission meeting: https://www.slc.gov/planning/public-meetings/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/. If you go to page 21 of the staff report there are “factors” on the left and those are the standards that the Planning Commission considers. Comments relating to those are most helpful. The agenda has the links to the YouTube video and SLCtv. It’s live on those two platforms. Sara <image001.png> SARA JAVORONOK | (She/Her/Hers) Senior Planner, Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: (801) 535-7625 Email: Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. (Insert Agenda Item # Here) CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE: February 6, 2024 RE: Library Budget Amendment Number One of FY2024 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – ADOPT ALL ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of the Salt Lake City Library including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. - 1% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to All Library Employees and Higher than Budgeted Medical Insurance Premiums ($166,240 from Library Fund Balance) - One New Safety Associate FTE ($63,430 from Library Fund Balance) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library Budget Amendment #1 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary, City Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2023-24 Library Fund adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE LIBRARY FUND $ 229,670.00 $ 229,670.00 TOTAL $ 229,670.00 $ 229,670.00 Greg Cleary (Dec 19, 2023 15:43 MST) Greg Cleary 12/21/2023 12/21/2023 rachel otto (Dec 21, 2023 09:12 MST) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: When the Salt Lake City Council (the Council) adopted the Library’s FY24 budget, the Library was informed that the new growth used in projecting property taxes revenues would generate about $200,000 more than the estimate used in preparing the budget. In addition, the amount allowed for the judgment levy was $193,000 higher than was budgeted. The Council adopted the higher amounts, which allowed the $393,000 difference to go to the Library’s fund balance. Given the additional property tax revenue anticipated in FY24, Administration is proposing amendments to the FY24 budget for the following items, totaling $229,670. The following memo provides additional detail and information on this item. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing MEMO | November 20, 2023 To: Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors From: Deborah Ehrman, Interim Executive Director Re: Budget Amendment 1 for FY2023-24 When the Salt Lake City Council (the Council) adopted the Library’s FY24 budget, the Library was informed that the new growth used in projecting property taxes revenues would generate about $200,000 more than the estimate used in preparing the budget. In addition, the amount allowed for the judgment levy was $193,000 higher than was budgeted. The Council adopted the higher amounts, which allowed the $393,000 difference to go to the Library’s fund balance. The Board may recall that the FY24 budget included a three percent total increase for longevity and COLA. In addition, the percent increase used to budget the employee health insurance was about half of the actual percent increase once quotes were received. Given the additional property tax revenue anticipated in FY24, Administration is proposing amendments to the FY24 budget for the following items: 1. An additional one percent increase to the COLA amount for all Library employees and an adjustment in the employee health insurance rate to reflect the actual increase. The cost of these two adjustments would be $166,240. 2. An increase of one FTE for the Safety team. The Library is experiencing a significant increase in the number of safety related incidents across the system, and branches have expressed a need for additional support from the Safety team. The cost of one additional safety associate would be $63,430. General Fund – Proposed increase of $229,670 Account Name Current Budget Amount Requested Amt: COLA & Insurance Requested Amt: Safety Position Amended Budget Funding Source Fund Balance-Appropriated 4,023,640 166,240 63,430 4,253,310 Total Revenue $4,023,640 $166,240 $63,430 $4,253,310 Expenditures Salaries & Wages-Regular 12,858,000 112,800 42,900 13,013,700 Social Security-Regular 984,900 8,500 3,200 996,600 Employee Insurance 2,316,500 28,600 9,800 2,354,900 State Retirement 1,777,300 16,000 6,900 1,800,200 Workers Compensation 38,600 340 630 39,570 Total Expenditures $17,975,300 $166,240 $63,430 $18,204,970 Recommended Motion: Move to approve an increase in the Library’s FY24 General Fund budget of $229,670. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Amending the Final Budget for the Library Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24) An ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023, which adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024. PREAMBLE On June 23, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 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, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128, of the Utah Code. 2 SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City’s Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form _________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 21, 2023 08:47 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE:February 6, 2024 UPDATED 4:23 PM RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2024 MOTION 1 – ADOPT TWO ITEMS I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet and move to authorize release of the condition regarding the temporary sanctioned campground funding. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. Note that four urgent items were adopted on December 12, 2023. The Council adopted most other items on January 16 and kept the amendment open to consider a few remaining items. The amendment remains open to consider a single remaining item A-10. A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) I-2: Releasing Funds for Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account; Conditional Appropriation is satisfied) MOTION 2 – ADOPT DOWNTOWN PARKING PAY STATION REPLACEMENTS I further move that the Council also approves item A-10 as shown on the motion sheet. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) MOTION 3 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE: January 16, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment #3 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the January 16 briefing, the Council received a General Fund revenues update from the Finance Department. As of November, sales tax revenues are $3 million below budget projections. Sales tax receipts have a two-month delay between the purchase and the revenue coming in. The Council reviewed all remaining items proposed by the Administration. At the January 16 formal meeting, the Council adopted most remaining items except for two items (A-10 and A-12) that had follow up questions. Additional information responding to Council Member questions on these two items is shown below. There is also a follow up item to release funds from an existing holding account to support the temporary sanctioned campground which is shown as item I-2 below. The Council may vote on some or all these three items at the February 6 formal meeting. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) Administration Responses to Council Follow Up Questions Below are the Council’s follow up questions from earlier briefings and the Administration’s responses: Question: How will the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations learn about the new parking pay stations? Response: The vendor will assist the City in producing an information campaign that will inform users of changes. This will occur both online and in person.   Question: Will the existing ParkSLC mobile app continue or would a new app be needed? Response: At this time ParkSLC will continue to be used. Both the app vendor and the pay station vendor have assured us that an integration is possible between the two systems, just like the one that exists now. It is possible in the future the City may explore other app options, but there are no immediate plans to so. Question: Would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices? Would additional funding be needed for some technology features not currently expected to be included in the new kiosks but would be beneficial for the City? (For example, 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). Response: The selection committee strongly desired to future proof the pay stations and thus special attention was given to all aspects of this question. The potential new stations have the capability to have a variable rate structure, paying for shorter or longer time periods, and the vending zone mentioned. They can also support providing regional information (items of interest nearby), advertising (events, local businesses, etc.) payment of parking citations, and sale and reloading of public transportation cards. It is expected that current practices Project Timeline: Set Date: November 14, 2023 1st Briefing: December 5, 2023 2nd Briefing, Public Hearing, and Adopted Urgent Items: December 12, 2023 3rd Briefing: January 9, 2024 4th Briefing and Adopted Some Items: January 16, 2024 5th Briefing: February 6, 2024 and Potential Vote Potential Action: February 6, 2024 for reserving a parking spot will continue. (User will need to request a reservation from Transportation, and the meter spot will then be bagged.) There is no additional funding anticipated for any of these services as the contract with the vendor provides support services that would be utilized as decisions are made to implement the parking management practices. There is the option to purchase an occupation module with a web portal as well as pollution sensors that could be installed on each pay station. The stations could also be upfitted to manage electrical car charging at additional costs. Question: Is information available about what percentage of users interact with kiosks vs the parking app? Other metrics about also be useful context for the Council to consider this funding request. Council Member Puy mentioned during the briefing that some cities have no physical kiosks so all customers use the app. Has that option been explored and are there pros and cons that could be shared? Response: In 2022 Transportation commissioned a parking study performed by an outside party. This study found that 41%-60% is the pay-by-app share of transactions for most pay stations. Due to this variance, the plan is to only remove about 10 pay stations or so. However, Transportation is hoping to slightly expand the footprint of paid parking spots, thus the net change will be negligible. While app usage is increasing, there are still enough cash/card transactions carried out at the pay stations to retain them. Pay stations also ensure equity of access to parking for those who prefer to use cash, or don’t want to use the app. The study also found that the average number of transactions in 2022 per pay station was 3,015. Parking Meter Study and Two New Attachments The Public Services Department and Transportation Division shared two new attachments that informed this budget request: Attachment 3 is a Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation, and Attachment 4 is the final report from November 2022. The study raises several policy topics for possible future consideration such as: - Expanding parking meters in new areas, o In the short-term possible west downtown, Station Center, Granary District, Central Ninth, parts of Central City, o In the medium-term the Sugar House business district), - Updating the fee schedule and fines including potentially new zones with different fees and rate structures - Changing time limits, reducing free parking times, and increasing days of the week and time of the day for enforcement, and - New policies for special events and special overlay areas. The Council may wish to consider scheduling a separate briefing on the parking meters study findings. A-12: A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) In response to Council questions about where police officers are located during overtime shifts related to the temporary sanctioned campground, the Police Department clarified that officers “are in the surrounding area of the sanctioned campground including the area of the downtown security initiative. Officers are not staffed inside the sanctioned campground but will respond to calls for service inside the sanctioned campground as needed.” The Council also asked for information about the Department’s overtime budget, vacancy savings, and personnel services budget. The Department responded that actual expenses for overtime are nearly $2.8 million so far in FY2024 which exceeds the $1.8 million overtime budget. Note there is a related $1.8 million request in Budget Amendment #4 for police officer overtime. The Department stated that the personnel services budget numbers will be available later because of pending financial system report validations. I-2: General Operations Support for the Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account) This is a follow up item to release $500,000 to the State for general operations at the temporary sanctioned campground (not reimbursement for specific incurred expenses). The total estimated cost to operate the campground is $860,000 from December through April. Note that the $860,000 operating cost doesn’t include the City’s expenses to prepare the site to host the campground such as utility upgrades and the State’s cost to purchase the Foldum micro shelter units. The campground is anticipated to operate until April 30, 2024. The State is evaluating ongoing funding options and preparing a permanent location for the campground several blocks away from the temporary site. FY2024 Conditional Appropriation Ordinance Text 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. The Council included the below conditional appropriation language in the FY2024 annual budget adoption ordinance. The Council could vote on this condition being satisfied and releasing $500,000 from the holding account at the February 6 formal meeting. “Conditional Appropriation -- Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Fund – $500,000 for sanctioned camping/RV parking into a holding account, pending future discussion with Administration, fact-finding on best practices from other cities, and local and State considerations.” Policy questions: ➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether additional funding requests related to the temporary sanctioned campground are anticipated. ➢Coordinating Closure of Temporary Site and Opening of Permanent Campground – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what preparations are underway to coordinate tenants moving from the temporary site to the State’s permanent campground.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the January 9 briefing, the Council discussed the modified proposal for item A-1 from the Fire Department which requests four civilian single-role paramedics. The Council took a unanimous straw poll in support of the proposal. Item A-1 has a related resolution that would request admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including paramedics and social workers. The retirement system resolution and the budget adoption ordinance will be listed separately on the formal meeting agenda for individual votes. The Finance Department has provided a General Fund revenues update presentation that will be given at the January 16 briefing. Council Members had requested the update as context to consider the remaining items in Budget Amendment #3. On January 16, the Council will continue reviewing items that were not yet discussed at earlier briefings. The Council may consider voting on item A-1, the related resolution, and remaining budget items in this amendment at the January 16 formal meeting.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the December 12 briefing, the Council reviewed four items previously discussed with time sensitive deadlines (e.g., the upcoming Utah Legislature’s General Session, anticipated price increases, winter shelter needs, and manufacturer order windows). At the formal meeting later that day, the Council closed the public hearing and adopted the four urgent items listed below. The budget amendment remains open. Some Council Members expressed a preference to receive a General Fund Balance update as confirmed by the annual financial audit and revenue projections as context for considering remaining items in this budget amendment. The Finance Department is expected to be available to present these updates at the January 16 briefing. The Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for item A-1 which is summarized below. At the time of publishing, details were pending on remaining funds from prior year appropriations related to item I-1 for physical security improvements to City Hall. Urgent Items Adopted on December 12 - A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,190 from General Fund Balance of which $20,000 is one-time for workspaces, and $12,000 to the IMS Fund one-time) - 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) - A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) - D-2: IMS FY2023 Encumbrance Reappropriation ($4,269,083 from IMS Fund Balance) Modified Proposal for A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics Request for Two New FTEs and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs (Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings; $133,266 New Ongoing General Fund Cost in FY2025) After the Council’s initial discussion on December 5, the Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for this item. The table below compares the original and modified proposals. The Department considers staffing civilian single role paramedics in the existing Medical Response Teams to be a pilot program. Currently, firefighter EMTs staff the Medical Response Teams. If the pilot program creates operational efficiencies as expected, then additional civilian single role paramedics may be requested in the next annual budget. Proposal FTEs (full-time employees)FY2024 Budget Impact FY2025 Budget Impact Original 4 new FTEs $160,519 from General Fund Balance $292,638 Modified Reclassify 2 vacant entry-level firefighter FTEs, and 2 new FTEs Budget neutral; using vacancy savings $133,266  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the first briefing, the Council discussed time sensitive items and the three items requesting new full-time employees (FTEs). The other items will be discussed at the follow-up briefing on December 12. The Council may consider adopting some or all items in Budget Amendment #3 after the public hearing is held, although standard practice would be to consider only the time sensitive items. In addition to the amendment adoption ordinance, the Council could also act on another ordinance that is proposed for item A-4 to codify a Legislative Affairs Division in the City Attorney’s Office and the duties and functions of that department. Item A-1 also has a resolution proposed requesting admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including social workers. Straw Polls The Council took the following nonbinding straw polls at the first briefing: - A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,220 from General Fund Balance): o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support a division director FTE appointed ($85,510) and a senior city attorney merit ($117,676). o Three in favor, three against, and one absent to support a special projects analyst ($61,707) and administrative assistant ($52,297). o Note the amounts above in parenthesis are half-year costs for salary, benefits, $3,000 per employee for electronic devices (e.g., computers), and $5,000 per employee to establish workspaces. - 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) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the additional funding request, transfer to the Fleet Fund, and funding source swap. - A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the one-time appropriation for motel and hotel vouchers available to families experiencing homelessness.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Three includes 31 proposed amendments, $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in expenditures of which $1,738,732 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. 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 3. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation 4. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Final Report November 2022 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 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (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 therein. The City Council adopted certain proposed amendments at the City Council meetings held on December 12, 2023, and January 16, 2024, while reserving consideration of other proposed amendments until a later date. Additional proposed amendments to the duly adopted budget, including any necessary amendments to the employment staffing document 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: 2 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 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 __________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ 3 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation Why We’re Doing This •Downtown and other key neighborhoods have seen growth and other changes that have affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits. •Salt Lake City will soon replace its existing parking meters with all-new equipment. •As part of the replacement process, parking planning staff wanted to evaluate the current system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in meter usage, changes in land use and density, and how existing policies, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. •Based on information gathered and data analyzed, the number and locations of meters in the existing paid area can be right-sized and adjusted to fit current needs. •That information can also be combined with an analysis of future growth areas to provide quantity and cost estimates for potential future expansion of parking meters outside of the existing paid area. •Finally, the information can help Salt Lake City to adjust their policies, rates, and fees in order to optimize operations, streamline enforcement, and potentially increase revenue by bringing policies, rates, and fees more in line with peer city averages and best practices. Summary of Existing Conditions HISTORICAL TRENDS 8%12% 18% 24% 30% 38% 45% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 Number of Meters* 280 CURRENT USAGE (2021 –2022) Average Number of Meters per Block Face (By Land Use) 1.80 -2.74 Pay-by-App Share of Transactions for Most Meters 41% -60% 852,998 Total Transactions (Including Pay-by-App) Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) 3,015 Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) * Number of deployed and operational meters as of August 2022 (278 in November 2022) METER REQUIREMENTS* Requirements & Thresholds CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS Minimum Number of Transactions 1,300 Maximum Share of Pay-by-App Transactions 60% 250 Feet Max DistanceM A I N S T A T E 2 per Block Face * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. Growth Areas Cost & Quantity Estimates 27 Total Number of Meter Locations Identified as Potential Candidates for Removal Cost Estimate Range for Replacement of Meters for… 280 Meters 263 Meters $1.4 – $2.2M $1.3 – $2.1M MID-TO LONG-TERM * Sugar House block faces are shorter than Downtown ones (360 feet) Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 Meters per Block Face $1.6 – $2.5M Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 1 Meter per Block Face* 143 Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face 310 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 1 Meter per Block Face $715k – $1.1M Downtown Sugar House EXISTING/ CURRENT Number of Meters Needed to Cover Short/Mid-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face 488 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $2.4M – $3.9M SHORT-TO MID-TERM Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees SELECTED EXISTINGSLC HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES $ $ No specific overnight management policy is currently in place $2.25 per hour (flat rate for entire system). 2 hours per day (across entire system). 8 AM –8 PM, Mon –Sat (across entire system). Mon –Fri. Single zone (same rates, hours across entire paid area). Flat fine structure, lower fines for some violations than peer city average. Schedule of Selected Fines No special event rates or hours of enforcement are currently in place Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Salt Lake City Overtime Meter $35 Meter Violation*$75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23 "Feeding the Meter"$23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines?No Notes * Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. Future Policies, Rates, & Fees HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES $ $ Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour). 4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some very high demand spaces. Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later end time for areas with high late-night demand and earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. Mon –Sat to align with enforcement hours. Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should be its own zone with different rate structure. Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated fine structure. SUGGESTED ACTIONS In the future, consider establishing special zone or overlay around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours of enforcement would apply during events to incentivize use of off-street parking No specific overnight management policy action recommended at this time Project # WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1 Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Prepared for: Salt Lake City Corporation November 18, 2022 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 5 Existing Metered Parking 5 Evaluation of Metered Parking 5 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 6 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 7 Introduction & Study Area 9 Introduction 9 Study Area 10 Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways 16 Existing Metered Parking 17 Historical Systemwide Trends 17 Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage 18 Methodology 18 Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location 19 Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions 24 Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 27 Evaluation of Metered Parking 28 Evaluation Criteria 28 Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 29 Requirements & Thresholds 30 Requirements 30 Thresholds for Keeping Meters 31 Thresholds for Adding Meters 32 Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied 33 Recommendations 36 Adding Meters 36 Removing Existing Meters 36 Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates 38 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways 40 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 41 Short to Mid Term 41 Cost and Quantity Estimates 43 Mid to Long Term 43 Cost and Quantity Estimates 48 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways 51 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 52 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 2 Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City 52 On-Street Parking Time Limits 52 On-Street Parking Rates 52 On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 52 Special Events 53 Overnight Parking 53 “Move-It” Policy 53 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 54 Peer City Benchmarking 55 On-Street Parking Time Limits 55 On-Street Parking Rates 56 On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 56 Special Events 57 Overnight Parking 57 “Move-It” Policy 58 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 58 Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways 60 Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees 61 Recommendations & Other Suggested Items 63 On-Street Parking Time Limits 63 On-Street Parking Rates 63 On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement 65 Special Events 66 Overnight Parking 66 Move-It Policy 66 Violations & Fines 67 Appendix 69 Evaluation of Metered Parking 69 Recommendations 69 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 70 Mid to Long Term 70 Figures and Tables Figure 1. Study Area 11 Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations 13 Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations 14 Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022) 17 Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022) 18 Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 20 Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) 21 Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning 22 Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone 23 Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category 23 Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 24 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 3 Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) 25 Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 30 Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters 30 Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters 31 Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year 32 Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters 32 Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds 34 Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone 35 Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category 35 Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System 37 Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters 38 Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) 41 Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area 42 Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas 43 Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated 45 Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use 46 Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas 47 Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48 Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48 Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49 Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49 Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) 54 Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) 55 Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) 56 Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) 56 Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57 Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57 Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities) 58 Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) 58 Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) 59 Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) 61 Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics 62 Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) 62 Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics 62 Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area 69 Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses 70 Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas 71 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 4 Executive Summary 01 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 5 Executive Summary Introduction Salt Lake City is currently in the process evaluating the multi-space parking meter system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in existing meter usage, changes in land uses and density, and how existing hours of operation, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. In total, there were 280 multi-space meters across the system that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. It should be noted that as of November 2022, there were 278 meters in operation. Currently, paid parking is limited to the central business district and immediately adjacent areas, as well as two additional small paid that are not contiguous to the main paid area along “main street”-type corridors located to the east of the CBD. Existing Metered Parking The total number of transactions went down in 2020 but has started to increase again in 2021. Between July 2021 and June 2022, there were 852,998 transactions, down from 1,299,735 from 2015 to 2016. The share of all transactions conducted with pay-by-app, instead of at the meter, has increased from 8% in 2015 to 45% today. Currently, the highest-usage meters were clustered along the 300 S. corridor within the CBD as well as along 100 S. and at certain key intersections. Most meters saw between 1,000 and 5,000 transactions from 2020 – 2021. The average number of meters per block face ranged from 1.80 to 2.74, depending on land use. No clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage was observed. However, a few “hotspots” and “coldspots” were apparent where pay-by-app use was notably higher or lower than average. The pay-by-app share of total transactions was between 41% and 60% for most meters, with only 6% falling under 20% pay-by-app or exceeding 60% pay-by-app. Evaluation of Metered Parking Walker has established different criteria for evaluating whether parking meters should be considered for removal, addition, or keeping in existing paid areas, as well as for determining whether an existing unpaid area may be a candidate for installing meters Criteria established include setting a minimum number of meters per block face and a maximum distance between meters along a block face, determining the minimum number of transactions per year for a meter to be financially self-sufficient, and determining a minimum percentage of transactions that occur at the meter. Using evaluation matrices and associated criteria, Walker has determined specific minimum requirements that should be met for all meters, as well as thresholds for determining whether a meter may be a candidate for removal. The established requirements for all meters are as follows: Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 6 • A minimum of two meter per block face with paid parking. • A maximum of 250 feet distance between a meter and the farthest parking space. • That maximum decreases to 150 feet for human services land uses. • For accessible spaces, meters should be located as close as possible to such spaces. The established thresholds for keeping meters are as follows: • A minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at the meter + pay-by-app. • Percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40%. The established threshold for adding meters is if least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion.” When applying thresholds, 85 of 280 meters do not currently meet the transaction threshold. Also, 9 out of 279 see use of pay-by-app at or above 60%. By land use, the average number of meters per block face that met the transaction threshold ranged from 0.44 for Residential Mixed Use to 2.74 for high-activity areas in the CBD. After evaluating the existing paid area, and after considering established requirements, Walker iden tified 27 meters that may be candidates for removal. At this time, Walker did not identify any block faces where more meters are needed. Further evaluation is recommended for suggested candidates for removal, such as whether there is accessible parking on the block face. In terms of cost estimates, to replace all 280 existing meters, Walker estimates an initial, up-front cost range of between about $1.4 million and $2.2 million. To replace all meters minus the meters identified as potential candidates for removal, the initial, up-front cost range is estimated to be between $1.3 million and $2.1 million. By moving from 280 to 263 meters, the City would save between 85k and $136k. Potential Expansion of Parking Meters In the short to mid term, there are about 68 developments in or near downtown that are planned or under construction. A contiguous area that encompasses all new developments would represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the existing metered parking area, or an increase of 488 meters (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $2.4 million to $5.9 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. In the mid to long term, future land use maps for neighborhood areas show potential increases in mid- and high- density residential, commercial, and mixed-use development beyond the area that encompasses known future development planned or under construction. If the City were to create paid parking zones within future mid- and high-density residential, commercial, and mixed-use areas, for all such areas except high-activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 2 meters per block face. For high-activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 3 meters per block face. In the Downtown study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, about 310 meters would be needed in all (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $1.6 million to $2.5 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 7 In the Sugar House study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, 143 meters would be needed in all (at 1 meter per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $715k to $1.1 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. For this area, Walker recommends 1 meter per block face instead of 2 due to block faces that are much shorter than in downtown. Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Compared to peer cities, in general, Salt Lake City is the only city to have uniform time limits in place for metered parking, to have a flat hourly rate for all paid parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier, to not charge for parking on Saturdays, and to have uniform hours of enforcement in place for all paid areas. Salt Lake City also lacks special event pricing and time limits, and the city’s fine for accessible parking space violations is less than half the average fine for peer cities examined and is less than the suggested fine published by the Utah State Court System. Selected recommendations are as follows: • Increase time limit for most paid parking spaces from 2 to 4 hours. • Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour within existing paid area. • Move to a tiered rate structure where the first two hours are $2.50 per hour, the third hour is $5, and the 4th hour is $10. • Expand paid parking into Saturdays, which would align paid parking hours with current enforcement hours across the week. • Extend the enforcement period for all days to 10 PM. • Increase fines for all parking violation types discussed in this study to be more in line with peer city averages and the suggested fines listed in the Utah State Courts’ 2022 Uniform Fines Schedule. Other suggested items to consider are as follows: • A tiered or graduated rate structure for some or all paid parking areas. • Increase or eliminate time limits in conjunction with other suggested items regarding parking rates. • Time limits of less than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts • Consider zone-based pricing based on demand patterns, with higher rates in high-demand areas and lower rates in lower-demand areas. o Sugar House should be its own zone when or if paid parking were to be extended to that area. o The existing paid area should be divided into 2 or more zones. o More zones could be added if the existing paid area downtown were to be enlarged. • Adopt a later stop time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking usage is elevated past 10 PM, such as night life areas, and an earlier stop time for enforcement where parking usage decreases after a certain hour, such as office • Establish a special overlay zone around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours would apply during large events • Increase time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space or block face to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours. • Graduated fine structure where fines increase for subsequent violations within a calendar year. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 8 Introduction & Study Area 02 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 9 Introduction & Study Area Introduction In 2012, the City of Salt Lake City began replacing its single -space meter infrastructure with a new system of multi-space meters. In the new system, 1 to 4 meters per block face, along with a handful located along mid- block alleys and in certain high-activity off-street areas, serve all individual paid parking spaces along the block face within paid parking areas. Since multi-space meters were first implemented, downtown Salt Lake City and other key neighborhoods and areas within the City have seen growth, development, redevelopment, and land use changes. These changes have potentially affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits within existing paid parking areas and currently unmanaged and/or free parking areas. Within the existing paid parking areas, such changes have also potentially influenced usage at existing meters. Some block faces within the paid area may have seen increased use of on-street paid parking, while others have seen decreases. In addition, managed parking technology has dramatically advanced within the last decade. In 2012, the major change of note was the ability for customers to use a credit card to furnish payment, though the system also allowed for the use of payment via a smartphone app. In 2012, such app usage to render payment represented only a small fraction of total transactions. However, over the last decade, the use of pay-by-app using a smartphone as a payment option has grown considerably. For Salt Lake City’s multi-space meter system, pay-by- app services are provided through the Passport platform. While the use of pay-by-app relative to other multi- space meter payment methods has increased across the system, the relative increase may be higher within some areas and for some multi-space meters compared to others. While one upgrade to the multi-space system has been performed since the initial installation, the existing contracts for the current system, provided by IPS Smart Meters, are expiring soon. As such, the City is looking to revamp and overhaul its decade-old multi-space infrastructure with a new, state-of-the-art metered parking system. Understanding trends in parking habits and multi-space meter usage, as well as changes in land uses and density that have occurred and may occur in the near future, will help to inform data-driven decisions on changes that can be made to the paid parking system when it is overhauled that will allow the system to operate more efficiently, providing the right balance of multi-space meters for customer use while reducing the cost of operations and maintenance and reducing sidewalk clutter. To help the City understand these trends and changes, and also to accomplish its goals pertaining to the paid parking system, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) has been retained to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s existing multi-space metered parking system. In addition to evaluating the system to determine where existing meters may be removed or added, if necessary, Walker will also provide a high-level overview of selected existing unmanaged/unpaid parking areas, with recommendations on specific neighborhoods or areas that may need to have multi-space meters installed in the future. These high-level recommendations will be informed by future known land use changes and developments Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 10 of note, as provided by the City, and/or development/redevelopment. Also, they will include suggested criteria that will enable the City to identify where and how many multi-space meters could be installed in the future. Walker has also been retained to evaluate existing paid parking rates and fees, including fines for violating existing parking rules relating to paid on-street parking. Also, the hours of operation for the paid parking system will be analyzed. Based on this evaluation and analysis, in conjunction with a review of parking rates, fees, fines, and hours of operation for selected peer cities for benchmarking purposes, Walker will provide recommendations for changes that could help to streamline further and optimize both the existing system as well as any expansions in the system that may occur in the future. Study Area The overall study area for this study is defined by two rectangles that are non-contiguous with each other. One area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 600 West to the west, 200 North to the north, University St. to the east, and 1000 South to the south. This area contains all existing paid/metered parking areas in the City. Neighborhoods entirely or partially falling within this area include Downtown, Central City, Fairpark, Capitol Hill, East Central, Ball Park, Liberty-Wells, East Liberty Park, Greater Avenues, and Glendale. The other area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 700 East to the west, 2000 South to the north, 1300 East to the east, and the 80 Freeway to the south. This study area represents the core of the Sugar House Neighborhood. Figure 1 on the next page depicts the two study areas considered as part of this study, with paid and free parking areas within the study areas shown. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 11 Figure 1. Study Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 12 The existing paid parking areas where existing conditions were evaluated in detail are shown in Figure 2 on the next page. The maximum extent of the main contiguous paid area is 100 North to the north, 400 E to the east, 700 South to the south, and 500 West to the west. In addition, there is paid parking along South Temple St. between 400 East and E Street, as well as along 1300 E. between East 500 and 600 South. These areas are not contiguous with the main paid area or each other. City records show a total of about 280 existing multi-space meters that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. Out of that total, 268 meters are within the main contiguous area, 11 are located in the 1300 E. non- contiguous area, and 1 is located along S. Temple between 400 and 500 East. These 280 multi-space meters serve 1,591 individually numbered paid parking spaces across the system. Of those, 63 spaces are located in the 1300 E. non-contiguous area, and 6 are located along S. Temple between 400 East and E Street. Figure 2 below depicts the paid parking areas and shows existing multi-space meter locations within them. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 13 Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations Figure 3 below shows the multi-space meter locations with land uses/zoning overlain. Only land uses for which a block face with at least one multi-space meter is present are shown in the legend. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 14 Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 15 Existing Metered Parking 03 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 16 Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways P HISTORICAL TRENDS Number of Meters 280 CURRENT USAGE (2021 – 2022) 852,998 Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) 3,015 Average Number of Meters per Block Face (By Land Use) 1.80 - 2.74 Pay-by-App Share of Transactions for Most Meters 41% - 60% Proportional Transaction Volume by Meter and High-Activity Areas Total Transactions (Including Pay-by-App) Pay-by-App Usage 8%12%18%24%30%38%45% 0% 20% 40% 60% 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 * Number of deployed and operational meters as of August 2022 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 17 Existing Metered Parking Historical Systemwide Trends When Salt Lake City’s existing multi-space meter technology was first implemented, transactions via pay-by-app constituted only a small fraction of total transactions. However, every year since then, the relative share of transactions taking place via pay-by-app has increased relative to transactions at the multi-space meter. Based on monthly transaction and revenue data furnished to Walker by the City dating back to 2015, Walker was able to chart the total overall volume of transactions from year to year and determine the percent share of pay- by-app versus multi-space meter transactions between 2015 and 2022. This data is shown in Figure 4 below. Note that each time period shown is from July through the following June. Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022) In 2015, pay-by-app transactions represented 8% of the total number. By 2022, they represented nearly half of total transactions. Note that overall transactions decreased starting in 2019 – 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the average revenue per transaction has been steadily increasing. The annual average increased from $2.21 per transaction in the June 2015 – 2016 period to $3.00 in 2021 – 2022, with a positive year-over-year increase occurring yearly. It should be noted that the per-hour rate increased from $2.00 to $2.25 per hour in July 2019.1 1 https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/salt-lake-city-mayor/ 92%88%82% 76% 70% 62%55% 8%12%18% 24% 30% 38% 45% 1,299,735 1,296,808 1,290,156 1,194,614 811,740 590,428 852,998 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 To t a l N u m b e r o f T r a n s a c t i o n s At the Meter Pay-by-App Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 18 Figure 5 below shows total transactions by month, and percent share of multi-space meter versus pay-by-app transactions, for the July 2021 – June 2022 period. Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022) By month, March had the greatest number of transactions while January had the fewest. The total number of transactions for the period ranged from a little over 57,000 to 82,667. Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage Methodology For purposes of analysis and comparison of multi-space meters and transactions by individual meter location, it was necessary to examine individual transaction data for each multi-space meter location. Data containing all individual transactions by meter was provided to Walker between July 2021 and June 2022. As a result, this is the period of time for which meter usage analysis by location was conducted. In all, two different sets of data for all multi-space meter transactions were furnished to Walker, described in detail below. One set of data contained, by month, every transaction that took place physically at each individual multi-space meter across the system within the time period for which data was available. In this set, both the individual space number as well as the multi-space meter at which the transaction took place were identified, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated multi-space meter. Walker then performed analysis using geographical information systems (GIS) software that enabled it to associate transaction information at the multi- space meter level with the spatial location of each meter. The other data set contained all individual pay-by-app transactions across the system within the same period. While data on the total number of transactions that physically took place at the multi-space meter identified both 59%59%58%56%56%55%53%52% 53%54%55%54% 41%41%42%44%44%45% 47% 48% 47% 46%45%46% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2021 2022 To t a l N u m b e r o f T r a n s a c t i o n s At the Meter Pay-by-App Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 19 the individual space number as well as the meter at which the transaction took place, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated meter, pay-by-app transactions only identified the individual space number to which the transaction is linked, and not an associated multi-space meter. This is because pay- by-app transactions bypass the multi-space meter entirely. As a result, to compare pay-by-app transactions to multi-space meter transactions at the multi-space meter level, and to spatially plot the data in GIS, Walker was required to perform some additional analysis to associate one multi-space meter to every individual parking space. To do this, Walker looked at the total number of transactions associated with all multi-space meters for each individual parking space within the set of data that contained transactions that physically took place at the meter. The multi-space meter/space combination with the greatest volume of transactions per individual space was then used to assign to that space a single multi- space meter that most closely matched or was most strongly associated with the space. For example, if 99% of total transactions for a given space were associated with one multi-space meter, and fewer than 1% were associated with other multi-space meters, that space was assigned the first multi-space meter for all pay-by-app transactions associated with that space. In general, the closest multi-space meter match was likely to be the most convenient and/or closest multi-space meter to a given individual parking space. Transactions associated with other multi-space meters may have been due to, for example, people who started to walk to their destination and made it a block or two before remembering to pay. For such transactions, Walker carried over the transaction to associate with the closest match multi-space meter instead. Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location There was an average of 3,015 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,671 at the meter and 1,362 pay-by- app for spaces associated with each meter). There was a median of 2,221 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,277 at the meter and 964 pay-by-app for spaces associated with each meter). Figure 6 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system, with the size of the circles corresponding to the number of transactions per station. Note that data was not available for ten multi-space meters that were shown to exist according to City data records provided. For this analysis, two additional meters were excluded as the total number of transactions fell under 20. Some or all of these meters may have been newly installed and/or out of service during the time period. Therefore, out of 290 total meters shown in City records, 280 had a number of transactions associated with them greater than 0 and 278 had more than 20 transactions. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 20 Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) The multi-space meters with the highest activity, in terms of the total number of transactions, were found along E. 300 S. between 200 W. and 300 E., and along W. 100 S. between West Temple St. and State St. The two blocks Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 21 bounded by 300 S. to the north, 400 S. to the south, West Temple to the west, and State St. to the east saw the highest volume of multi-space meter activity. Other areas with higher usage than others included W. 200 S. between 300 and 400 W., the area around the E. 200 S. and S 200 E. intersection, 100 S. west of 400 W., the area around the South Temple and West Temple intersection, S. State St. south of 600 S., and the 1300 E. non -contiguous paid area. Figure 7 shows the percentage distribution of meters by total number of transactions. Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) About 24% of multi-space meters reported a total number of transactions (at the meter and pay-by-app) that fell below 1,000. Most multi-space meters reported a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 total transactions. The remainder reported a volume greater than 5,000, with only 3 multi-space meters reporting a number greater than 10,000. Figure 8 on the next page shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system with land uses overlain. Also, high-activity areas within the CBD have been highlighted with a box. 1%2% 21% 54% 21% 1% Under 10 Between 10 and 100 Between 101 and 1,000 Between 1,000 and 5,000 Between 5,000 and 10,000 Over 10,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 22 Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 23 By Block Face and Land Use Figure 9 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Average (Rounded) Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2 Secondary CBD 2.00 2 Residential Mixed Use 2.22 2 High-Density Residential 2.00 2 Urban Institutional 2.00 2 CBD 2.18 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 2.50 3 Library 2.67 3 Downtown Support District 2.50 3 Community Business 2.67 3 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 2 Overall, the average number of multi-space meters per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 1.80 in the Gateway Mixed Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself overall had an average of about 2.18. Outside the CBD high-activity area, Community Business and Library zones had the highest at an average of 2.67 per complete block face. If generalizing the figures presented above to represent more general land use categories and density, it was first necessary to establish the specific selected land use, as identified by existing zoning within the paid area, that best corresponds to the given general land use category/density combinations. Figure 10 below shows existing specific land uses and zones used to correspond with mid-density and high-density residential areas, non- residential areas, and mixed-use areas respectively. Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Mid-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 Non-Residential Secondary CBD 2.00 Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 High-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 Non-Residential CBD 2.18 Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.50 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 24 Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions Figure 11 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter and the share of those transactions for spaces associated with each meter that was conducted via pay-by-app instead of at the multi-space meter. Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 25 While there is no clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage as a function of percentage share, a few “hot spots” and “cold spots” are apparent. 200 W. between 100 and 200 S., the area bounded by 200 S. to the north, 300 E. to the east, 400 S. to the south, and State St. to the west, South Temple between 200 E. and 300 E., and 300 E. south of South Temple all featured multi-space meters recording over 60% pay-by-app usage. Relatively speaking, areas of low pay-by-app usage included most multi-space meters north of 100 S. west of 200 E. and between 400 S. and 500 S. Figure 12 below shows the total distribution of multi-space meters by the percent share of transactions conducted via pay-by-app. Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) Overall, for most multi-space meters, the division between transactions at the meter versus through pay-by-app is relatively even, with the share of pay-by-app transactions ranging from 41% to 60% for 67% of all multi-space meters. Only 6% of all multi-space meters have a pay-by-app percentage falling under 20% or exceeding 60%. 3% 27% 67% 3% Under 20% Between 21% and 40% Between 41% and 60% Over 60% Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 26 Metered Parking Evaluation 04 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 27 Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 250 Feet Max Distance METER REQUIREMENTS* CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS Maximum Share of Pay-by-App Transactions Minimum Number of Transactions 1,300 60% MA I N ST A T E 2 per Block Face Candidates for Potential Removal 27 Total Candidate Locations for Removal * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. Cost Estimate Range for Replacement for… 280 Meters $1.4M – $2.2M $1.3M – $2.1M 263 Meters Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 28 Evaluation of Metered Parking Evaluation Criteria To evaluate the existing paid parking area, Walker first needed to establish the criteria by which meters are evaluated. These evaluation criteria can also be used when determining the meter density , or number of meters per block face, in locations the City may deem appropriate for establishing future paid parking areas that currently do not have it. Walker, with the input and agreement of Salt Lake City staff, has established the following criteria for evaluating where meters should potentially be added or removed within existing paid parking areas/block faces, as well as for assessing whether an existing unpaid area or block face may be a candidate for new metered parking. The criteria are as follows: minimum number of meters, distance between meters, number of total transactions, and percent share of transactions that are pay-by-app. The first two criteria are defined as requirements, which should be satisfied regardless of any other factors, while the third and fourth criteria are defined as minimum thresholds. For the threshold-defined criteria, the total number of transactions should be considered the primary criterion, instead of or equally in conjunction with share of Passport transactions, to consider a meter as a suitable candidate for removal. Meters with high usage will still have an absolute high number/volume of transactions at the meter, even if the relative share of such transactions compared to Passport is greater than 50% or 60%. Also, Passport/smartphone app usage is a metric that is more likely to vary depending on the season and other factors. Finally, it is possible that such usage of the app versus the multi-space meter may begin to plateau in the future, with at-meter transactions always representing a certain minimum percentage of all transactions despite smartphone and app saturation in the marketplace. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 29 Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 14 below shows the evaluation criteria for removing meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Minimum Number of Meters 1 By removing meter(s), the resulting number of meters does not fall below an established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face. Distance between Meters 2 By removing one or more meters, the distance from any parking space along a block face to any meter does not exceed the maximum allowed. Maximum distances allowed may differ for certain land uses, such as commercial land uses offering human services. Number of Total Transactions 3 The number of transactions is lower than a particular established critical threshold. Percent Share Pay- by-App 4 The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking spaces associated with a multi-space meter exceeds a certain established critical threshold. Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 13 below shows the evaluation criteria for adding meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Minimum Number of Meters 1 Per block face where paid parking exists, an established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face is not met. Distance between Meters 2 Per block face, the distance between a parking space and a multi-space meter exceeds an allowed maximum. Maximum distances allowed may differ for certain land uses, such as commercial land uses offering human services. Number of Total Transactions 3 The number of transactions is higher than a particular established critical threshold, and/or wait times during peak demand times at a meter are causing undue inconvenience to meter users. Percent Share Pay- by-App 4 The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking spaces associated with a multi-space meter falls below a certain established critical threshold. Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Figure 15 below shows the evaluation criteria for installing new meters in existing unpaid areas/along unpaid block faces. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 30 Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Land Use Changes N/A There is a change in land use from undeveloped, industrial, or low-density residential land uses to any combination of commercial, office, mid/high-density residential, or retail. Assuming that specific meter requirements, such as the minimum number of meters per block face and maximum distance allowed between meters, are met Spillover Parking N/A Spillover parking is occurring from high parking demand land uses/activity centers into adjacent lower-density areas, such as residential neighborhoods. Alternative strategies to manage spillover parking could also be considered, such as a residential parking permit program. Requirements & Thresholds Requirements Figure 16 below summarizes the established requirements for evaluating all meters in both the existing paid parking system as well as for determining baseline requirements for new meters in potential future paid parking areas. Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters Criteria Category Requirements Minimum Number of Meters Minimum of 2 meters per block face Distance between Meters Maximum of 250 feet between the meter and parking space (150 feet for human services) Minimum Number of Meters Walker has determined that there should be a minimum of two meters per block face, regardless of the length of a paid parking block face or any other factors. Because this requirement establishes that meters must be located on the same block face, parking meters that may fall within the maximum distance of a parking space but that are located on an adjacent block face, or directly across the street, cannot count towards meeting this required minimum requirement. This minimum of two meters per block face was established with input from Salt Lake City staff, who determined that each paid block face should have at least two meters to provide for redundancy in case one of the meters is out of service or not working correctly. Under such conditions, people who choose to pay at the meter may still do so without having to cross a street. Distance Between Meters If a block face falls within the paid area and has paid parking along the block face, there should typically always be a minimum of at least one multi-space meter per 250 feet of parking frontage within the paid area. For distances beyond 250 feet, the average parker may find that the path of travel to the nearest meter is inconvenient. Even in a scenario where use of pay by app may be encouraged, or where the parker does not have to return to his/her vehicle to place a paid parking receipt on their dashboard, it is recommended that parkers should not have to Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 31 walk more than one minute to reach a parking meter. At a conservatively estimated walking speed of 3 miles per hour, it would take just under one minute to access a meter located about 250 feet away. As the standard block face length for a typical Salt Lake City block (within the CBD) is about 660 feet, this means that, in general, there would need to be at least two multi-space meter per block face to satisfy this distance requirement, regardless of other factors. In such cases, the meters should optimally be positioned at even intervals, about 1/4 and 3/4ths up the length of a full-sized block face (660 feet). For longer block faces, more than two may be required. At such intervals, there would be a meter at 165 feet and 495 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. This would make each meter about 165 feet away from the farthest parking space. Alternatively, for meters placed 1/3 and 2/3rds up the length of the full-sized block face, there would be a meter at 220 and 440 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face. This would make each meter a maximum of 220 feet away from the farthest parking space, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. For block faces with paid parking that services specific land uses, such as human services, that may command a need for closer parking multi-space meters than usual, the maximum distance from a meter to a parking space should be about 150 feet. This shorter distance can make it easier for parkers with mobility issues to access meters and/or ensure that meters are available for populations that may not have pay -by-app technology available to them. For any accessible on-street parking spaces within the paid area, Walker recommends that a meter be located as close to the accessible spaces as possible. Thresholds for Keeping Meters Figure 17 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters Criteria Category Thresholds for Keeping Meters Number of Total Transactions Minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at meter + pay-by-app) Percent Share Pay-by-App The percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40% (60% pay-by-app) Minimum Number of Transactions Meter usage per meter by block face should be such that the revenue and number of transactions make the individual meter profitable, or at least break-even in terms of cost, while not so high as to cause undue burden on persons attempting to use the meter to pay for parking. From a financially feasible perspective, a multi-space meter should support a minimum of approximately 1,300 transactions annually. This derives from an assumed 3-year return on the initial capital investment in a multi- space meter of approximately $8,000 and an average ongoing operations and maintenance cost of $1,000 annually per multi-space meter. With 260 paid parking days enforced per year, over the 3-year period, each multi- Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 32 space meter should generate approximately $14 per day. With an average transaction value paid at the multi- space meter of $2.79, this represents approximately 5 transactions per day or 1,300 per year. Figure 18 summarizes the equation described above that results in the break-even number of transactions per multi-space meter per year, as determined by Walker. Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year Multi-space meters with fewer than 1,300 associated transactions per year are less likely to generate the minimum revenues necessary to support their initial installation cost and/or ongoing operations and maintenance. This minimum threshold is used as the base for identifying multi-space meters for potential removal. Percent Share Pay-by-App In terms of the percentage of transactions that are pay-by-app versus at the meter, Walker has established the critical threshold at 60% pay-by-app usage. Multi-space meters for which the percentage of pay-by-app transactions is under 60% are meters for which physically paying at the meter is still a popular payment choice. Thresholds for Adding Meters Figure 19 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters Criteria Category Thresholds for Adding New Meter Number of Total Transactions At least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion,” defined as parkers who need to queue up at the meter in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. Meters should be added to a block face or area if at least one meter along the block face has a high enough average number of transactions at the meter across the paid parking period per day where paid parking is in effect to where the meter may see “congestion.” In this context, congestion is defined as parkers needing to queue up in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. = ( ) $8k + $1k Year (260 Days) x (3 Years) ) = 5 Transactions 1 Day ( 1,300 Transactions 1 Year (260 Days) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 33 Note that, for this context, only the number of transactions at the meter is relevant, as transactions associated with a meter that take play via pay-by-app do not result in physical “congestion” at the meter. In this study, there were a total of 6,721 at-the-meter transactions at the multi-space meter with the highest recorded number of at-the-meter transactions (Meter #34199). When divided by 260 paid parking days and 12 hours per day where paid parking is in effect, this resulted in an average of 2.15 at-the-meter transactions per hour. While this average does not account for variance per hour in meter usage, the average time it takes to conduct an at-the-meter transaction is likely under 28 minutes. At 10,000 at-the-meter transactions per year, the average number of transactions per hour would be about 3.20, or about one every 19 minutes. It is likely that a single meter would not have frequent “congestion” unless the meter had an average of one transaction every 15 or fewer minutes. Currently, no meter in the existing system sees such a high level of transactions per hour, on average. Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied Figure 20 below shows all multi-space meters in the existing system with the total transaction volume and percent pay-by-app use thresholds applied that were established above. Note that meters are only shown where data for total number of transactions and pay-by-app usage was available. Squares in red indicate that the meter fails the established threshold for the total number of transactions needed for the meter to break even in terms of revenue. In the case of pay-by-app usage, the threshold is expressed in terms of multi-space meter usage, with circles in red representing meter usage falling under 60%. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 34 Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds Out of this set of active multi-space meters shown, 85 out of 280 did not meet the 1,300-transaction threshold. Nine meters met the pay-by-app usage threshold (percent of transactions through the pay-by-phone app was at or above 60%). Two meters both did not meet the transaction threshold and met the pay-by-app threshold. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 35 By Block Face & Land Use Figure 21 below shows the average number of multi-space meters meeting the 1,300-transaction threshold per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. When compared with the total number of meters per block face for each given specific land use/zone, the difference between figures can help to highlight selected specific land uses where there may be too many meters or about the correct number, on average, to achieve financial feasibility. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face that Meet Threshold Average (Rounded) Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2 Secondary CBD 1.22 1 Residential Mixed Use 0.44 0 High-Density Residential 1.00 1 Urban Institutional 0.80 1 CBD 1.69 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 1.50 2 Library 1.50 2 Downtown Support District 2.00 2 Community Business 2.00 2 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 1 Overall, the average number of multi-space meters with an annual transaction total equal to or exceeding 1,300 per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 0.44 in the Residential Mixed-Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself had an average of 1.69 multi-space meters per full block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Outside the CBD, Gateway Mixed Use had the highest average at 1.80 meters per block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Figure 22 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face that met the transaction threshold of 1,300 transactions per year according to more generalized land uses and densities discussed in the previous section according to the selected corresponding specific land use/zone that best fits the more general category. Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face that Meet Threshold Mid-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 Non-Residential Secondary CBD 1.22 Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 High-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 Non-Residential CBD 1.69 Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 36 Recommendations Adding Meters Currently, no meter in the existing system likely sees a high-enough level of transactions per hour, on average, to warrant the need for an additional meter along a block face with existing meters. Therefore, Walker does not currently recommend adding more meters along any block faces within the existing paid parking zone. Walker does recommend that the City consider feedback from citizens, business owners, and paid parking users along a block face in order to evaluate the potential need for additional meters along that block face on a case-by- case basis. If feedback is consistently received that identifies long wait times or queues at a particular meter, the block face upon which the meter is located should be evaluated for the addition of a meter. Removing Existing Meters Given the above established requirements and threshold of 1,300 transactions per year, Walker has evaluated the existing paid parking system by block face in order to identify potential block face candidates for removal of a meter, as shown in Figure 23 below. Note that meter candidates identified for potential removal may not be meters that recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. For instance, consider an existing block face with three meters that are located about a quarter, half, and three-fourths up a block face where one of the three meters recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. If the meter not meeting the threshold is the one located either ¼ or ¾ the way up the block face, Walker would suggest that the meter ½ way up the block face would be the most suitable candidate for removal, even if it recorded more than 1,300 transactions. This is because the removal of that meter would result in more even spacing between meters and a shorter distance from any meter to the farthest parking space on the block face, and therefore better satisfy all the criteria established previously. Also note that the figure below does not account for any on-street accessible parking within the paid system, if any exists. Finally, note that meters for which no transactions were recorded were not included in this evaluation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 37 Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System In all, Walker has identified 27 out of 280 currently deployed and operational multi-space meters that may be candidates for removal, excluding meters with no recorded transactions that may not have been operational and deployed during the time period for which data was analyzed in this study. Note that some of the meters may be Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 38 located off-street and/or in a mid-block alley. In all cases, these represent associated block faces with three or more existing meters where at least one meter does not meet the 1,300 -meter transaction threshold. Candidates were selected that appeared to leave the most even spacing between meters on a block face, with meters satisfying the 250-foot maximum distance requirement. Walker recommends that block faces with meters identified as candidates for removal be evaluated further before being considered for removal. Criteria for further evaluation may include whether the block face is to see notable densification or redevelopment in the future that may increase parking use on that block face, or whether the meter is located near a particular institutional use where more meters may be warranted. Also, if accessible parking spaces are located near a meter identified as a candidate for removal, Walker would recommend that the meter remain. A detailed list of the meter locations identified for potential removal is located in the Appendix. Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates Figure 24 below shows the estimated cost range for replacement of the existing meter inventory (deployed and operational meters). Figures are shown for both complete replacement of the entire existing deployed and operational inventory as well as replacement minus the meter locations identified as candidates for removal in the previous section. Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters Cost Range of Meter in 2022 Projected Cost of Replacement Estimated Initial Cost Difference Existing Inventory Existing Inventory Minus Candidates for Removal For 280 Meters For 263 Meters $5,000 $1,400,000 $1,315,000 $85,000 $8,000 $2,240,000 $2,104,000 $136,000 The estimated cost for replacing all existing 280 deployed and operational meters ranges from about $1.4 million to $2.2 million. However, if replacement were to occur without replacing all 27 meters locations identified as candidates for removal, the cost would range from about $1.3 million to $2.1 million. As a result, total initial, up- front cost savings would range from $85k to $136k. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 39 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 05 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 40 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways SHORT- TO MID- TERM MID- TO LONG- TERM Sugar House Downtown Downtown Number of Meters Needed to Cover Short/Mid-Term Area at 2 per Block Face 488 Number of Meters Needed to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 per Block Face 310 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $2.4M – $3.9M Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $1.6M – $2.5M Number of Meters Needed to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 per Block Face (1 per Block Face) 143 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 1 per Block Face $715k – $1.1M Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 41 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters As Salt Lake City continues to grow, densify, and diversify, the City may wish to expand the location(s) where parking meters are installed. In this section, Walker provides a high-level framework for formulating a roadmap for future expansions based on an evaluation and consolidation of future known developments in the short and mid-term, as well as future land uses in the long term, as informed by various applicable sub-area and neighborhood plans. Short to Mid Term The City furnished to Walker a map, current as of July 2022, of known future downtown developments that are under construction, soon to be under construction, or that planned/proposed. Developments range from residential to commercial/retail and are mid-density to high-density in nature. Figure 25 below shows the locations of these various developments. By Walker’s count, there are about 68 developments shown. Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) Source: City of Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 42 Figure 26 below shows the existing paid parking areas and study areas for this project along with a contiguous area in yellow that outlines and encompasses the future downtown developments shown above. Note that the area has been drawn such that whole blocks are included if at least one new development is contained within. Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 43 In all, an area that encompasses all known new development downtown and adjacent to downtown would represent about a 2.4% increase in the number of block faces covered compared to the existing paid parking area shown above. There are about 102 block faces currently that are within the paid area while the growth area represents an area of about 244 block faces as drawn. Also, for each block or partial block within the area, only the block faces interior to the respective block were counted. Block faces on the opposite side of the street, or exterior to the block face, along the periphery of the area were not counted. Cost and Quantity Estimates If the City were to extend the paid parking area to this whole area, it would therefore represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the paid parking area, not including Sugar House. If assuming about 2 meters per block face, regardless of land use, this would equal to an increase in the total number of multi-space meters in the system of about 488 meters, give or take. If assuming about 3 meters per block face, it would result in an increase of about 732 meters, give or take. As of 2022, the average cost of a multi-space parking meter, including installation and other up-front costs such as hardware, software, and configuration, ranges from about $5,000 to about $8,000, depending on v endor and other factors. These costs do not include ongoing capital costs such as maintenance and software/platform subscriptions. Figure 27 below provides high-level cost range estimates for an expansion of the paid area into the areas shown in yellow in Figure 26. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown- length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face $5,000 $2,440,000 $3,660,000 $1,220,000 $8,000 $3,904,000 $5,856,000 $1,952,000 In all, a high-level cost estimate for increasing the size by 2.4x of the current metered parking area, as indicated in Figure 26, would range from about $2.4 million to $3.9 million, assuming 2 meters per block face, and would range from about $3.7 million to $5.9 million, assuming 3 meters per block face. Mid to Long Term Future land uses as planned and displayed in the various neighborhood and sub-area plans that have been officially adopted for all the neighborhood and community areas that are covered by the study areas are also included within the study area. These applicable sub-area, neighborhood, or community plans are the following: Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 44 • The Avenues Master Plan • Capitol Hill Master Plan • Central Community Master Plan • Sugar House Master Plan • Gateway District Land Development and Master Plan In order to provide a framework for understanding the number of parking meters and density that may be required of the future land uses, Walker has evaluated the applicable future land use plans and maps and created a composite of all future land uses across the study areas. This composite is shown in Figure 56 in the Appendix. After compiling the map shown in Figure 56, Walker then dissolved the various land uses, labels, zone/use nomenclatures, and legend/map colors shown in each plan and map into the same common general land use category/density combinations that were used in the Existing Metered Parking section of this report (Figures 10 and 21) in order to make comparison of future land uses across plans possible. Note that only mid-density and high-density commercial, residential, and mixed-use specific categories were considered. A detailed table that displays all specific land use categories and colors used in each of the land use maps shown in the composite above, and the general land use/density category(ies) to which they were associated/matched by Walker, is provided in the Appendix. A map of all future land uses with generalized land use/density categories is shown in Figure 28 on the next page. For purposes of this map, Walker included mid- and high-density land uses that straddled the study area boundaries. For Sugar House, Walker included and mapped generalized land uses falling within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area boundary. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 45 Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated Figure 29 below shows the number of meters that should be considered per full block face for each generalized land use/density combination shown above. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 46 Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Across Area that Meet Threshold Minimum Number of Meters per Block Face Mid-Density Residential 1.00 2 Non-Residential 1.22 2 Mixed-Use 1.80 2 High-Density Residential 1.00 2 Non-Residential 1.69 2 Non-Residential (High Activity Area) 2.74 3 Mixed-Use 2.00 2 The average number of meters that meet the 1,300-transaction minimum threshold, as reiterated above, ranged from about 1 to 2 per block face (2.74 average for high-activity, high-density commercial areas). However, since the City has specified that a minimum of two meters per full block face should always be installed regardless of usage or other factors, this means that the number of meters per downtown block face for all general uses and densities should be 2 for all land uses with an average of 2.00 or below. For high-activity, high-density commercial areas, 3 meters per block face are recommended as the average number of meters meeting the transaction threshold is above 2.00 (2.74). It should be noted that for certain institutional and human resource land uses, a minimum of 3 or 4 meters per block face should be installed. Also, as shown in the table, for high-activity areas within the high-density commercial area, the average number of meters per block face where the threshold is met exceeds two. As a result, for such areas, 3 meters per block face should be considered. Figure 30 on the next page shows the existing paid area combined with the short- and mid-term growth area in yellow, as shown in Figure 25 above, along with an additional area that outlines additional mid- and high-density residential, mixed use, and commercial growth areas as determined from the consolidated future land uses shown in Figure 28. These additional areas are shown in orange. In the case of Sugar House, such future land uses that fall within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area were included. Note that future mid- and high-density land uses contained within the study areas for this project do not necessarily account for whether or not the given density and land use falls within an urban or a suburban/car- orientated context. For instance, the medium-density residential located immediately east of the Forest Dale Golf Course, in Sugar House, is an existing suburban-style apartment complex that lacks internal on-street parking and may not be a good candidate for metered parking. As a result, the mid- and long-term growth areas in orange are drawn to encompass only mid- and high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial future land areas that exist currently with an urban context/typology within the study area, as areas that are not within such a context/typology may not be well suited for paid parking even in the long term. These are the areas within which Walker has considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve the areas. Also, Walker drew the mid- to long-term areas so as to encompass blocks and/or block faces that completely or nearly completely fall under a future mid- or high-density residential, mixed use, or commercial land use. As a result, the growth area excludes some of the mid-density residential future land uses in the eastern third of the Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 47 downtown study area rectangle as these future land uses are interspersed with low-density housing and do not encompass most or all of a block Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 48 Cost and Quantity Estimates Walker has provided below a high-level estimate for the number of meters that might be installed in the mid- and high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas in the Sugar House and Downtown study area in the mid- to long-term, as informed by the consolidated future land uses. Only the mid- and high-density residential, mixed use, and commercial future land uses included within the orange areas shown in the previous figure have been considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve block faces within the respective areas. Downtown Growth Area Figure 31 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called “block face equivalents,” within the main orange area (downtown) by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Third, frontage of blocks along freeways, viaducts, and other such corridors were excluded. Finally, these estimates do NOT account or consider alleys or some mid-block streets that may occur across the orange area, particularly at the periphery in The Avenues and at the south. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown- length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Number of Meters per Downtown Block Face 2 3 Mid- Density Residential 22 44 66 Non-Residential 38 76 114 Mixed-Use 33 66 99 High- Density Residential 6 12 18 Non-Residential 18 36 54 Mixed-Use 38 76 114 Total 155 310 465 * Downtown block face length or equivalent (660 feet) Figure 32 below gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Downtown growth area at 2 meters per block face and 3 meters per block face. Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face $5,000 $1,550,000 $2,325,000 $775,000 $8,000 $2,480,000 $3,720,000 $1,240,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 49 Walker estimates that there are approximately 155 block faces or block face equivalents within the Downtown mid- to long-term area. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.6 million to $2.5 million. At 3 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $2.3 million to $3.7 million. Sugar House Growth Area Figure 33 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called “block face equivalents,” within the smaller orange area to the south (Sugar House), as defined in Figure 30 above, by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, for some irregular and/or curved block faces, Walker visually estimated the equivalent or approximate number of qualifying block faces within the defined area. Third, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Finally, frontages of blocks along the 80 Freeway were excluded. Estimates are shown assuming both 1 meter per block face and 2 meters per block face. While 2 meters per block face was one requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking, that requirement was determined partly based on the fact that the standard block face length in Salt Lake City is about 660 feet. Standard Sugar House block faces, at 360 feet, are a little more than half that length. Therefore, only one meter per block may be sufficient to serve some or most typical block faces in Sugar House. Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Number of Meters per Sugar House Block Face 1 2 Mid- Density Residential 26 26 52 Non-Residential 5 5 10 Mixed-Use 74 74 148 High- Density Residential 2 2 4 Non-Residential 0 0 0 Mixed-Use 36 36 72 Total 143 143 286 * Sugar House block face length (360 feet) Figure 34 gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Sugar House growth area at both 1 meter and 2 meters per block face. Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Sugar House) Estimated Cost Difference At 1 per Block Face At 2 per Block Face $5,000 $715,000 $1,430,000 $715,000 $8,000 $1,144,000 $2,288,000 $1,144,000 Walker estimates that there are approximately 143 block faces or block face equivalents within the Sugar House mid- to long-term area. At 1 meter per block face, the cost range would be approximately $700k to $1.1 million. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.4 million to $2.3 million. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 50 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 06 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 51 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES SUGGESTED ACTIONS SLC SELECTED EXISTING $ $ $2.25 per hour (flat rate for entire system). Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour). 2 hours per day (across entire system). 4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some very high demand spaces. 8 AM – 8 PM, Mon – Sat (across entire system). Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later end time for areas with high late-night demand and earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. Mon – Fri. Mon – Sat to align with enforcement hours. Single zone (same rates, hours across entire paid area). Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should be its own zone with different rate structure. Flat fine structure, lower fines for some violations than peer city average. Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated fine structure. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 52 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City Walker researched Salt Lake City’s existing metered parking system and documented the following items: on- street metered parking rates, hours of enforcement, time limits, overnight parking, “move -it” policies, and fines for various selected parking violations that pertain to on-street metered parking/paid parking areas. On-Street Parking Time Limits Figure 35 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) On-Street Time Limits Metric Salt Lake City Time Limits Two hours Mon - Sat. No time limits on Sundays. Hours that Time Limits are In Place By City ordinance, time limits are in place at all times at any multi- space meter parking space or 2-hour time zone. On-Street Parking Rates Figure 36 shows on-street parking rates in Salt Lake City. Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City $2.25 per hour on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are free. Motorcycles and accessible parkers are exempt from parking fees. Some green vehicles may qualify for a free parking permit. On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 37 shows on-street hours of enforcement for Salt Lake City. Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 53 Special Events Figure 38 shows special event parking metrics and rates for Salt Lake City. Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Salt Lake City Special Event Rates for On-Street Meters? No Event Rate Structure N/A Overnight Parking Figure 39 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) Overnight Parking Metric Salt Lake City Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces? (Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) Not specified Overnight Parking Fee Schedule N/A “Move-It” Policy A “Move-it” policy or ordinance specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 40 below shows selected information about Salt Lake City’s Move-it policy. Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City) Move-It Ordinance Metric Salt Lake City "Move It" Ordinance Yes Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved Another block face How Long Ordinance is In Effect Posted time limit + 2 hours Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 54 Metered Parking Violations and Fines Figure 41 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations directly applicable to metered parking in Salt Lake City. Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Salt Lake City Overtime Meter $35 Meter Violation* $75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23 "Feeding the Meter" $23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines? No Notes * Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 55 Peer City Benchmarking For the topics researched and documented in the previous section, Walker performed benchmarking for six peer cities across the western United States. These cities are Denver, Sacramento, Boise, Austin, Portland, and Seattle. Two of the six peer cities – Portland and Seattle – were selected as aspirational communities that feature metered/paid on-street parking systems that are larger and more complex than Salt Lake City’s existing system. Information for peer cities is believed to be current as of August 2022. On-Street Parking Time Limits Figure 42 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) On- Street Time Limits Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Time Limits Vary. In CBD, 2 hour limit. In Cherry Creek, 3 hour limit. All metered spaces are subject to 10- hour time limit. Tiered system. Premium and Standard: 2 hour limit. Value: 4 hour limit. All metered spaces are subject to 10- hour time limit. Time limits vary from 1 - 4 hours. Within CBD, time limits are typically 2 hours. Outside of CBD, time limits are typically 3 - 4 hours. Within event overlay areas, a 2-hour time limit goes into effect during events, even for spaces that are normally subject to a longer time limit. Time limits vary from 2 hours to 4 hours, with some 10-hour spaces available. In areas where enforcement extends to 10 PM, the time limit becomes 5 hours after 5 PM. Hours that Time Limits are In Place Varies. In CBD, 6 AM - 10 PM Varies. In CBD, 8 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sat. In CBD periphery, 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Sat. In Old Sacramento, 10 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sun. In all other areas where metered parking exists, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Sat Three zones: Premium, Standard, Value. Premium: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Standard: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Value: 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Fri only. 10 zones. Hours of enforcement vary widely. 1 zone is enforced on event days only. For all zones, enforcement begins at 8 AM. In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri, 11 AM - 12 AM Sat. 6 zones. Enforcement begins at either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends between 6 PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event district overlay areas and during events, enforcement always begins 3 hours before an event and lasts until 3 hours after the event, regardless of typical hours or days of enforcement. Within event overlay areas, time limits are in place during events, from 3 hours before an event begins and last until 3 hours after it ends. Most zones: 8 AM - 8 PM. In some zones, time limits are in place until 10 PM and in others, time limits end at 6 PM. During events within the Uptown and Uptown Triangle zones, event time limits and rates can be in effect during Sundays and holidays. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 56 On-Street Parking Rates Figure 43 shows on-street parking rates in the peer cities. Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Varies. In most areas, $2 per hour. Tiered system. The base rate is $1.75 per hour with 4 meter tiers. Each tier represents the time limit for parking at the base rate. Tiers range from 1+ hour to 4+ hours. For all tiers, the rate for next hour after the time limit is $3. For each hour thereafter, the rate is $3.75. Some long-term meters exist that allow for up to 10 hours of parking with a $3 or $6 max rate, depending on location. Graduated system by zone. Premium: $2 per hour for first hour, $3 for 2nd hour (Mon - Fri), $0.50 per hour (Sat). Standard: $1.25 per hour for first hour, $2 for 2nd hour (Mon - Fri), $0.50 per hour (Sat). Value: $0.50 per hour for hours 1 - 2, $1 per hour for hours 3 - 4. For all zones, first 20 minutes is free. Graduated system by length of stay for all zones. $2 per hour for 1 - 2 hour. Then $3 for hour 3. Rate then increases by $0.50 per hour for each hour thereafter through hour 7. $5 per hour for hours 8 - 10. First 15 minutes free. Mopeds and motorcycles typically exempt from fees. Also, prisoners of war and Purple Heart recipients are exempt per Texas state law. Varies by zone. Non-event rates range from $1 per hour to $2 per hour. In CBD, rate is $2 per hour. Vary by zone and time of day. Morning rates are in effect between 8 AM and 11 AM. Midday rates are in effect between 11 AM and 5 PM. Evening rates are in effect between 5 PM and 8 PM (5 PM and 10 PM in some zones). Morning rates range from $0.50 to $2 per hour. Midday rates range from $1 per hour to $4 per hour. Evening rates range from $0.50 to $2.50 per hour. In some zones, parking is free after 6 PM with no evening rate in effect. On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 44 shows on-street hours of enforcement for the peer cities. Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Varies. In the CBD, 8 AM - 6 AM Mon - Sat (No enforcement between 6 AM and 8 AM). In Cherry Creek, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat. Varies. In CBD, 8 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sat. In CBD periphery, 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Sat. In Old Sacramento, 10 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sun. In all other areas where metered parking exists, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Sat Three zones: Premium, Standard, Value. Premium: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Standard: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Value: 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Fri only. 10 zones. Hours of enforcement vary widely. 1 zone is enforced on event days only. For all zones, enforcement begins at 8 AM. In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri, 11 AM - 12 AM Sat. Motorcycles or mopeds may exceed posted time limits, but they may not exceed 12 hours during any paid parking session at a paid parking space. 6 zones. Enforcement begins at either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends between 6 PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event district overlay areas and during events, enforcement always begins 3 hours before an event and lasts until 3 hours after the event, regardless of typical hours or days of enforcement. Most zones: 8 AM - 8 PM. In some zones, time limits are in place until 10 PM and in others, time limits end at 6 PM. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 57 Special Events Figure 45 shows special event parking metrics and rates for the peer cities. Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Special Event Rates for On- Street Meters? No Yes No No Yes Yes Event Rate Structure N/A Event rates apply during events where more than 15,000 attendees are expected within a designated special event parking zone. During events, an event flat rate applies after the tiered time limit expires. The base rate for all tiers is $1.75. For Tier 1, the flat rate is $14; for Tier 2, the flat rate is $15.25; for Tier 3, the flat rate is $13.50. N/A N/A Within event overlay areas, meter rates increase to $4 per hour during events (starting 3 hours before event until 3 hours after it ends). There is a flat $0.20 Climate and Equity Transaction Fee for all parking transactions Event rates apply during events where more than 10,000 attendees are expected within the Uptown and Uptown Triangle zones. During events, between 5 PM and 10 PM, the first 2 hours of parking are $3 per hour. Additional hours after the first 2 are $8 per hour. Overnight Parking Figure 46 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Overnight Parking Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces? (Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Overnight Parking Fee Schedule 10 PM - 2 AM: $1 per hour 2 AM - 6 AM: $0.50 per hour 6 AM - 8 AM: Free N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 58 “Move-It” Policy A “Move-it” policy or ordinance is one that specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 47 below shows selected information about the peer cities’ “Move-it” policies. Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities) Move-It Ordinance Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle "Move It" Ordinance Yes Yes Unspecified Unspecified Yes Yes Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved 100' One city block Unspecified Unspecified Another block face or 500 feet One block How Long Ordinance is In Effect 24 hours Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified 3 hours Unspecified Metered Parking Violations and Fines Figure 48 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations that are directly applicable to metered parking in the selected peer cities. Figure 49 shows the lowest, average, and highest fines for each selected violation. Note that the exact violation labels, definitions, language, and context in each peer city’s code for the violations listed may differ; Walker selected the particular violations and fines for each city that are most equivalent to Salt Lake City’s respective violations and associated fines. Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento* Boise** Austin*** Portland Seattle**** Overtime Meter $35 $35 $21 $30 $44 1st offense; $50 2nd offense, $70 3rd offense. $44 Meter Violation $35 $50 N/A $40 $65 $47 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $35 $40 $26.50 $40 $65 - $95 $47 "Feeding the Meter" $35 $25 N/A $40 $44 $44 Accessible Space Violation $350 $445 $159 $300 $165 $450 Graduated Fines? No No No No Yes (Overtime meter) Yes (Overtime violations after 1st are $47) Notes * $12.50 mandatory surcharge for all violations ** $15 late fee for fines over 6 months *** Fees represent standard fine. Fines are reduced if paid early. All fines include $5 in statutory court costs. **** Fine schedule notes that there is a fine of $47 for "repeated overtime" violations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 59 Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Peer Cities Salt Lake City Min (1st Offense) Average Max Overtime Meter $21 $33 $44 $35 Meter Violation $35 $42 $50 $75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $27 $35 $40 $23 "Feeding the Meter" $25 $33 $40 $23 Accessible Space Violation $159 $314 $445 $150 Additionally, according to the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule for traffic-related offenses, as provided by the Utah State Court System, the suggested fine for an accessible parking space violation is $340.2 2 Utah Courts. “2022 Uniform Fine Schedule.” Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.utcourts.gov/rules/appendices/Appendix_C/Uniform_Fine_Schedule.pdf Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 60 Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways • Time limits o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a uniform time limit in place for all metered parking areas ▪ In 4 of 6 peer cities, the time limit varies depending on area/zone ▪ In 2 of 6 peer cities, a tiered rate system is in place that enables stays of up to 10 hours • Parking rates o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a flat hourly rate for metered parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier ▪ 4 cities have rates that differ by area/zone ▪ 2 cities have rates that differ by length of stay ▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both zone and time of day ▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both area/zone and length of stay o Salt Lake City is the only city that does not charge for parking on Saturdays in all metered areas ▪ 3 of the 6 peer cities have paid parking uniformly in place on Saturdays ▪ The other peer cities have paid parking in place on Saturdays only within certain areas/zones o 4 of the peer cities have paid parking in place on Sundays in some areas/zones and/or during special events • Hours and days of enforcement o Salt Lake City is the only city that has uniform hours of enforcement in place for all metered parking areas • Special events o 3 of the peer cities have different rate and enforcement structures for special events within certain areas • Overnight parking o Denver has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking at metered spaces. o Other peer jurisdictions, as well as Salt Lake City, have no special rules pertaining to overnight parking ▪ Overnight parking at metered spaces may either be unrestricted or be subject to “no overnight parking” rules between certain posted hours • Move-it policy o 5 of 6 peer cities with “move-it” policies explicitly identified require vehicles to move at least one city block or block face away, the same as Salt Lake City o For cities where a time limit was specified, a vehicle cannot park on the same block face again for at least three hours • Violations and fines o All the peer cities observed have higher fines associated with parking outside allowed hours and “feeding the meter.” o Salt Lake City’s fine for accessible space violations is less than half the average fine for the peer cities o 2 of 6 peer communities have graduated fine structures in place for some or all violations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 61 Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees Salt Lake City does not directly own, operate, or manage any paid off -street parking facilities for general public use. However, as part of this study, Walker has performed an overview of paid parking rates for privately owned - and -operated off-street parking facilities downtown as a benchmark for which to compare existing on-street parking rates. In all, Walker benchmarked 26 off-street parking facilities that offer paid parking for general public use. Rates researched are shown in Figure 50 below and are current as of July 2022. Note that per-hour figures in cells highlighted in light orange have been calculated from a listed rate other than one hour (e.g., a given rate for 20 minutes was multiplied by 3 to determine the effective rate for 1 hour). Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Flat Rate Night/ Evening Rate per 1 Hour per 2 Hours per Day or Max Rate The Parkside Tower 215 State St. SP+ No Yes $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 Marriott City Center 220 South State St. Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $20.00 242 East Broadway 242 E. Broadway ABM No No $3.00 $1.50 $3.00 236 Shelmerdine Ct. 236 Shelmerdine Ct. ABM No No $3.00 $2.00 $4.00 Broadway Center 111 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $3.50 $7.00 Walker Center Garage 160 Regent St. ABM No Yes $2.00 $3.00 $15.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $12 Wells Fargo Center 299 S. Main St. ABM No Yes $3.00 $8.00 Exchange Place 24 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $4.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 Marriott City Creek 75 W. Temple Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $19.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking Services No Yes $10 $5.00 American Plaza Garage 255 W. Temple Republic Parking System No Yes $4.00 $7.00 222 S. Main Garage 222 S. Main ABM No Yes $4.00 $6.00 $20.00 Hilton Salt Lake City Center 255 W. Temple Hilton Yes Yes $22 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $8 Grand America Garage 555 S. Main Grand America Hotel Yes Yes $5.00 $9.00 $25.00 Salt Palace Convention Center 100 S. Temple Salt Palace No Yes $15 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Ave. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W. 500 S. SP+ Yes Yes $2.50 $5.00 $15.00 330 W. Temple Lot 220 W. Temple ABM No No $6.00 Hilton DoubleTree 110 W. 600 S. Hilton Yes Yes $15 Royal Wood Lot 250 W. 200 S. ABM No No $5.00 $1.50 $3.00 $5.00 U127 Lot 254 S. 200 W. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 62 Figure 51 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 50 above. Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics Per Day or Day Max Rate per Hour Evening Rate Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest $5.00 $14.45 $25.00 $1.50 $3.42 $5.00 $2.00 $4.25 $6.00 Also, Walker has researched the cost of monthly parking permit rates at selected off -street facilities where such parking is offered. While Salt Lake City currently does not offer or provide permit-based parking at any of its paid on-street meters, it could use off-street parking permit rates benchmarked here as a baseline for establishing costs for such permits in the future. In all, 15 downtown parking facilities were researched that offered, as of July 2022, monthly permitted parking, as shown in Figure 52 below. Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Monthly Rate (Unreserved) Monthly Rate (Reserved) CBRE 257 Parking 257 E. 200 S. CBRE No Yes $55.00 U071 Lot 256 E. 300 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U013 Lot 217 E. 400 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U145 Lot 220 S. Edison St. Diamond Parking Services No Yes $95.00 Brighton Bank Lot 311 S. State St. Diamond Parking Services No No $85.00 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $120.00 Regent Street Garage 119 S. Regent St. City Creek No Yes $115.00 $132.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $95.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $105.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking Services No Yes $105.00 170 S. Main 170 S. Main ABM No Yes $85.00 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $64.00 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $80.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Ave. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U075 Lot 279 W. 200 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 Figure 53 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 52 above. Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics Lowest Monthly Rate Average Monthly Rate (Unreserved) Average Monthly Rate (Reserved) Highest Monthly Rate $55.00 $87.33 $101.20 $132.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 63 Recommendations & Other Suggested Items On-Street Parking Time Limits Salt Lake City has a uniform time limit of two hours in place for all metered parking. It is the only city, compared to the peer cities examined, that has a uniform time limit. Having different time limits in place can serve to customize or tailor on-street parking to the adjacent land uses the parking serves and account for the particular predominate use case for that parking. Longer time limits can allow for longer parking stays to take place, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for “feeding the meter.” Shorter time limits can allow for higher turnover compared to the average parking space for very high demand or high-activity parking spaces. From a revenue generation perspective, time limits for paid parking are mostly unrelated to a space’s revenue generation potential. Within an 8-hour period, the amount of revenue generated would be the same (under a flat-rate system) whether the space sees four vehicles parked for 2 hours a piece or whether it sees one vehicle parked for 8 hours. It should be noted that under a tiered system, longer time limits may actually increase revenue compared to a flat-rate system, all other things being equal, since some parkers will pay a higher rate per hour to for longer stays. Recommendations • In conjunction with suggested actions regarding parking rates, increase time limit from 2 to 4 hours, at least for most spaces within the paid system. o A tiered or graduated rate structure would take over as the primary mechanism for encouraging turnover and incentivizing shorter stays while allowing longer stays if needed without being in violation. o A maximum time limit should still be in place to discourage overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • Time limits of fewer than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts. On-Street Parking Rates Salt Lake City is a large city and has a high-activity and diverse downtown that continues to grow. It is not exclusively comprised of office land use where activity peaks between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. The downtown, as well as peripheral areas such as Gateway, feature dining, night life, entertainment, and services land uses, as well as the continued development of multi-family residential. On-street meter rates today in Salt Lake City are universally $2.25 per hour, and Saturdays and Sundays are free. This is despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Also, according to Walker’s current understanding, a two-hour time limit for on-street parking still applies on Saturdays despite decreased or no enforcement on Saturdays as parking is free. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 64 Every peer city examined has on-street metered parking rates that varied across the system. Rates vary as a function of area or zone, length of stay, tier, or time of day. It should be noted that, for every peer city, the highest rate observed, for at least the first 2 hours, was lower than Salt Lake City’s flat rate, with the typical highest rate for the first hour, regardless of tier or zone, being $2 per hour. In the case of parking rates that vary by area, some areas/zones feature higher per-hour rates than others as a function of the land use density and activity levels of a given area. The highest-activity areas within the central business district command higher prices than lower-density areas and/or areas with lower activity levels. The rate, therefore, takes into account the value, or the “market rate,” of on-street parking dynamically. An alternative or additional way to account for the “market rate” of a respective metered parking space is to vary the rate by time of day or day of week, acknowledging that parking demand may differ widely based on time of day for all areas/zones, regardless of the peak level of activity for that area/zone. In the case of parking rates that vary by length of stay, rates are designed to escalate according to a tier structure, with lower rates for the first hour or two than for subsequent hours. For these peer systems, a graduated, or tiered, rate system accomplishes the purpose of encouraging on-street parking turnover while also allowing for longer parking stays to take place if needed, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for “feeding the meter. Parking meter rates should, first and foremost, be set at rates that match the cost of services and programs that the revenue is intended to pay for. Also, they should be responsive to users’ parking behavior patterns, which can differ widely, and potentially be future proofed for managing other uses of the curb within the paid parking area, such as TNC’s (Uber/Lyft), commercial deliveries/loading, or other short-term use. One other important consideration or best practice is that on-street parking should, in general, be more expensive per hour than off-street parking. This is to incentivize longer-term parkers to use off-street facilities, freeing up on-street parking for shorter stays and increasing parking availability for customers or visitors. If on - street parking is not as expensive as off-street parking, on-street parking may be occupied by employees and other long-term parkers who are cost incentivized not to use off-street parking, which typically already operates at a competitive and convenience disadvantage. Parkers of all user groups may elect to “cruise,” or circulate around the street grid looking for or waiting for an on-street space to free up instead of using an off-street space. This can cause inconvenience from a time perspective as well as cause traffic congestion and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. While Salt Lake City does not operate a system of city-owned and -operated parking structures or lots intended for general public use, the average per-hour rate for private parking garages is higher than the per-hour rate for on-street parking by more than a dollar. For long-term parkers, a rate structure should be set up such that the rate per hour for stays exceeding 4 hours is higher than the predominate average off -street parking rate, in order to incentivize parkers to use off-street facilities instead for long stays. Recommendations • Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour. • Transition to a tiered rate structure where parking rates increase per hour for longer parking stays o In order to disincentivize long-term stays, and encourage such parkers to use off-street facilities, the per-hour rate should incrementally increase until at least the average off-street public parking rate is reached or exceeded. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 65 o For the existing paid parking area, Walker recommends the following tiered rate schedule: ▪ $2.50 per hour for the first 2 hours. ▪ $5 per hour for the 3rd hour. ▪ $10 per hour for the 4th hour. Suggested Items for Consideration • Zone-based pricing for on-street rates o Zones should be defined based on parking demand patterns in a given area. ▪ Sugar House can or should be a separate zone from the existing paid area (downtown), with its own rate schedule that is commensurate with parking demand patterns in that area. ▪ Downtown can or should be divided into at least 2 zones, with 1 zone comprising high- utilization parking areas with higher rates and the other comprising lower-utilization parking areas with lower rates. • A different tiered rate schedule or flat per-hour schedule could be put into place for lower-demand zone(s). ▪ Other zones can be added when or if the area of the paid parking system were to increase with their own rate structure. On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement Hours of enforcement are Monday – Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM in Salt Lake City. As with parking rates, this is also despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as diffe rences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Accordingly, every peer city examined also set different hours of enforcement that varied as a function of the same variables used to determine rate structures. Paid parking, as a baseline, should be in place during all time periods where parking activity levels warrant or justify it. Hours of enforcement should correlate with the dynamic rate structure and also be set as a function of the “market rate” and occupancy/behavior patterns. Parking enforcement requires time, labor, and resources. Enforcement should be more concentrated in areas of higher activity and/or higher revenue generation, and hours of enforcement should differ based on the parking activity patterns of a given area. Finally, cost-effective enforcement should be active during all times for which parking restrictions are in place in any paid system/within any paid area. Recommendations • Expand paid parking into Saturdays. o This change would align enforcement hours with paid parking hours across the week. • Extend paid parking to 10 PM within the existing paid parking area. Suggested Items for Consideration • Later end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization remains elevated past 10 PM. o Such areas may include land uses such as night life, entertainment, et cetera. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 66 • Earlier end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization may decrease substantially after a certain time, making enforcement non-cost-effective o Such areas may include land uses such as single-use office. ▪ For such areas, enforcement may conclude at 5 or 6 PM. Special Events Like some of the peer cities examined, Salt Lake City’s downtown features at least one significant generator of special event activity: the Vivint Arena, used for professional basketball as well as for other special events such as concerts. As a result, on-street parking activity along streets immediately surrounding the arena may surge during games or events, which may occur during evenings or on weekends, and/or when parking activity levels are much lower than their typical peak. On-street parking in this area during such events should be reflective of and responsive to such surges, regardless of whether they remain at a flat rate or are set to vary during non-event times. Suggested Items for Consideration • Establish a special zone or an overlay zone around the Vivint Arena where special event paid parking rates and hours of enforcement would apply during large events at the arena. o For special event rates, the existing two-hour time limit for on-street parking would have to be eliminated or modified (See “Time Limits” above). o Walker suggests setting per-hour special event rates for the first 1 -2 hours based on the average per-hour rate for the off-street parking system to provide non-event parkers with an on-street parking option. o For every hour after the 2nd hour, the per-hour rate should be such that the “max rate” for an event should be competitive with event day maxes for the off-street parking system. Overnight Parking Salt Lake City is in line with most peer cities in terms of overnight parking. One city has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • None at this time. Move-It Policy All peer cities that had a “Move-It” policy in place required vehicles within the on-street metered area to move at least one block face away from where they were previously parked once they reach the maximum time limit. However, all peer cities examined have typical city block lengths that are shorter than downtown Salt Lake City. Also, the time for which a parker may not be allowed to park within the minimum distance that the parker was required to move was at least 3 hours. Typically, a “no repark allowed” time of at least 3 hours helps to discourage drivers from moving to take advantage of longer time limits and/or lower parking rates that may go into effect during the parker’s stay. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 67 Suggested Items for Consideration • Increase the time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours (See “Time Limits” above). Violations & Fines Fine amounts for parking violations should be set such that they incentivize parkers to not commit recurring violations. For violations that are serious in nature, fines should be set such that parkers are highly incentivized not to commit any violation. While the ultimate goal of parking management is to create and support transportation options for people and support uniform following of all rules and regulations, fines for violations are an important part of encouraging compliance and mitigating the negative consequences of rule breaking. For example, when a parker chooses to overstay a time limit in a parking space, they in turn reduce the ability of that parking space to serve other parkers. When a parker neglects to pay for a metered parking space, they reduce the revenue generated by that parking space and can impact the city’s ability to run services and programs paid for by parking revenues. There is undoubtedly a community impact associated with parking violations. If fines are too low, and especially if enforcement is lacking, parkers may simply choose to risk citation and pay a fine instead of moving their vehicles or paying the per-hour rate. Salt Lake City’s fine for overtime meters was in line with the peer city average. The city’s fine for meter violations was much higher, though the violation may be defined differently than for peer cities and is this not directly comparable. Fines for parking outside of allowed hours and for feeding the meter were lower than the peer city average, though it should be noted that some peer cities had rate and time limit structures such that those violations are partially or completely obsolete in those cities. The major divergence of note was the fine for accessible space violations, where the fine in Salt Lake City was notably less than the average for the peer cities. It was also less than the suggested fine amount found in the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule as published by the Utah State Court System. Two of the 6 peer cities featured some version of graduated fines as a disincentive for repeated offenses. Recommendations • Increase fines from the current levels for all 5 parking violation types discussed in the peer benchmarking analysis. o Increases should bring fines for given violations more in line with the peer city averages and/or take into account inflation since fines were originally established. • The fine for accessible space violations should be closer to the suggested fine published by the Utah State Courts as of 2022 in their Uniform Fine Schedule ($340). Suggested Items for Consideration • Consider a graduated fine structure where fines increase by at least 25% for subsequent parking violations of the same type that occur within one year of the first such violation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 68 Appendix 07 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 69 Appendix Evaluation of Metered Parking Recommendations Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area Address IPS Pole 245 E 300 S 34520 241 S 200 E 34560 356 W 200 S 34350 432 S 200 E 34133 450 S 300 E 34504 245 E 500 S 34486 447 S 100 E 34453 257 E 200 S 34463 256 E 300 S 34546 254 E 500 S 34501 333 S 200 E 34194 258 S 200 E 34562 249 S Edison St 34544 253 E 100 S 34573 110 W Pierpont Ave 34413 160 N Main St 34429 142 S 200 W 34442 143 N Main St 34434 185 E Social Hall Ave 34478 382 S West Temple St 34583 180 E Social Hall Ave 34477 48 S 200 E 34597 39 W 500 S 34541 55 S 200 E 34588 52 S 300 E 34570 44 W 500 S 34532 59 S 300 E 34516 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 70 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Mid to Long Term Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses Neighborhood or Sub Area Corresponding General Land Uses Specific Land Use from Neighborhood or Sub Area Plan Color Corresponding Density Corresponding Land Use Category Color Land Use/Zone Name Sugar House Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - Low Intensity Business District Mixed Use - Neighborhood Scale High Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - High Intensity Business District Mixed Use - Town Center Scale Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Business High Density Commercial N/A Central Community Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Residential/Mixed Use Striped Residential/Office Mixed Use Medium Density Transit Orientated Development High Density Mixed Use High Mixed Use High Density Transit Orientated Development Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Striped Central Business District Support High Density Commercial Central Business District The Avenues Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density (Residential) High Density Residential High Density (Residential) Medium Density Mixed Use N/A High Density Mixed Use N/A Medium Density Commercial Business/Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Capitol Hill Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Striped (/) Medium Mixed Use Striped (\) Medium/High Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Crosshatch (X) High Density Mixed Use Medium Density Commercial General Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Gateway District Land Development and Master Plan* Medium Density Residential N/A High Density Residential N/A High Density Mixed Use Striped (\) Residential White Dots Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use Retail Crosshatch (X) Secondary Support Commercial Medium Density Commercial N/A High Density Commercial N/A Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 71 Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas FINANCIAL UPDATEJanuary 16, 2024 FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL $41.86 M Beyond Budget Spike in Q4 $(100,000,000) $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Actuals Budget Amount Forecasted amount 2 Major Category Budget Actual Variance Taxes 287,722,785 313,755,533 26,032,748 Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,432,794 5,811,688 1,378,894 Fines 3,765,174 3,519,515 (245,659) Interest Income 2,071,154 11,814,671 9,743,517 Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 25,857,520 1,425,803 Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 5,936,560 1,291,938 Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 43,946,510 3,210,396 Miscellaneous Revenues 3,455,828 4,691,828 1,236,000 Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,616,329 (19,146) Transfers 54,013,488 51,822,655 (2,190,833) Grand Total 427,909,151 469,772,809 41,863,658 FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL 3 FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL $30 M Below Budget $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Total Budget 4 FY 2023 EXPENSES –PERSONNEL $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Total Budget $15.7 M Below Budget 5 FY 2023 VACANCY SAVINGS BY DEPT -$66,834 $789,622 $708,634 $666,939 $229,610 $949,060 $448,783 $93,219 $186,243 $722,641 $7,290,705 $366,830 $3,284,279 -20M M 20M 40M 60M 80M 100M 120M 911 Dispatch Bureau City Council Office Community & Neighborhoods Department of Finance Economic Development Fire Department Human Resources Department Justice Court Office of the City Attorney Office of the Mayor Police Department Public Lands Public Services Variance 2023 Amend Budget 2023 Actuals 6 Major Category Budget Actual Variance Personal Services 259,355,475 243,685,745 15,669,730 Charges and Services 96,134,386 86,396,601 9,737,785 Operating & Maintenance Supply 17,054,952 13,384,844 3,670,109 Capital Expenditures 7,102,802 3,053,081 4,049,721 Transfers Out 99,167,639 81,117,256 18,050,383* Carry Forward Encumbrances 21,157,931 Grand Total 478,815,254 427,637,526 30,019,797 FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL 7 FY 2023 YEAR END FUND BALANCE TOTAL TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 160,123,682 202,575,741 Use of Fund Balance (22,836,870) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (20,423,209) (21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 116,863,603 148,549,011 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 24.85%33.42%Year End CAFR AdjustmentsRevenue Changes - - Expense Changes (2,257,746) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 114,605,857 146,064,588 Final Fund Balance Percent 24.37%32.86%Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (7,442,610) (1,170,982) Adjusted Fund Balance 178,933,386 143,722,624 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%32.33% Projected Revenue 470,299,454 444,504,923 FY2023 Budget FY2024 Budget 8 Major Category FY 24 Budget FY 24 Actuals New Projection Variance Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075) Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,427,047 5,427,047 6,452,523 1,025,476 Fines 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,144,079 12,866 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,234,598 99,977 Licenses and Permits 40,879,327 40,879,327 40,934,211 54,884 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,458,012 4,458,012 4,478,294 20,282 Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0 Total w/o Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 364,774,093 (1,787,547) Sales Tax Additional ½49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000 Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (1,387,547) FY 2024 REVENUE PROJECTION (NOVEMBER) 9 10 *Local Sales and Use Tax 1% Referred to as General Sales Tax Funding Our Future 0.5% County Option Sales Tax for Transportation 0.25% : City revenue is about 75% of tax at POS : 61% of Local Sales and Use revenue : 9% of Local Sales and Use revenue SALES TAX OVERVIEW HISTORICAL REVENUE 11 FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Actuals 61,864,445 64,897,423 66,324,147 73,778,034 86,532,634 89,090,809 89,500,000 Actuals Percentage Change 8.31%4.90%2.20%11.24%17.29%2.96%0.46% Budgets 58,016,887 62,950,961 65,350,000 62,049,593 68,119,999 83,500,000 92,500,000 Budgets Percentage Change 6.78%8.50%3.81%-5.05%9.78%22.58%10.78% Over/Under Budget 3,847,558 1,946,462 974,147 11,728,441 18,412,635 5,590,809 (3,000,000) - 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Sales Tax Budget vs Actuals Budgets Actuals *est. SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION (OCTOBER) 12 July - October Sales Tax Distribution: 75% Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 11,669,931 886,646 8%38.6%11,710,220 40,289 0%40.0% Wholesale Trade 4,198,147 553,381 15%13.9%3,581,373 (616,775) -15%12.2% Accommodation and Food Services 3,790,277 674,979 22%12.5%3,920,095 129,817 3%13.4% Manufacturing 2,182,771 231,529 12%7.2%1,925,191 (257,580) -12%6.6% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,235,755 (160,637) -12%4.1%1,248,372 12,617 1%4.3% Information 1,380,392 93,315 7%4.6%1,265,843 (114,549) -8%4.3% Other Services (except Public Administration)880,333 (5,635) -1%2.9%840,602 (39,731) -5%2.9% Utilities 829,472 151,120 22%2.7%883,431 53,959 7%3.0% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 861,274 118,225 16%2.9%876,139 14,866 2%3.0% Construction 841,073 401,516 91%2.8%538,670 (302,403) -36%1.8% Admin and Supp, Waste Mgmt and Rem Services 745,371 73,762 11%2.5%694,893 (50,478) -7%2.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 542,381 219,462 68%1.8%485,467 (56,914) -10%1.7% Total 29,157,177 3,237,662 12.5%96.5%27,970,296 (1,186,881) -4.1%95.6% 2023 2024 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 Item F1 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: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:February 6, 2024 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO EATS, LLC, AT 159 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE #200 MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Eats, LLC, from the Economic Development Loan Fund. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LORENA RIFFO JENSON DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Eats LLC STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com Project Manager, Will Wright, William.wright@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $100,000 loan to Eats LLC. BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On December 7, 2023, a loan request from Eats LLC was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Eats LLC is a vegan bakery specializing in donuts, sweet rolls, and cookies. Basic Loan request Business Name: Eats LLC Address: 159 West Broadway Suite #200 Loan Amount Requested: $100,000 Loan Term: 7 years Interest Rate: 7.75% Use of Funds: Food Trailer, Equipment, Buildout, Contingency, Working Capital Loan Type: Expansion Council District: District 4 rachel otto (Dec 19, 2023 15:46 MST) 12/19/2023 12/19/2023 Reasoning behind staff recommendation Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis and economic impact statement. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes, then the loan is recommended to be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon the thorough review of the Loan Committee members then a recommendation is made before the loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Open Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the public process is followed. In addition, the EDLF loans must meet the goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas. •Increase employment opportunities, •Stimulate business development and expansion, •Encourage private investment, •Promote economic development, •Enhance neighborhood vitality, •Boost commercial enterprise. This loan will assist in the creation of 3 new jobs in the next year and retention of 2 current jobs. This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval. EDLF Loan Balances 1.As reported by The Finance Department on November 30, 2023, the available EDLF fund balance is: $6.8 million. 2.As of December 8, 2023, the amount of outstanding loans total is: $3,864,980.12 EDLF Loan Committee There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members. City Employees: 1.Community and Neighborhoods Finance 2.Mayor’s Office 3.Employee at large 4.Housing Stability 5.Economic Development Community Volunteers: 6.Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 7.Banker 8.Community lender 9.Business mentor Attachments: Terms Sheet and Ordinance LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant: Eats LLC, d/b/a Eats Bakery Address: 159 West Broadway Suite #200 Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $100,000 Loan Terms: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 7.75% (at the time of application on March 3, 2023) EDLF Charge: 4% Less 4% Discount: (1% for each) •SEDI Business Owner •E2 Business •Low/Moderate Income Business Owner •Priority Area Final Interest Rate: 7.75% Use of Funds: Food Trailer, Build Out, Equipment, Contingency, Working Capitol Business Type: Existing Collateral and Guarantees: Food Trailer, Equipment, Personal Vehicle Personal Guarantees: Kandi Tesen, Byron Tesen Conditions for Closing •Signed commissary agreement in priority area of Salt Lake City •Enrollment in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program •Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Eats LLC, d/b/a Eats Bakery, at 159 West Broadway Suite #200 from the Economic Development Loan Fund) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund (“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan Committee. WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached loan term sheet for a $100,000 loan to Eats LLC, d/b/a Eats Bakery, a local business located at 159 West Broadway Street Suite #200. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________________, 2023. Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: December 15, 2023 Sara Montoya, City Attorney Item F2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 6, 2023 RE: 1433, 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East, Cleveland Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01183/012184 A question was raised about the Council's motion when this item was adopted in November. Basically, the zone requires a higher amount of active use (75%) than the Council’s motion implied. So, this item eliminates the implication that the Council intended to lower the 75% requirement and directs that at least 40% of the State Street façade on this property be active uses that draw the public to the building, and to ensure residential and parking use are not used to satisfy the 40%. MOTION 1 (clarify ordinance 63 of 2023 rezoning the properties, and amending future land use map) I move that the Council confirm its intent expressed in its motion of November 7, 2023, adopting the ordinance rezoning the properties and amending the future land use map with the condition that the petitioner enter into a development agreement with the city that requires petitioner to do the following: 1. Replace any dwelling units demolished with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished; and 2. Include a minimum of 40% of the building’s ground floor façade fronting State Street as active uses allowed in the zoning district, which uses shall not be residential or parking. All portions of such spaces shall extend a minimum of 25 feet into the building. (Staff note: The subject parcels were included in the list of properties with additional building height and adopted as Ordinance 63B of 2023.) ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Avenues Restrictive Covenant STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Remove the restrictive covenant from the affected properties. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In April 2023 the property owner at 453 N C Street applied for a Lot Consolidation with the intention of constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard. During the review process, Planning Staff examined a restrictive covenant applied to their property and 17 other properties, which prohibits the construction of detached ADUs. After considering the implications for all 18 affected properties, Planning Staff consulted with the Attorney’s Office and decided to pursue the removal of the restriction simultaneously for all properties instead of addressing them individually. DISCUSSION: The restrictive covenant (Exhibit 2) was established in 1981 as part of the street closure of 8th Avenue for the expansion of LDS Hospital (Ordinance 40 of 1981). As part of the street closure, as described in the restrictive covenant, the Greater Avenues Community Council agreed it would not oppose the 11/07/2023 AS rachel otto (Nov 9, 2023 08:59 MST)11/09/2023 11/09/2023 street vacation if other LDS Hospital owned properties were subjected to a restrictive covenant guaranteeing their continued residential use in conformity with the R- 2 zoning district that was in effect at that time. In 1995 during the City’s comprehensive zoning rewrite, the affected properties were rezoned from R-2 to SR-1A. Although Planning Staff was unable to locate the specific correspondence from 1979 that outlined this agreement, the City Recorder's Office found a separate letter related to the closure of 8th Avenue from the Greater Avenues Community Council regarding the Historic Revolving Loan Fund (see Exhibit 3). This letter provides some insight into the rationale behind the request for the restrictive covenant. It explains that the neighborhood would lose a total of 44 homes due to the expansion of the hospital, and it is likely that they wanted to prevent further deterioration of the neighborhood by imposing the restrictive covenant. The restrictive covenant was primarily focused on limiting allowed uses. The list below shows the uses currently allowed in the SR-1A zone that are prohibited due to the restrictive covenant. It is important to note that just because a use is allowed, it does not mean that the properties will have a right to that use. They must still meet the applicable zoning requirements associated with those specific uses and the SR-1A zone. -Accessory Dwelling Unit (permitted) -Dwelling, Assisted Living Facility with limited capacity (2-5 individuals) (conditional) -Dwelling, Congregate Care Facility (conditional) -Dwelling, Group Home (conditional) -Community Garden (conditional) -Urban Farm (permitted) -Daycare Center (conditional) -In-home Daycare (permitted) Because the properties are no longer owned by LDS Hospital, it seems the intent of the covenant has been satisfied, which was likely to prevent them from either developing as part of the hospital or selling to commercial use to support the hospital. Additionally, considering the adoption of the ADU ordinance, which permits ADUs in the SR-1A zone, Planning Staff believes it may be appropriate to remove the restriction. When the restrictive covenant was created, Salt Lake City may not have anticipated that ADUs would be permitted in the future. Map of the affected properties. See Exhibit 1 for a larger scale map. While SR-1A does permit, either by-right or through the conditional use process, some uses that may have a commercial aspect, Planning Staff is of the opinion that the SR-1A zone aligns with the intended purpose of the restrictive covenant to ensure residential use and low impact uses. However, the Council may consider implementing a new restriction that prohibits the properties from being rezoned to higher density zones or primarily commercial zoning districts to address any concerns. Greater Avenues Community Council Review The Greater Avenues Community Council is listed as an interested party in the restrictive covenant, and therefore, they must also vote to remove their interest in the covenant for it to be effective. Planning Staff met with the GACC on September 13 and October 4, 2023 to discuss the matter. The GACC ultimately voted to release their interest in the restrictive covenant at their November 1, 2023 meeting. Property Owner Notice On May 24th Planning Staff sent a notice to all affected properties making them aware of the covenant. The notice provided a 45-day comment period, after which Planning Staff would begin the process of requesting the removal of the covenant. The notice stated that if we did not receive a response, staff would move forward with the removal of the covenant based on the presumption that the property owners had no objection. Staff received responses from four property owners. Three in support of the removal (321 E 10th Avenue, 267/271 9th Avenue, and 453 N C Street), and one against the removal. One call included multiple property owners on the line, however, Planning Staff only feels comfortable stating that the actual caller should be recorded as in support. The property owner at 339 E 10th Avenue is against the removal due to zoning restrictions that would prohibit an ADU on their property. EXHIBITS: 1) Map of Affected Properties and Addresses 2) Restrictive Covenant 3) 8th Avenue Street Closure Revolving Loan Fund Letter 4) Affected Property Owner Notice 5) Ordinance for Removal EXHIBIT 1) Map of Affected Properties D St B St C St 9th Ave 10th Ave 11th Ave 8th Ave S a l l i e A v e 8th Ave 380 324 253 460 359 381 440 376 354 528 268 473 273 279 518 524 452 270 519 454 476 258 482 265 260 360 364354 266 288274280 531 390 340 418 252 338 386 532 524 374 374 324 328 267 518 514 508 502 253 257 263 333505 339337 367359357353 535 467 457 463 327 375 320304310278 518 321 528 511 474 368539 453 519 528 531 435 427 431 525 466 267 271 518 537 525 519 505 514 489 361 373369 464 367363273 469 479 475 377379 236 435 383 425 427 425 421 413 407 403 387 385 369 377 367 367359 381353 I UI II I SR-1A SR-1A SR-1A SR-1A SR-1A SR-1A SR-1A R-MU-35 SR-1ASR-1A SR-1A Avenues Restrictive Covenant ¯ Sa lt Lake City Planning Division 7 /12 /20 23 De vel opmen t Ag re eme nts De velop men t Ag reem ent s Zoning Di stricts FR-3 /12 ,00 0 Foot hills Re sid en tial SR-1 A Sp ecial Deve lo pme nt Pa ttern Reside ntia l R-M U-35 Re sid en tial/Mixed Use I Inst itu tion al UI Urb an Inst itu tion al F St G St E St B St 0 90 180 27045Feet EXHIBIT 2) Restrictive Covenant EXHIBIT 3) GACC Revolving Loan Fund Letter ,, . ·-·-..,..- --- , ----- . 'J,-~ {./'-...... ("J ._¡ "' :·ro~--.- .... __... -...1.-..... ..• , -~---~· 4 ---- -r .. :::·:::·_:·;:·1-'~•:::.::::·_:.~: • :•• ;·· • .··- ... -jA: :·:·:·: .. :} -- AvTN U ESClfMMUNTfY-COUNCtt~--] C: GREATER 92S SeconJ /\venue Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103 Member Salt Lake Association of Corrrnunity Councils December 28, 1979 Board of City Commissioners City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 Gentlemen: The Greater Avenues Community Council respectfully requests that time be scheduled during the January 2, 1980 hearing before you on the closure of 8th Avenue between C and D Streets, to present a related a compensatory petition. Our Council has agreed to not oppose the closure of this street in exchange for the guarantees offered by Intermountain Health Care which were enumerated before you on December 19. Should you actually decide to close that street there still remains a considerably important, unresolved detail. The closure of 8th Avenue constitutes, in actuality, the sale of publicly- owned property, to the benefit of a privately-owned institutio~The sale not only constitutes a loss to Avenues' residents of the benefits derived from the property, but the future institutional use of the property brings with it a serious, negative impact on the Avenues Community. We have already experienced many recent intrusions on our neighborhood. Without belaboring the point, we mention the following losses: Block Location Demolition PurEose 101 7th s 8th, B s e 7 homes Construction of Parking Terrace 102 7th & 8th, e & D 12 homes Parking Lot 122 8th s 9th, D & E 5 homes Parking Lot 130 9th & 10th, c & D 10 homes Parking Lot 130 9th s 10th, C & D 10 homes Doctors Clinic 44 home total As you can see this adds up to a loss of 44 homes to the purpose of hospital expansion. The rezoning to RH and R2A of blocks 122 and 124 (to the immediate west and east of the main hospital) will eventually bring the demoltion of another 14 homes, for a total of 58. In addition, the closure of 8th Avenue and the construction of a new hospital facility on Block 102 will mean the demolition of 9 more homes--homes which we have requested be preserved, in front of the new facility. We have been denied consideration for their preservation. This, ;hen, adds up to a grand total of 67 homes. The main point is that not only has the neighborhood sustained major losses in the past, but that the sale of the 8th Avenue property for hospital use •entails further neighborhood deterioration, and that this deterioration is a result of the disposition of an asset that belongs to that neighborhood. In all fai:rness the proceeds deriving from that sale ought to be used in a way which would offer some compensation to that neighborhood for its loss .. I b o ... We therefore petition the Commission to set up an Avenues' Captial • Improvements and Neighborhood Preservation Fund to be created with the proceeds from the sale of 8th Avenue. The fund would be used in two ways. First, there have already been many attempts to acquire a revolving fund specifically for purposes of historic preservation. This fund could serve that purpose as well as the purpose of neighborhood preservation. When homes are threatened, there would be an available source of revenue to secure the endangered properties, attach preservation covenants to them, and resell the properties on the open market. Second, a portion of the money could be made available as a Capital Improvements fund. We suggest that the major item needed is that of hillside preservation. Hopefully, the creation of a fund for these purposes will not only help with needed improvements for the neighborhood, but will also contribute to continuing good Neighborhood-Hospital relations. Sincerely, /\ I ! \}~~. -········· Justin Stewart Chairman EXHIBIT 4) Property Owner Notice NOTIFICATION OF A REQUEST AFFECTING YOUR PROPERTY May 24, 2023 RESPONSE REQUESTED Dear Property Owner, We would like to bring to your attention a Restrictive Covenant that has recently come to the attention of Salt Lake City Planning Staff. This covenant affects your property, as well as seventeen others indicated on the map to the right. The Restrictive Covenant was recorded on your property in 1981 and was associated with the street closure of 8th Avenue between C and D Streets. The covenant restricts the land uses to those permitted in the R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) zoning district in effect in 1981. It is important to note that in 1995, the city conducted a comprehensive revision of the zoning code, resulting in the rezoning of your property from R-2 to SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). Your property is currently subject to all the restrictions imposed by the SR-1A zone, as well as any land use restrictions that existed in the 1981 R-2 zone. The most significant implication of this restriction is that you are prohibited from constructing a detached accessory dwelling unit, due to the strict limitations found in the 1981 R-2 zoning. Planning Staff received interest from at least one affected property owner regarding the removal of this restriction. To streamline the process, we would like to request the City Council's consideration for the simultaneous removal of the restriction on all affected properties. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the restriction and to inquire about your preferred course of action for the removal of the restrictive covenant from your property. Please contact me, Krissy Gilmore, at Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com or 801-535-7780 before July 8, 2023. After this date, we will begin processing the request and schedule a briefing with the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council will arrange a follow-up meeting to vote on the matter. If we do not receive a response from you, we will assume that you agree to include your property in the application for the removal of the restrictive covenant. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Krissy Gilmore Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 801-535-7780 Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com EXHIBIT 5) Ordinance for Removal SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (Relinquishing Salt Lake City’s interests in restrictive covenants on certain real property) An ordinance relinquishing Salt Lake City’s interests as a beneficiary of restrictive covenants on certain real property related to Ordinance 40 of 1981. WHEREAS, In January 1980, the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) heard a petition by Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (“IHC”) to close a portion of 8th Avenue between C and D Streets to for IHC to acquire that portion of right-of-way to accommodate expansion of its LDS Hospital property; and WHEREAS, at the time, IHC owned 18 residential parcels adjacent to the hospital property (the “Affected Properties”); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised by property owners in the nearby community as well as by the Greater Avenues Community Council concerning IHC’s expansion efforts that residential dwellings had already been lost to prior LDS Hospital expansion and that further expansion could result in additional loss of dwellings; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 1981, the City Council passed Ordinance 40 of 1981, which closed a portion of 8th Avenue between C and D Streets, but retained ownership thereof until terms of a deed conveying the portion of right-of-way could be agreed upon; and WHEREAS, the City Council made Ordinance 40 of 1981 effective 30 days following publication of that ordinance; and WHEREAS, to satisfy the requirements of the City Council and the wishes of the Greater Avenues Community Council, IHC recorded a restrictive covenant (the “Restrictive Covenant”) against the Affected Properties on September 18, 1981 (Salt Lake County Recorder Entry No. 3608995) in favor of Salt Lake City and the Greater Avenues Community Council, which restrictive covenant limited the use of the Affected Properties to only single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and any other uses allowed in the R-2 zoning district at that time; and WHEREAS, in 1995, the City Council adopted a comprehensive amendment of the city’s land use regulations, which effort also rezoned the Affected Properties from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District; and WHEREAS, at the time the Restrictive Covenant was recorded, the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District prohibited accessory dwelling structures that could be used as a dwelling; and WHEREAS, in recent years, the City Council has amended Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to allow accessory dwelling units in residential districts, including both the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District; and WHERAS, IHC no longer owns any of the Affected Properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the purposes of the Restrictive Covenant are no longer necessary and the R-2 use restrictions applicable in 1981 have become inimical to the city’s goals and policies in furtherance of creating more housing opportunities; 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. Relinquishing the City’s Interests in the Restrictive Covenants. The City Council hereby declares the Restrictive Covenants no longer necessary and hereby relinquishes Salt Lake City’s interests in the Restrictive Covenants. Recording this Ordinance against the Affected Properties in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office shall be evidence of the city’s forfeiture of rights in the Restrictive Covenants. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 202_. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202_. Published: ______________. Ordinance removing restrictive covenant related to Ord 40 of 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 3, 2023 Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 8, 2023 09:01 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Avenues Restrictive Covenant Final Audit Report 2023-11-09 Created:2023-11-07 By:Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAjJgXDsXe70IVOjCFnXXIF87rkRwfKSEn "Avenues Restrictive Covenant" History Document created by Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) 2023-11-07 - 10:23:10 PM GMT Document emailed to Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-07 - 10:33:16 PM GMT Email viewed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-11-07 - 10:56:02 PM GMT Document e-signed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-07 - 11:18:50 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-07 - 11:18:52 PM GMT Email viewed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) 2023-11-07 - 11:24:35 PM GMT Document e-signed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-08 - 4:01:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-08 - 4:01:29 PM GMT Email viewed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) 2023-11-09 - 3:29:42 PM GMT Document e-signed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-09 - 3:59:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-11-09 - 3:59:26 PM GMT ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 8, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 1300 South Commercial Rezone Petition PLNPCM2023-00385 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Tyler Morris, the applicant representing the property owner, submitted a petition for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 E. 1300 South. The properties are currently zoned R-1-7000, which is a single-family residential zone. The petition is to rezone the properties to CB- Community Business. The CB zone allows for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. The request did not require a master plan amendment. At this point, the applicant has not provided a development plan for the properties. However, it is anticipated they would be developed in junction with adjoining properties to the south and would be used for multi-family housing or a mixed-use development. AS rachel otto (Nov 20, 2023 11:04 MST)11/20/2023 11/20/2023 The subject properties front along 1300 South, between Foothill Drive and 2300 East. 1300 South is a collector street where 2300 East is a local street and Foothill Drive is a State arterial street. The property currently contains three single-family homes. Each of the dwellings are currently used as housing rentals. Within proximity of the subject property, there is a mix of single-family and commercial uses. The neighborhood to the north (across 1300 South) contains single-family homes and is zoned R-1-12,000. The properties to the south and west include a single- story gas station, 2-story restaurant/office, and 3-story hotel. The commercial properties are zoned CB. The property to the east (across 2300 East) is a cemetery and is zoned OS (Open Space). The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing September 13, 2023. The Commission had some questions about final development of the property but voted (7-2) in favor of the City Council amending the zoning map as requested. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification- Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on July 3, 2023. • East Bench Community Council- Notification to the East Bench Community Council was sent on July 3, 2023. The community council did not request the applicant attend a community open house but did present a letter of opposition which is in the Planning Commission Staff Report. • City Open House- A virtual open house was hosted by the city from July 3, 2023 - August 17, 2023. • Planning Commission Public Hearing- On September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the rezone. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of September 13, 2023 b) PC Minutes of September 13, 2023 c) Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202__ (An ordinance amending the zoning of properties located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00385. WHEREAS, Tyler Morris (“Petitioner”) submitted an application to rezone the parcels located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South (Tax ID. Nos. 16-10-379-004-0000, 16-10-379-005-0000, and 16-10-379-006-0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District; and WHEREAS, at its September 13, 2023 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the city council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District. 2 SECTION 2. Condition. The zoning map amendment set forth herein is conditioned upon the owner of the Property entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City to retain three dwelling units on the Property. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 2 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 2 has not been met within one year after adoption of this ordinance, then this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above condition by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20__ Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2260 E. 1300 S., 2270 E. 1300 S., and 2290 E. 1300 S. to CB APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney November 16, 2023 3 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the Property Tax ID No. 16-10-379-004-0000 326 COM N 89º53'42" W 156.5 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 91.5 FT S 0º02'52" E 110 FT S 89º53'42" E 91.5 FT N 0º02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.23 AC 5445-1625 5853-2576 Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000 326 COM N 89º53'42" W 88 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 68.5 FT S 0º02'52" E 110 FT S 89º53'42" E 68.5 FT N 0º02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.17 AC 5595-1401 5681-1152 5686-282 Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000 326 COM AT NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 88 FT S 0º02'52" E 114 FT S 89º53'42" E 96 FT N 0º02'52" W 114 FT W 8 FT TO BEG 938-41, 1197- 97 6110-2590 6116-1628 6119-0622 6129-740 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology 1300 South Commercial Zoning Map Amendment Petition PLNPCM2023-00385 May 19, 2023 Petition received by the City June 15, 2023 Petition assigned to Eric Daems. July 3, 2023 Notice sent to East Bench Community Council. July 3, 2023 Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300’ of subject properties. July 3 – August 17, 2023 Virtual open house hosted on the City’s website. September 4, 2023 Notice signs posted on properties indicating date of Public Hearing. September 7, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing posted and mailed to property owners and tenants within 300’ of subject properties. September 7, 2023 Notice of Public Hearing emailed to listserv accounts. September 13, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing held. Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposal. November 8, 2023 Transmittal Submitted to CAN 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00385– A request by Tyler Morris, representing the property owner, for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 E. 1300 South. 1. Zoning Map Amendment: To rezone the subject properties from R-1-7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The CB zone allows for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. However, a specific development proposal has not been provided at this point. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or via e-mail at eric.daems@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00385. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Phone: formation may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (excess of one acre), plus additional public notice fee. Text Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus additional public notice fee. Public noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G UPDATED 6/28/22 4 (2260 E, 2270 E. & 2290 E.) 1300 S. 4 TJDD Properties, LLC 05/11/2023 Updated 9/14/22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1.If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2.If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3.If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4.If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that i s the subject of this application. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: Application Type: Signature: Date: FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE Legal Description of Subject Property: Name of Owner: Signature: Date: Tyler Morris Zoning Amendment TJDD Properties, LLC 05/11/2023 COM N 89^53'42" W 156.5 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLATC BIG FIELD SUR N 89^53'42" W 91.5 FT S 0^02'52" E 110 FT S 89^53'42" E 91.5 FT N 0^02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.23 AC 5445-1625 5853-2576 05/11/2023 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. UPDATED 6/28/22 4 4 4 4 4 4. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP DEE'S FOOTHILL INVESTMENTS LLC 1136 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HUNSAKER, LILLIAN S; TR 1233 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1304 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1309 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1310 S 2300 E Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1313 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1345 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1400 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 AP FOOTHILL VILLAGE, LLC 1616 CAMDEN RD #210 CHARLOTTE NC 28203 JONES, DONALD J & KRISTY W(JT) 2223 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 LEISHMAN, MERLIN R &LARRY R; TRS 2235 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2236 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2241 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2244 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2249 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2252 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2253 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2259 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2260 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2270 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 GOCHNOUR, RALPH L. & ROSETTA S 2289 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2290 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 LAMPROPOULOS, FRED 2315 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 LAURA G GAYLORD LIV TRGAYLORD, LAU 2321 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2350 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 LARKIN MEMORIAL CORPORATION 260 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC 348 E 6400 S #200 MURRAY UT 84107 RELIANCE BUILDING COMPANY 3591 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 FOREST CORPORATION 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 GROW, JODY W; JTGROW, RICHARD F; JT 623 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DOANE, KERRY S; TR(KSD TRUST) PO BOX 581486 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 20, 2023 10:16 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: General Plan and Zoning Amendments (Community Benefit and Tenant Displacement Ordinance) STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. However, implementation of the amendments may require additional staff and resources. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This city-initiated petition is intended to implement policies identified in Thriving in Place to mitigate involuntary displacement due to development pressure. The proposed amendments are intended to prompt growth to benefit the community, prevent loss of naturally occurring affordable housing, and counteract displacement of current tenants. The updates include the creation of a new Title 19 General Plans and amendments to Title 21A.50 Amendments. Additionally, Title 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss will be deleted and replaced with the community benefit policy in Title 19 General Plans and Title 21A.50 Amendments. Title 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions will also be amended to include provisions to ensure that replacement of housing units that have a similar rent and unit size if housing is demolished. PROPOSAL: rachel otto (Dec 6, 2023 09:46 MST)12/06/2023 12/06/2023 1) Title 19: General Plans This proposal creates a new “Title 19 General Plans” which is the first such ordinance in the history of the city. The creation of Title 19 aims to establish clear and objective criteria for determining the necessity of general amendments, particularly in cases where property owners submit zoning map amendments exceeding recommended community plan densities within the general plan. It also outlines the required components for the general plan. In situations where an amendment is likely to lead to the demolition of housing, Title 19 would require relocation assistance for displaced tenants and may necessitate property owners to replace demolished dwellings. In addition, Title 19 includes a community benefit policy, compelling property owners to provide benefits to the community when making a request for a general plan amendment. Title 19 also expands the factors that the Planning Commission and City Council should consider when reviewing a general plan or zoning amendment. This includes specific language on evaluating the impacts of a request based on proximity to amenities and services, potential effects on city services, and the possibility of displacing residents and businesses. 2) 21A:50 Amendments Chapter 21A.50 is proposed to be amended to include the same community benefit and displacement requirements to apply to text and zoning map amendments. The community benefit and tenant displacement sections will be similar in both Title 19 General Plans and in Title 21A.50 Amendments to ensure that all amendments being considered are using the same process and similar standards. This will help avoid discretionary decisions regarding the amendment process and establish an equitable process for the applicants, the city, the community, and all stakeholders. 3) Title 18: Buildings and Construction/ Housing Loss Mitigation Changes to Title 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss are also proposed. As part of the proposed changes, Title 18.97 will be deleted, and housing loss mitigation will be addressed through one of these methods: • Title 19 General Plans (New Requirement): Requires a public benefit, tenant relocation assistance, and replacement of a demolished dwelling with a unit of similar bedroom count and rental rate. • Create a new Title 19: General Plans that defines what a general plan is, the required plan contents, and when a plan amendment is required. • Require a community benefit analysis for zoning or general plan amendments submitted by a property owner. • Require the replacement of demolished housing units at a similar rent prior to demolition or a payment to the city. • Establish a tenant relocation assistance policy. • Establish new review factors for considering zoning and plan amendments related to displacement. • Require data on displacement to be collected with zoning and plan amendments. • 21A.50: Zoning Amendments (Replacing Existing Requirement from Title 18.97): Requires a public benefit, tenant relocation assistance, and replacement of a demolished dwelling with a unit of similar bedroom count and rental rate. • Prohibition on expansions or new commercial parking lots that involve the demolition of a dwelling. This is being done as a separate proposal and is independent of this proposal. • Removing Title 18.97 also triggers amendments to the demolition requirements in Title 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions. Due to the removal of Title 18.97, Title 18.64.050 needs to be amended to ensure consistency in regulations. 4) Community Benefit Policy The community benefit policy requires property owners to provide a community benefit when making a request for a general plan or zoning amendment. The policy includes specific criteria to evaluate the community benefit. Applicants are required to provide one or more of the following community benefits, along with demonstrating that the benefit would not otherwise be available without the proposed amendment: • Housing: Provision of affordable or family-sized housing. • Dedication of Publicly Accessible Open Space: Dedication of open spaces accessible to the public. • Preservation of Critical Lands: Conservation or restoration of critical lands such as wetlands, river corridors, or wildlife habitats. • Historic Building Preservation: Safeguarding historic structures not already protected against demolition. • Support for Local Businesses: Inclusion of space for small businesses and charitable organizations within a development. • Expansion of Public Infrastructure: Enhancement of public infrastructure beyond what's necessary for future development. The proposed amendment includes 11 factors that the Planning Commission and City Council should consider when evaluating a suggested community benefit. These factors include assessing the appropriateness of the proposed community benefit in relation to the increase in development potential, potential strategies to counter displacement and its effects, and the probable impacts on city services and infrastructure. Any community benefit that is required as a condition of approval of the amendment(s) would be secured through a Development Agreement. 5) Replacement of Demolished Housing Units Thriving in Place identifies the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units as a concern that is being experienced in the city. To address this concern, if a proposed privately initiated general plan or zoning amendment is likely to result in the demolition of a housing unit, the City Council may require the petitioner to provide replacement of the dwelling within the new development at the same number of bedrooms. The applicant would choose to either limit the rental rate on the replacement dwelling to no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years, or they could make a payment to the city in lieu of the rental rate restriction. The payment would be calculated by taking the unit rent prior to demolition and multiplying it by the number of months until a new Certificate of Occupancy is issued. For example, if the unit rent is $1,000 per month prior to demolition and it takes 36 months for replacement unit to completed, the payment would be $36,000. 6) Tenant Relocation Assistance Tenant relocation assistance would help renters cover the cost of relocating when they are displaced by new development. The relocation assistance would include the following: • Up to $1500 in moving expenses. • Replacement housing application fees. • Deposit fees for the new place of residence. • Rental assistance payment of the difference between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished unit and a comparable unit. The total amount to not exceed $7,200. The property owner may propose to relocate the tenant to an alternative property that they also own. If this occurs, the tenant would not be eligible to receive payment for application fees or deposit. 7) Standards for General Plan and Zoning Amendments The current consideration factors for general plan or zoning amendments do not address potential tenant displacement or the loss of affordable housing. Both proposed draft amendments to Title 19 and 21A.50 include new review factors that address these concerns. The goal of creating new consideration factors is to provide a clear and detailed analysis of the impact of the requested amendment to decision- makers. 8) Data Collection Thriving in Place also identified a need for the collection of rental cost data for the purposes of analyzing displacement. This data is crucial to understand whether the demolished unit is considered affordable, and to track the loss of affordable or naturally occurring affordable housing. The city does not currently have a method of collecting this information from building permits or planning applications. To address this void of information, the amendments include more robust submittal requirements when making a general plan or zoning amendment application that include current information on housing unit rent and size. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated: • July 20, 2023 – Planning Staff and Community and Neighborhoods Division representatives met with the Recognized Organization chairs to brief them on the proposal. • August 31, 2023 – The project website was published and an email notification regarding the project was sent out to the Planning Division’s listserv. •September 5, 2023 – Recognized Organizations were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. •August 19 & 28 and October 4, 2023: In-person public open houses were held at the Sugarhouse Fire Station, the Sorenson Community Center, and the downtown Salt Lake City Library. The open houses were primarily used to explain the proposal and answer questions. Feedback was generally positive. •August 25 & 26: Roundtable meetings with development community representatives to gather input. Development Community Roundtables The Mayor’s Office hosted two development community roundtable meetings that allowed Planning Staff to introduce the amendments and obtain feedback. The development community raised concerns regarding the rental rate restriction on replacement units (proposed at no more than a 3% increase per year for 20 years). Their concern centered on cost implications and the unpredictability of such an extended timeframe. Multiple comments indicated a preference for an upfront fee as an alternative approach. This preference was both a desire to enhance cost predictability and to allocate the fee toward providing assistance to a greater number of people facing displacement. As a result, the draft was modified to allow a payment option in addition to the rental rate restriction option. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a briefing on the proposed changes on October 11, 2023. The briefing was a public meeting, open to the public, and broadcast on SLCTV and on the city’s YouTube live channel. The briefing was advertised by posting the agenda as required by the Utah State Code and City Code and emailed to those on the Planning Division email list. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2023. The public hearing was posted as required by the Utah State Code and City Code, including posting a notice in a public location within the city that is reasonably likely to be seen by residents of the municipality. To comply with this requirement, notice was posted within three city libraries: the Main Library, Sprague Branch, and Marmalade Branch. In addition to the input received during the open houses or at the development community roundtable meetings, three written comments were received that are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Comments focused on a concern that the proposal is too restrictive and may add unnecessary ‘red tape’ which could inhibit the production of housing. One public comment was received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was published and is included as Exhibit 5 of this memo. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation on the proposed amendments with two additional recommendations, which are included in the attached ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends the following language be adopted by the City Council: •Space for charitable organizations is considered as a potential community benefit. •The word ‘fee’ is replaced with the word ‘payment’ when considering the option to allow a payment to the city in lieu of limiting the rental rate on replacement dwelling units. This was recommended by Planning Staff following additional consideration and counsel from the Attorney’s Office. Planning Commission Briefing Records a)PC Agenda of October 11, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of October 11, 2023 (Click to Access) c)PC Briefing Staff Report of October 11, 2023 (Click to Access) Planning Commission Public Hearing Records a)PC Agenda of November 8, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of November 8, 2023 (Click to Access) c)PC Staff Report of November 8, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1)Ordinance 2)Project Chronology 3)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4)Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 1. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (An ordinance amending the text of Titles 18 and 21A and enacting Title 19 of the Salt Lake City Code to implement Thriving in Place) An ordinance amending the text of Titles 18 and 21A and enacting Title 19 of the Salt Lake City Code to implement the City’s Thriving in Place initiative. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on November 8, 2023 to consider a petition to amend various provisions of Title 18 and Title 21A and enacting a new Title 19 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00535; and WHEREAS, at its November 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“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 Salt Lake City Code Section 18.64.050. That Section 18.64.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Demolition: Residential Demolition Provisions) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 18.64.050: RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION NOTICE: A. If the structure for which a demolition permit is sought contains one or more dwelling units, whether or not occupied, upon issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall cause to be recorded against title to such real property in the official records of Salt Lake County a notice that contains the following information: 1. Information about the demolished property as required by the city, including the number of dwelling units and respective number of bedrooms, and the amount of rent 2 charged in the year prior to the demolition, and the level of affordability if the rent is a below market rate. 2. Notice that the future development of the property may have specific development requirements under city code, including without limitation the requirements identified in Title 19 and Section 21A.50.050. SECTION 2. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.97. That Chapter 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code (Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.97 MITIGATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING LOSS 18.97.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights. 18.97.020: HOUSING MITIGATION CONDITION PRECEDENT TO DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: A. Housing Mitigation Plan: Except as provided in subsection B of this section, any application for a demolition permit which, if issued, will result in a loss of one or more residential units located in a residential zone; any petition for a conditional use permit to authorize or expand vehicle parking in a residential or mixed use zone; and any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. The housing mitigation plan shall be proposed and submitted to the city's planning director and the director of community and neighborhoods and shall be accompanied by a housing impact statement. B. Exception: This section shall not apply to any housing which: 1. Is a nonconforming use as provided by relevant provisions of title 21A, "Zoning", of this code; or 2. Is located on property for which an applicable master plan or the current zoning envisions exclusive nonresidential use; or 3. a. Is proposed to be demolished for health or safety reasons as provided in section 18.64.040 or chapter 18.48 of this title or their successors. b. Notwithstanding subsection B3a of this section, housing which is demolished for health or safety reasons, which is the result of neglect pursuant to section 18.64.045 of this title, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. 3 C. Housing Impact Statement: The housing impact statement shall: 1. Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area subject of the petition; 2. Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting of the petition; 3. Separately for each dwelling unit targeted for demolition, state its current fair market value, if that unit were in a reasonable state of repair and met all applicable building, fire and health codes; 4. State the number of square feet of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned or conditionally permitted to be used for purposes sought in the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses; and 5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land, residential units or residential character. 18.97.030: OPTIONS FOR MITIGATING RESIDENTIAL LOSS: Petitioners subject to the requirements of this chapter may satisfy the need for mitigation of any residential housing unit losses by any one of the following methods: A. Replacement Housing: The petitioner may agree, in a legal form satisfactory to the city attorney, to construct the same number of residential dwelling units proposed for demolition, within: 1. The city council district in which the land subject of the petition is located; or 2. An adjoining council district, if the mitigation site is within a one mile radius of the demolition site. 3. Any such agreement shall include adequate security to guarantee completion within two (2) years of the granting of a demolition permit. B. Fee Based On Difference Between Housing Value And Replacement Cost: The petitioner may pay to the city housing trust fund the difference between the fair market value of the housing units planned to be eliminated or demolished and the replacement cost of building new units of similar square footage and meeting all existing building, fire and other applicable law, excluding land values. C. Fee, Where Deteriorated Housing Exists, Not Caused By Deliberate Indifference Of Landowner: 1. Request By Petitioner For Flat Fee Consideration: In the event that a residential dwelling unit is targeted or proposed for demolition and is in a deteriorated state from natural causes, such as fire, earthquake or aged obsolescence that is not occasioned by the deliberate acts or omissions to act on the part of the petitioner or his predecessors in interest, which detrimental condition reduces a dwelling unit's fair market 4 value or habitability as a residential dwelling unit, the petitioner may request an exemption from the above two (2) methods of mitigation from the director of the department of community and neighborhoods as provided below. A judgment as to whether deterioration has occurred as the result of deliberate indifference shall be based on a preponderance of evidence. 2. Required Facts Of Natural Deterioration/Increase Fair Market Value Of Units To Be Demolished: The petitioner may submit to the director of the department of community and neighborhoods every fact known to support the proposition that the residential dwelling units were not purposely allowed to deteriorate by lack of reasonable maintenance, ordinary and prudent repairs, or other acts or omissions to act. The value of the unit(s) targeted or proposed for demolition may be increased to the fair market value that the units would have, if each unit was in a state of habitability and minimally meeting applicable building codes and other applicable law, excluding land value. This enhanced value will then be applied in thus computing any housing mitigation payment provided in subsection B of this section. 3. Flat Fee Mitigation Payment: In the event that the petitioner actually and reasonably demonstrates to the director of community and neighborhoods that the costs of calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation, the department director may recommend to the city council that a flat rate be paid by the petitioner to the city's housing trust fund. This flat rate shall be a sum not in excess of three thousand three hundred twenty two dollars twenty cents ($3,322.20) per dwelling unit to be demolished. Such flat fee shall be adjusted for inflation as of January 1 of each calendar year following the initial adoption hereof, based on the consumer price index for the previous twelve (12) months, or three percent (3%), whichever result is less. 18.97.040: HOUSING MITIGATION JUSTIFICATION TO COUNCIL: A. Report To City Before Rezoning Hearings: The director of the department of community and neighborhoods, or designee, shall prepare a report justifying the method of housing mitigation recommended by the director, including the factual basis upon which it is premised and a factually based justification for the recommendation. This report shall be submitted to the planning commission in sufficient time for its deliberation concerning the advisability of effectuating the petitioner's request for a zoning change. The petitioner may, likewise, submit its proposal and the factual and legal justification for mitigation, if any, or why the director's recommendations are appropriate or should be modified. The commission shall include in its evaluation an evaluation of the adequacy of the housing loss mitigation plan, proposed by the petitioner and that recommended by director of the department of community and neighborhoods. B. Report To Planning Director On Conditional Use Permit Petitions: In the event of a conditional use permit, said report shall be submitted to the city's planning director. The report shall be duly evaluated, considered and included in the decision regarding any conditional use permit. The planning director, or designee, shall memorialize, in writing, the factual basis supporting any decision dealing with the housing mitigation component of any such conditional 5 use permit and include this finding and evaluation in the file for due consideration should there be an appeal relating thereto. C. Report To Housing Advisory And Appeals Board: A housing mitigation plan required under chapter 18.64, "Demolition", of this title shall be considered by the housing advisory and appeals board as provided in such chapter. The director of the department of community and neighborhoods shall prepare a report justifying the method of housing mitigation recommended by the director, including the factual basis upon which it is premised and a factually based justification for the recommendation. This report shall be submitted to the housing advisory and appeals board in sufficient time for its deliberation concerning the advisability of effectuating the petitioner's request for a demolition permit. The petitioner may, likewise, submit its proposal and the factual and legal justification for mitigation, if any, or why the director's recommendations are appropriate or should be modified. The board shall include in its evaluation an evaluation of the adequacy of the housing loss mitigation plan, proposed by the petitioner and that recommended by director of the department of community and neighborhoods. 18.97.050: NATURE AND REVIEW OF ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION: Should any petitioner or other person, corporation, or entity claim that this chapter or any application of it is illegal, unconstitutional, or may constitute or effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property without appropriate compensation, either per se or as applied, the city shall be notified as soon as practicable. The provisions of title 2, chapter 2.66, "Constitutional Takings", of this code shall apply to each such claim. SECTION 3. Enacting the text of Salt Lake City Code Title 19. That a new Title 19 of the Salt Lake City Code (General Plans) is hereby enacted as follows: TITLE 19 GENERAL PLANS 19.02 Title, Purpose, Authority, and General Plan Defined 19.04 General Plan Requirements 19.06 Process for General Plans and Amendments 19.08 Appeals 19.10 Definitions CHAPTER 19.02 TITLE, PURPOSE, AUTHORITY AND GENERAL PLAN DEFINED 19.02.010: TITLE: 6 This title shall be known, cited, and referred to as the General Plans Ordinance of Salt Lake City. All references to the various parts of this title shall be considered as references to corresponding numbers, sections, and chapters. 19.02.020: AUTHORITY: The city council of Salt Lake City adopts this title pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, title 10, chapter 9a, of the Utah Code or its successor, and such other authorities and provisions of Utah statutory and common law that are relevant and appropriate. 19.02.030: PURPOSE: The purpose of this title is to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, title 10, chapter 9a, of the Utah Code or its successor. This title is also intended to: A. Define the general plan of the city, including the required and desired elements that collectively establish the general plan of the city. B. Provide guidance on the future growth of the city. C. Assist in consideration of decisions to amend sections of city code that relate to the development of land. D. Identify issues that may arise as the city changes over time, including projections related to population growth, housing, natural resource consumption and availability, air quality, water quality, protection of sensitive lands, and access to necessary services and amenities to maintain quality of life. E. Establish a process for adopting and amending any aspect of the adopted general plan. 19.02.040: GENERAL PLAN DEFINED: The general plan of Salt Lake City consists of the following plans: A. Plan Salt Lake or its successor as the overarching vision plan for the city. B. Element Plans: The following types of plans are considered element plans and are part of the general plan: 7 1. Community plans and associated corridor, small area, station area, or block plans, as the land use plans for the city, that include a future land use map or description of future development characteristics that provide direction for future changes to the zoning code. 2. Any adopted moderate income housing plan that includes policies related to housing. 3. Transportation Plan, including any plan that guides future decision making regarding any aspect of the transportation network in the city. 4. Public Lands and/or Open Space Plans, including any plan that includes policies for the creation or expansion of parks, trails, natural lands, or other public spaces. 5. Historic Preservation Plan, including any plan that guides future decision making regarding the preservation of historic buildings, structures, and places. 6. Water Use and Preservation Plan and any other plan regarding the future use or conservation of water. 7. Any other plan that is determined necessary to carry out the purpose of this chapter and the purpose of Utah Code 10-9a part 4 or its successor. C. Separate Plans: The city council may adopt separate, individual plans to collectively fulfill the general plan requirements of Utah Code 10-9a part 4. D. Implementation Plans: Plans created by the city to implement the general plan, manage improvements to existing public lands, or construct existing public facilities are not considered to be an element of the general plan and are not subject to the adoption processes required by this title. Implementation plans required in Utah Code to be part of the general plan are subject to the adoption process required by Utah Code and this title. 19.02.050: LINKING PLANS: If separate plans are adopted, each separate plan should indicate how the plan relates to the other plans. 19.02.060: EFFECT OF ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN: A. All general plans recommended by the planning commission and adopted by the city council, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for: 1. Amendments to Title 21A, including amendments to the zoning map. 2. Decisions related to the allocation of resources related to the development of land. 3. Decisions related to processes or applications identified in Titles 20 Subdivisions and 21A Zoning as indicated in those titles. B. Complying with any portion of a general plan shall be required when specified in Title 20 Subdivisions or Title 21A Zoning. C. Public Uses to Conform to General Plan: After the city council has adopted a general plan, no dedicated street, park, or other public way, ground, place, or space, no publicly owned 8 building or structure, and no public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, may be constructed, or authorized until and unless it conforms to the current general plan. 1. A public use is considered to conform to the general plan when: a. The use is consistent with the designation on the future land use map; or b. The use is described in specific policies within the general plan or general plan elements. 2. The future land use map shall take precedence over any policy within the general plan when determining if a public use conforms to the general plan. CHAPTER 19.04 GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 19.04.010: GENERAL PLAN REQUIRED: The general plan of Salt Lake City shall include the entirety of the city as required by the Utah Code Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, title 10, chapter 9a, of the Utah Code or its successor. 19.04.020: REQUIRED ELEMENTS: The general plan is required to include elements and components as required by Utah Code 10- 9a-403 or its successor and any other applicable section of state code. The general plan may also include any elements that are deemed necessary by the city to address the purposes identified in this title. 19.04.030: ROLE OF PLAN SALT LAKE: Plan Salt Lake, or its successor, shall establish the purpose and goals of the general plan. All other elements that collectively comprise the city’s general plan shall identify how the plan aligns with Plan Salt Lake and establish specific policies to achieve the purpose and goals of the general plan. CHAPTER 19.06 PROCESS FOR GENERAL PLANS AND AMENDMENTS 19.06.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to establish the minimum process requirements for: A. Adopting a new general plan or element; 9 B. Adopting comprehensive updates to a general plan or element; and C. Amendments to existing plans proposed by a property owner. 19.06.020: INITIATION: The creation of a new plan, a comprehensive update to an existing plan, or an amendment to an existing plan may be initiated by: A. The mayor, by signing a document to initiate the process; B. The city council, following the policies adopted by the council for such action; or C. A property owner or the owner’s designee when the amendment relates to the owner’s properties. A property owner may only submit a petition to amend the general plan as it pertains to property that they own. D. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the mayor or city council to initiate an amendment to an existing plan. 19.06.030: WHEN REQUIRED: A petition to amend or modify the adopted general plan shall be required as described in this section. The planning director shall determine if a petition to amend a general plan is required based on the guidance in this section. A. New Plans and Comprehensive Updates: Petitions for a new general plan or a comprehensive update to an existing general plan are at the discretion of the city council or mayor. B. Annexation Petitions: The below standards apply to petitions for annexation into Salt Lake City. C. Property Owner Petitions: The below standards apply to petitions made by a property owner or owner’s designee, including the city when a petition is property specific. 1. Petition Required: A petition to modify the general plan shall be required in the following instances: a. Zoning Amendment: A petitioner is proposing a zoning amendment that includes an increase in the recommended density, scale, or intensity identified in the applicable future land use map or in the description of the desired future development characteristics found in the land use element of the general plan. 10 b. Specific Property: A petitioner is requesting to change the future land use map designation or description of the desired future development characteristics found in the land use element of the general plan that pertains to a specific property. c. Public Facility or Space: A request that involves altering an identified transportation or public facility, building, open space, or other public space that is identified in the plan, for the purpose of expanding the petitioner’s land or development right. d. If the general plan does not describe the recommended density, land use intensity, or scale of development, any petition to change the zoning of the property shall include a petition to modify the general plan. 2. Petition Not Required: A petition to modify a general plan is not required in any of the following instances. a. The future land use map or a policy in an adopted plan specifically identifies privately owned land for future public use and the current zoning district of the property substantially interferes with the use of the property. b. The petition satisfies one of the following criteria: i. A proposed zoning amendment includes a zoning designation that is generally consistent with either the future land use map or description of the desired future development characteristics found in the land use element of the general plan. To be considered consistent, the proposed zoning amendment shall fit within the recommended density, land use, land use intensity, and scale of future development identified in an applicable plan. ii. A proposed zoning amendment includes a proposal to provide affordable housing that is consistent with the identified need for affordable housing in any housing plan adopted by the city or with any affordable housing policy within the general plan as defined in 19.02.040. c. When a petition for a general plan amendment is not required, a petition to amend Title 21A shall follow the process outlined in 21A.50. 19.06.040: PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED PETITION REQUIREMENTS: After a petition has been submitted by a property owner to amend the general plan, the following steps, at a minimum, shall be required. A. Petition Requirements: The petitioner shall submit a petition for an amendment to the general plan on a form approved by the zoning administrator and pay all required fees as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The petition shall include the following information: 1. Legal description, address, and property tax identification number of the properties that are the subject of the proposed petition. 11 2. Contact information, including address, phone, and email of the property owners or the property owner’s authorized representative. 3. Property owner signature or signed acknowledgment authorizing a designee to submit the petition. 4. A description of the proposed modification to the general plan, including any changes to the future land use map, future land use designation, or description of scale and density/intensity of the proposed change. Any proposed amendment to the text of the plan shall include the exact proposed text and changes that are proposed in a strike and underline format. 5. Maps that show the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. 6. When the property that is subject to the petition contains residential uses, the following information must be provided: a. The current number of dwellings or any other residential use and any number of dwellings that have been demolished in the past 36 months. b. The square footage and number of bedrooms for each dwelling unit; c. The current cost of rent and the cost of rent for the previous 36 months; d. The total number of households and people residing on the property. 7. When a property contains nonresidential uses, the following information must be provided: a. Details on the nature of the existing and prior use for the past 10 years or, if 10 years of records are not available, for as long as the current owner has records of the use of the property; b. Square footage of the leasable area; c. Detailed list of current or prior occupants; d. The current cost to lease and the cost to lease for the previous 36 months. 8. A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, and any additional land use applications that may be required to develop the site. 9. A written description regarding the proposed community benefit identified in 19.06.070.B. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development right if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. 10. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10. Application and noticing fees for petitions filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. B. Process: A petition is subject to the following process: 1. Determining if Application is Complete: After the petition is submitted and fees are paid, the planning director shall review the materials submitted with the petition to determine if 12 all required materials have been submitted. If a required item is missing or deficient, the petitioner shall be notified of the deficiency and be given 30 days to submit the missing information or correct the deficient material. If not submitted within 30 days, the petition may be considered withdrawn and closed. A refund of any required fees will be provided minus the cost to review the petition for completeness. 2. Notice to Neighbors and Recognized Community Organizations: After the application is found to be complete, a notice shall be sent to all neighbors and recognized community organizations as required by Section 21A.10.015. The notice shall include a minimum of 45-day public input period and any information required for public notice by Utah Code 10-9a or its successor and by this title. 3. Applicant Presentation to the Community: The petitioner shall arrange for a public presentation of the proposal to the recognized community organization when the subject property is within a defined boundary of the recognized community organization. The presentation shall occur after the notice has been sent to the neighbors and recognized organization. The petitioner is responsible for presenting the proposal. 4. Additional Public Input: The planning director may extend the public input period based on the level of controversy, or changes to the petition made by the applicant that include a future land use designation that increases the recommended densities or development intensity beyond the original request. 5. Early Planning Commission Public Hearing: The planning director may schedule a public hearing to be held with the planning commission within the 45-day public notice period required by this Title. If a public hearing is held within 45 days, the planning commission shall continue the public hearing to a future date that is after the required 45- day public input period required by this title. 6. Planning Commission Public Hearing: Prior to making a recommendation to the city council to consider a petition to amend the general plan, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing after the 45-day noticing period ends. All Planning Commission public hearings shall be noticed in accordance with Utah Code and in accordance with Chapter 21A.10.020. 19.06.050: CITY INITIATED PETITION REQUIREMENTS: This section applies to city-initiated petitions proposing new general plans or comprehensive updates to existing general plans. This section does not apply to petitions subject to 19.06.040. A petition to adopt a new general plan, or comprehensive update to a general plan, that is initiated by the mayor or city council shall include at a minimum the following procedural steps: A. Development of a written purpose and need statement that explains why the plan or amendment is being considered. B. Creation of a work plan that includes at a minimum the following information: 1. Public engagement plan that provides multiple opportunities for the community and city boards or commissions to be included in determining how the plan can achieve the vision in Plan Salt Lake and purposes of this section. 13 2. Identification of key points in the process for city council, mayor, and planning commission review and input regarding the progress, direction, and general content of the plan. 3. The necessary steps to comply with the legally established adoption process. 4. Identification of resources needed to create and adopt the plan or comprehensive update. 5. A timeline for the project that is based on the available resources and steps necessary to adopt the plan or comprehensive update. C. Notice of intent to prepare a general plan or comprehensive update to the general plan shall be sent to the affected entities as required by Utah Code 10-9a-203 or its successor as well as posted on the city website and sent to all registered recognized organizations. D. After a complete public draft of a plan is created, the following steps shall be followed: 1. A minimum review time of 45 days shall be provided for the community to provide input on the plan that complies with the notification requirements of 21A.10.015 or its successor. 2. A minimum of one public hearing before the planning commission. The public hearing shall comply with all public notice requirements required under Utah Code. 3. The historic landmark commission may make a recommendation for the city council to adopt, amend and adopt, or deny the proposed plan after a public hearing when the general plan amendment impacts an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 4. The planning commission shall make a recommendation for the city council to adopt, amend and adopt, or deny the proposed plan after a public hearing. 5. The city council shall hold a public hearing prior to making a final decision regarding a proposed general plan or amendment to the general plan. 19.06.060: REQUIRED NOTICE: A petition submitted under this title is subject to the following public notice procedures: A. City Code: Public notice shall be provided as required by 21A.10.020. B. State Code: Public notice shall be provided as required by Utah Code 10-9a-203 and Utah Code 10-9a-204, or their successors, as applicable. 19.06.070: FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN: The intent of this section is to establish a list of factors that the planning commission and city council should consider when evaluating a proposed plan or plan amendment. Each factor should be considered with the understanding that not all factors will be applicable to all petitions. 14 A. If an amendment is approved by the city council, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the property owner demonstrates compliance with the council approval, an applicable development agreement, and this chapter if required by the approval. B. Consideration Factors: In reviewing a proposal to modify the general plan, the planning commission and city council should consider, but are not limited to, the following factors: 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. 3. Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. 4. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. 5. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. 6. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 7. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 8. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. 9. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. 10. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. 11. The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. C. Community Benefit Requirement. Each petition that is initiated by a private property owner shall identify the community benefit(s) provided by the proposal that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment as provided for in this section. 1. The proposed public benefit(s) shall be from one or more of the following categories: a. Providing housing that aligns with the current or future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase. b. Providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations. c. Providing a dedication of public open space. 15 d. Providing a dedication or other legal form of protection from future development of land that is adjacent to a river, creek, wetland, floodplain, wildlife habitat, or natural lands. e. Preserving historic structures. f. Expanding public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development. 2. The proposed community benefit may be evaluated based on the following, if applicable: a. For proposals that are intended to increase the housing supply, the level of affordability of the additional density that may be allowed if the proposal were to be adopted; b. The percentage of space allocated to commercial use compared to the total ground floor area that could be developed on the site; c. The size of the public open space compared to the total developable area of the lot, exclusive of setbacks, required landscaped yards, and any open space requirement of the proposed zoning district; d. The relative size and environmental value of any land that is to be dedicated; e. The historic significance of the structures proposed to be preserved; f. The amount of development that could be accommodated due to the increase in public infrastructure capacity compared to the general need for the area; g. The input received related to the community benefit during the 45-day engagement period. h. Policies in the general plan that support the proposed community benefit; 3. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the city council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. 4. The city council has final authority regarding requiring a public benefit. The city council may accept the proposed public benefit, modify the benefit, require a different public benefit, or waive the public benefit based on the merits of the proposal. 5. Any future development where a public benefit is required shall be subject to a development agreement to ensure that the agreed upon public benefit is provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any building within the future development. 6. A violation of the development agreement that includes not providing the agreed to public benefit shall require the property owner to pay a fine that is equal to the fair market value of the public benefit in the development agreement plus the fines identified in 21A.20.040. D. Displaced Tenant Resulting from Demolition of Housing: If a proposed amendment submitted by a property owner includes the likely demolition of any dwelling, the city council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance for the current tenant(s), or a replacement dwelling as required by this section for each demolished dwelling within a future development. 1. This subsection may be applied by the city council when a proposal for a property owner initiated general plan amendment is likely to result in an existing housing unit being 16 demolished due to the increase in development rights that may result from the proposed amendment. 2. For the purpose of this section, any term that is used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural of the term. 3. A petitioner may not terminate a lease or evict a tenant for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide tenant relocation assistance and other requirements set forth in this section. 4. Tenant Relocation Assistance: When a petition is likely to result in the demolition of a dwelling unit, the property owner may be required to provide the tenant with relocation assistance to supplement the costs of leasing a comparable replacement dwelling. The rental relocation assistance includes the following: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. d. Monthly Rental Assistance payment. The rental assistance payment is based on the difference, if any, between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished housing and a comparable unit. The rental payment total amount paid shall not be more than $7,200. e. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate that the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs b, c, and d above do not apply. f. Any and all payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. g. Tenant Relocation Assistance Exemptions: If the project is receiving identified federal funds and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42. U.S.C 4601-4655, The relocation assistance rules for the developer/tenant under that act will govern and the tenant relocation assistance outlined in this section will not apply. The developer shall inform the city if they are subject to URA and details of assistance to be provided. Tenants who receive tenant relocation assistance from this section are not eligible to receive relocation benefits from the city. E. Demolished Unit Replacement. The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed in this section. The city council has the authority to waive or modify this requirement. 1. The replacement unit shall be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. 2. The applicant may propose a payment to the city in lieu of the rental restriction on the new unit to go toward the city’s housing fund to offset the loss of affordable housing. The 17 payment shall be equal to the monthly rent of the unit prior to demolition multiplied by the number of months between the time the unit is vacated prior to demolition until a certificate of occupancy for the replacement dwelling is issued. F. If a housing unit is demolished or neglected to the point of being uninhabitable at any time during the five years prior to a petition for a plan amendment being submitted or is placed on the city’s boarded building inventory, the city council may require this section to apply to tenants that were displaced by the demolition or require the tenant relocation amount to be paid to the city for the purpose of other tenant relocation assistance. 19.06.080 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: The petitioner may be required by the city council to enter into a development agreement as indicated in this section. A. The city council may consider applying requirements through an appropriate legal agreement with a petition for a zoning amendment when the city council determines that such an agreement is necessary to increase the benefit of the proposed zoning amendment and/or to address potential impacts to city services, surrounding land uses, public safety, and the health of current and future residents, business owners, and visitors to the city. The agreement may modify any applicable requirement of this title provided the modification was proposed to and considered by the planning commission as required for any zoning amendment. Agreements that constrain the development potential or land uses of the subject property compared to what is authorized in the proposed zoning district are not required to be reviewed by the planning commission prior to consideration of the agreement. B. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the city if the city council requires any or all of the following: a community benefit, tenant relocation assistance, or replacement of demolished housing units. The development agreement shall include the following information. 1. The details of the public benefit, relocation assistance, timeline for replacement of demolished units, fee payment requirements or installments, or any other requirement of the city council in sufficient detail to ensure that the requirements of the development agreement can be administered and enforced for the life of the agreement. 2. Direction regarding how the development agreement will be enforced, including necessary notice of any violation, a timeframe for curing the violation, penalties for any violation that may be assessed if the violation is not cured, and any other necessary provisions to ensure that the agreement is followed. 3. The timeframe that the development agreement shall be effective and a provision that automatically terminates the development agreement after the timeframe expires. 4. The development agreement shall be recorded on the title of the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder as well as on the title of any other property that is part of the approved community benefit, tenant relocation assistance, or other requirement imposed by the city council. 18 19.06.090: EFFECT OF ADOPTION: The adoption of a plan or modification to a plan shall establish applicable policies related to the subject matter of the plan and may be used as a guide in making decisions related to any component of the plan as required by state code or elsewhere in this title. 19.06.100: LIMITATIONS: A petition to amend any aspect of the city’s general plan is subject to the following limitations: A. If the petitioner chooses to modify a petition after the planning commission has made a recommendation, the petitioner may withdraw the application and submit a new application, including fee, and start a new process as required by this chapter. B. A modification by the applicant to a petition in a manner that increases the density or development potential in relationship to the original proposal prior to the planning commission recommendation shall start the public engagement process over. C. No application for a general plan amendment shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of a final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council, or the planning commission from proposing any general plan amendments at any time. D. A petition that is withdrawn for reasons other than those listed in this section and before the first public hearing is held shall be closed with no action. Once a petition is closed after it is withdrawn, it cannot be reopened, and a new application will be required. 19.07: APPEALS: An appeal of final decisions related to general plan amendments made by the city council may be appealed in accordance with Utah Code. Recommendations from the planning commission, the administration of the city, or any other entity are advisory in nature and not subject to appeal. 19.08: DEFINITIONS: All terms used in this title shall be as defined in Utah Code 10-9a or Title 21A. Definitions in Utah Code 10-9a will take precedence followed by Title 21A. Any term not defined in Utah Code 10-9a or in Title 21A shall be as defined in Merriam-Webster online dictionary. 19 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A50. That Chapter 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Code (Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 21A.50.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the text of this title and to the zoning map. This amendment process is not intended to relieve particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to make adjustments necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy. 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. 21A.50.030: INITIATION: Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. 21A.50.040: PROCEDURE: An amendment to the text of this title or to the zoning map initiated by any of the methods described in Section 21A.50.030 of this chapter shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: A. Petition Required: A petition shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information: 1. Contact information, including address, phone, and email of the property owners or the property owner’s authorized representative; 2. Legal description, address, and property tax identification number of the properties that are the subject of the proposed petition; 3. Property owner signature or signed acknowledgment authorizing a designee to submit the petition.; 4. A description of the proposed modification to the zoning map and justification for the proposal. Any proposed amendment to the text of this code shall include the exact text and citation of the proposed location within the zoning ordinance. Text that is proposed 20 to be added shall be underlined and text that is proposed to be deleted shall be shown with a strikethrough line. 5. Maps that show the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. 6. For residential properties, the following information must be provided: a. The current or prior number of dwellings; b. Square footage and number of bedrooms for each dwelling unit; c. The current cost of rent and the cost of rent for the previous 36 months; d. The total number of people residing on the property. 7. For nonresidential properties, the following information must be provided: a. Details on the nature of the existing and prior use; b. Square footage of the leasable area; c. Detailed list of current or prior occupants; d. The current cost to lease and the cost to lease for the previous 36 months. 8. A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, the anticipated impact to existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal, and any additional land use petitions that may be anticipated to develop the site. Visual renderings and basic site plans may be provided by the applicant. 9. A written description regarding any proposed community benefits, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development right if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. C. Determination of Completeness: After the petition is submitted and fees are paid, the planning director shall review the materials submitted with the petition to determine if all materials have been submitted. If a required item is missing or deficient, the petitioner shall be notified of the deficiency and be given 30 days to submit the missing information or correct the deficient material. If not submitted within 30 days, the petition may be considered withdrawn and closed. A refund of any required fees will be provided minus the cost to review the petition for completeness. D. Public notice and process shall follow the requirements of 21A.10 and as required in Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. E. Staff Report: A staff report evaluating the amendment application shall be prepared by the planning director and shall contain at least the following information: 21 1. An analysis of any factors to be considered found in this title. 2. A discussion regarding input received from the public. 3. Input from other city departments or entities who have provided comments related to the proposal. F. Planning Commission Public Hearing: The planning commission shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the completed application in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The following provisions apply for petitions to amend the zoning map that are requesting to apply the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District: 1. The planning commission may hold a public hearing during the required 45-day public notification period required in Section 2.60.050 of the Salt Lake City Code for zoning map amendments to apply the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District. No recommendation shall be made by the planning commission during the 45-day notification period. 2. During the 45-day public notification period, the petitioner shall arrange an opportunity for people who are experiencing homelessness to provide input on the proposed location of the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District. 3. Notice of the public hearing shall be sent via first class mail to property owners and tenants within 450 feet of the proposed boundaries of the petition to map the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District. 4. The petition shall be scheduled for a recommendation from the planning commission at the first regularly scheduled commission meeting following the end of the 45-day notification period. G. Planning Commission Decision: Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment or the approval of some modification of the amendment and shall then submit its recommendation to the city council. H. City Council Hearing: The city council shall schedule and hold a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title within 90 days of receipt of the administration’s transmittal. I. City Council Decision: Following the hearing, the city council within a reasonable time frame may adopt the proposed amendment, adopt the proposed amendment with modifications, or deny the proposed amendment. However, no additional land may be zoned to a different classification than was contained in the public notice. 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: 22 A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. 5. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. 6. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. 7. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the city council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 5. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. 23 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 10. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. C. Community Benefit. Each petition for a zoning amendment that is initiated by a private property owner shall identify a community benefit(s) provided by the proposal that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment as provided for in this section. 1. The proposed community benefit(s) shall be within any of the following categories: a. Providing housing that aligns with the current or future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase; b. Providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations; c. Providing a dedication of public open space; d. Providing a dedication or other legal form of protection from future development of land that is adjacent to a river, creek, wetland, floodplain, wildlife habitat, or natural lands; e. Preserving historic structures; f. Expanding public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development. 2. The proposed community benefit may be evaluated based on the following, if applicable: a. For proposals that are intended to increase the housing supply, the level of affordability of the additional density that may be allowed if the proposal were to be adopted; b. The percentage of space allocated to commercial use compared to the total ground floor area that could be developed on the site; c. The size of the public open space compared to the total developable area of the lot, exclusive of setbacks, required landscaped yards, and any open space requirement of the proposed zoning district; d. The relative size and environmental value of any land that is to be dedicated; e. The historic significance of the structures proposed to be preserved; f. The amount of development that could be accommodated due to the increase in public infrastructure capacity compared to the general need for the area; g. The input received related to the community benefit during the 45-day engagement period; h. Policies in the general plan that support the proposed community benefit. 3. The community benefit shall be subject to public input as part of the required 45-day public input period. 24 4. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the city council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. 5. The city council has final authority regarding requiring a public benefit. The city council may accept the proposed public benefit, modify the benefit, require a different public benefit, or waive the public benefit based on the merits of the proposal. 6. Any future development where a public benefit is required shall be subject to a development agreement to ensure that the agreed upon public benefit is provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any building within the future development. 7. A violation of the development agreement that includes not providing the agreed to public benefit shall require the property owner to pay a fine that is equal to the fair market value of the public benefit in the development agreement plus the fines identified in 21A.20.040. D. Displaced Tenants Resulting from Demolition of Housing: If a proposed amendment submitted by a property owner includes the likely demolition of any dwelling, the city council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance for the current tenant(s), or a replacement dwelling as required by this section for each demolished dwelling within a future development. 1. This subsection may be applied by the city council when a proposal for a property owner initiated zoning map amendment is likely to result in an existing housing unit being demolished due to the increase in development rights that may result from the proposed amendment. 2. For the purpose of this section, any term that is used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural of the term. 3. A petitioner may not terminate a lease or evict a tenant for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide tenant relocation assistance and other requirements set forth in this section. 4. Tenant Relocation Assistance: When a petition is likely to result in the demolition of a dwelling unit, the property owner may be required to provide the tenant with relocation assistance to supplement the costs of leasing a comparable replacement dwelling. The rental relocation assistance includes the following: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. d. Monthly Rental Assistance Payment. The rental assistance payment is based on the difference, if any, between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished housing and a comparable unit. The rental payment total amount paid shall not be more than $7,200. e. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs b, c, and d do not apply. 25 f. Any and all payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. g. Tenant Relocation Assistance Exemptions: If the project is receiving identified federal funds and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42. U.S.C 4601-4655. The relocation assistance rules for the developer/tenant under that act will govern and the Tenant Relocation Assistance outlined in this section will not apply. The developer shall inform the city if they are subject to URA and details of assistance to be provided. Tenants who receive tenant relocation assistance from this section are not eligible to receive relocation benefits from the city. E. Demolished Unit Replacement. The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed in this section. The city council has the authority to waive or modify this requirement. 1. The replacement unit shall be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. 2. The applicant may propose a payment to the city in lieu of the rental restriction on the new unit to go toward the city’s housing fund to offset the loss of affordable housing. The payment shall be equal to the monthly rent of the unit prior to demolition multiplied by the number of months between the time the unit is vacated prior to demolition until a certificate of occupancy for the replacement dwelling is issued. F. If a housing unit is demolished or neglected to the point of being uninhabitable at any time during the five years prior to a petition for a zoning amendment being submitted or is placed on the city’s boarded building inventory, the city council may require this section to apply to tenants that were displaced by the demolition or require the tenant relocation amount to be paid to the city for the purpose of other tenant relocation assistance. 21A.50.055: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS APPLYING THE HOMELESS RESOURCE CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. A. Applicability. Any proposal to consider a petition that involves a zoning map amendment to apply the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District shall be subject to the additional requirements of this section in addition to any other requirement of this title. B. Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the application requirements of this chapter, the following information shall be provided by the person submitting a zoning amendment petition that includes applying the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District. 1. Development plans meeting the requirements of Chapter 21A.58 and the following additional detail: 26 a. The plans shall include all labels for the function of each room or space, both indoor and outdoor, proposed for the facility. b. All information that demonstrates compliance with the requirements in Section 21A.36.350. 2. The maximum total human occupancy the proposed facility is intended to serve. 3. A detailed list of all the anticipated supportive services to be offered on the property, including a description of each service, where the service will be on the property and the square footage of the area designated for each service. 4. Any anticipated funding requests made to the city to operate the facility. C. Information Provided by the City. After a complete application has been submitted to apply this overlay to property within the boundaries of the city, applicable city departments shall provide the planning division with the following information within 30 days: 1. Information regarding the impact to the police department which may include any data that demonstrates the services to existing homeless resources centers located in the city, the estimated cost of providing service by the police department to existing homeless resource centers and the impact that a new homeless resource center has on the ability of the police department to provide services to other parts of the city. 2. Information regarding the impact to the fire department which may include any data that demonstrates the services to existing homeless resources centers located in the city and the estimated cost of providing service by the fire department to existing homeless resource centers and the impact that a new homeless resource center has on the ability of the fire department to provide services to other parts of the city. 3. Information regarding the number of civil enforcement cases associated with existing homeless resource centers, including the types of complaints, and the estimated impact to civil enforcement workloads and ability to provide services to other parts of the city. 4. Information regarding accessibility of the site and its impact on public services. 5. The city provides an updated website to provide any and all city departments to contact for various complaints such as graffiti, encampment clean up, enforcement issues, and any other identified city service that may address impacts on the neighborhood from homeless resource centers. 6. Data provided by the State Homeless Management Information System and the SL Valley Coalition to end homelessness regarding similar uses in Salt Lake County, including the total number of facilities, the total number of people who use the facilities, the number of individuals served with overnight tenancy in each facility, the average percentage of occupancy of the facilities, and the number of nights per year that the other facilities are at capacity to the extent that the information is available. 7. Data regarding the total number of beds available to people experiencing homelessness and the estimated number of people currently experiencing homelessness to the extent that the information is available. D. Additional Factors to Consider: In making a decision regarding a petition to map the Homeless Resource Center Overlay District, the planning commission and city council shall 27 consider the following factors, in addition to those factors identified elsewhere in Chapter 21A.50: 1. The anticipated benefits to people experiencing homelessness provided by the facility in the proposed location. 2. The proximity of support services that benefit people who may use the facility and the ability of people to access services from the proposed location. If services are not within walking distance of the proposed facility, consideration of a transportation plan connecting support services to the facility. 3. The ratio of homeless related services provided in Salt Lake City compared to other jurisdictions in Salt Lake County. 4. The anticipated impact to city services, including fire, police, and any other city department that would be involved in providing services to the facility and the impact, if any, to the city providing services in other parts of the city. 5. The proximity is at least a mile from other homeless resource centers. 6. The effectiveness of the security and operations plan provided by the petitioner to address impacts created by the homeless resource center. 7. Equity between different neighborhoods in providing homeless resource centers and other locations of impactful land uses. High impact land uses are those land uses that produce higher levels of pollution than the permitted uses in the underlying zone, land uses that attract crime or produce public nuisances, and land uses that are located by a government entity or authorized by a government entity and that are not subject to the land use regulations of the city. 8. Demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Section 21A.36.350. 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: A. No petition for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property except as provided in this section. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.50.030. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council or the planning commission from proposing any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any time. B. If the petitioner chooses to modify a petition after the planning commission has made a recommendation, the petitioner may withdraw the application and submit a new application, including the required fee, and start a new process as required by this chapter. C. A modification to a petition that increases the density or development potential in relationship to the original proposal prior to the planning commission recommendation shall start the public engagement process over. 28 D. A petition that is denied by the city council may not be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision to deny the petition unless the petition proposes a more restrictive zoning district. E. A petition for a text amendment that is denied by the city council shall not be resubmitted for a period of three years from the date of denial if the petition is substantially the same as the petition that was denied. F. A petition that is withdrawn for reasons other than those listed in this section and before the first public hearing is held shall be closed with no action. Once a petition is closed after it is withdrawn, it cannot be reopened, and a new application will be required. 21A.50.065: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. A. The city council may consider applying requirements through an appropriate legal agreement with a petition for a zoning amendment when the city council determines that such an agreement is necessary to increase the benefit of the proposed zoning amendment and/or to address potential impacts to city services, surrounding land uses, public safety, and the health of current and future residents, business owners, and visitors to the city. The agreement may modify any applicable requirement of this title provided the modification was proposed to and considered by the planning commission as required for any zoning amendment. Agreements that constrain the development potential or land uses of the subject property compared to what is authorized in the proposed zoning district are not required to be reviewed by the planning commission prior to consideration of the agreement. B. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the city if the city council requires any or all of the following: community benefit(s), tenant relocation assistance. The development agreement shall include the following information. 1. The details of the public benefit, relocation assistance, timeline for replacement of demolished units, fee payment requirements or installments, or any other requirement of the city council in sufficient detail to ensure that the requirements of the development agreement can be administered and enforced for the life of the agreement. 2. Direction regarding how the development agreement will be enforced, including necessary notice of any violation, a timeframe for curing the violation, penalties for any violation that may be assessed if the violation is not cured, and any other necessary provisions to ensure that the agreement is followed. C. The timeframe that the development agreement shall be effective and a provision that automatically terminates the development agreement after the timeframe expires. D. The development agreement shall be recorded on the title of the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder as well as on the title of any other property that is part of the property community benefit, tenant relocation assistance, or other requirement imposed by the city council. 29 21A.50.070: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the City Council may, within thirty (30) days after such decision, file an appeal to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 5. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 202__. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 202___. Published: __________________ Ordinance enacting community benefit policy of Thriving in Place APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 1, 2023 2. CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00535 June 22, 2023 Petition Initiation to establish community benefit and tenant displacement requirements for amendments to general plans and the zoning code and replace the housing loss mitigation ordinance in Chapter 18.97. July 30, 2023 Presentation to Recognized Community Organization Chairs. August 31, 2023 The proposed code changes were posted to the Planning Division’s webpage and project StoryMap was published. August 31, 2023 Notice was emailed to Planning Division Listserv. September 5, 2023 Notice emailed to recognized organizations City-wide to being 45- day notice period. August 19, 2023 Community Open House at the Sugar House Fire Station August 25, 2023 Development Community Roundtable Meeting August 26, 2023 Development Community Roundtable Meeting August 28, 2023 Community Open House at the Sorensen Unity Center October 4, 2023 Community Open House at the Main Salt Lake City Public Library October 11, 2023 Breifing with the Planning Commission October 27, 2023 Public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and at three public libraries. November 2, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission. November 8, 2023 Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council. November 15, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. December 1, 2023 Ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. December 1, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00535 –A proposed amendment to portions of the Land Use Code to implement priority policies in Thriving in Place to mitigate involuntary displacement due to development pressure. The updates include the creation of a new Title 19 General Plans and amendments to Title 21A.50 Amendments. The amendments include establishing a community benefit policy for general plan and zoning amendments; the creation of a tenant relocation assistance program; replacement housing requirements for demolitions associated with requested amendments; and new standards for consideration when analyzing a zoning or general plan amendment that consider impacts from potential displacement. With this update, Title 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss will be deleted and replaced with the community benefit policy in Title 19 General Plans and Title 21A.50 Amendments. Title 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions will be amended to include provisions to ensure the replacement of housing units that have a similar rent and unit size if housing is demolished. 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 Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail Kristina.Gilmore@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. 4. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT RECEVIED AFTER PC STAFF REPORT WAS PUBLISHED Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:cindy cromer To:Gilmore, Kristina Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: comment on Community Benefit Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 2:03:18 PM Krissy-Could you send this comment to the Dropbox? I expect to attend the meeting in person. Thank you. Sincerely, cindy c. comment on Community Benefit: This is a significant piece of work and well written, just as I would expect. I only have time to talk about my concerns, but I appreciate these long overdue changes and amendments. We know from the Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance that if developers can pay a fee to be relieved of their obligation, that is what they will do. And the fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing housing. I think that the community benefits would benefit from an examination in terms of the potential return to the developer. Some of them will generate income; others will not. The ones which will not have a different community benefit than ones which will. That said, the community benefit which we need most is housing at less than 80% AMI. I am suggesting that there be more math applied in evaluating the benefits. I am opposed to the inclusion of publicly accessible open space in the core of the city where of course we desperately need it. That is because we have not provided adequate shelter to require that people not live in our park spaces. On November 1, the residents of Liberty Park were dispersed. They went to Herm Franks and moved north on 600 E, locating in public spaces and at vacant buildings. I have now been dealing with the consequences of this displacement for a week and observed a fire in the park strip on 600 E last night. I spent months in 2022 working with many other people to return Taufer Park to a recreational space. In August 2022, it was a disgusting, crime-ridden place that I would not walk through. Every park space in the core of the city requires a legion of people to enable it to function for the intended uses. Finally in Attachment A, 19.06.070C 1. e. The text should read "Preserving historic structures NOT ALREADY PROTECTED." I am pleased to see that public input is included in the criteria for evaluation. It has always been relevant for master plan amendments and rezoning. The fines for non-compliance are an improvement, but we are a long way from enforcing fines commensurate with the cost to the city. cindy cromer 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: February 1, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #4 - 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 $3,860,205.00 FLEET FUND $723,909.00 $723,909.00 CIP FUND $1,415,400.00 $1,415,400.00 IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $130,275.00 SUSTAINABILITY FUND $0.00 $230,000.00 911 COMMUNICATIONS FUND $0.00 $165,793.00 IMS FUND $9,000.00 $406,688.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,216,439.66 $1,216,439.66 DEBT SERVICE FUND $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 TOTAL $4,464,748.66 $9,248,709.66 Gregory Cleary (Feb 1, 2024 09:03 MST) Gregory Cleary April Patterson (Feb 2, 2024 08:03 MST) April Patterson rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:06 MST) 02/02/2024 02/02/2024 DEP~o\R.TMENT OF F1NAN CE BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. To date, revenues are trending below the initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Consistent with the update provided to Council on January 16, 2024, modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately $3 million. Revenue FY23-FY24 AnnualBudget FY23-24 Amended Budget NewProjection Amended Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) Revenue Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0 Sales,Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,129,000 (3,000,000) Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,341,052 (7,075) TotalTaxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075) Revenue Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,770,419 1,024,976 Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 InterfundService Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,144,079 12,866 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,234,598 99,977 Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,436,598 2,297 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,958,012 2,978,339 20,327 ParkingMeter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 ParkingTickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45) Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,497,613 52,587 Property Sale Proceeds -- -0 Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 682,104 500 OperatingTransfers In 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0 TotalW/O SpecialTax 105,331,800 105,331,800 106,551,328 1,219,528 ObjectCodeDescription Sales Tax Addition1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000 TotalGeneralFund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (1,387,547) The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #4. Please note, at the time of this transmittal, two items are still under consideration from Budget Amendment #3 and are considered in the fund balance calculation below. With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will adjust to 31.73 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. The fund balance calculation above has been adjusted to account for the FY 2023 year end numbers after the completion of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 24,825,461 178,695,454 202,575,741 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158)(32,868,799) PriorYearEncumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (2,592,884) (18,663,765)(21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 18,574,936 130,820,531 148,549,011 BeginningFundBalance Percent 22.79% 25.00% 24.85%35.49% 33.36% 33.42% YearEnd CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - -- -- - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746)(2,484,423) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 18,574,936 128,336,108 146,064,588 Final FundBalance Percent 22.79% 24.46% 24.37%35.49% 32.72% 32.86% Budget Amendment Use ofFund 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)- (3,860,205) (3,860,205) 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)- -- Change in Revenue - -- -- - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - -- -- - --Adjusted Fund Balance 21,928,113 157,840,137 178,933,386 18,574,936 123,304,921 141,033,401 AdjustedFundBalance Percent 38.05% 38.05% 38.05%35.49% 31.44% 31.73% Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 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 $4,464,748.66 in revenue and $9,248,709.66 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in nine (9) funds, with an increase of three (3) FTEs in the Fleet program. The proposal includes 12 initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping items. 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 2024 (Fourth 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 __________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Num b e r /Na m e Fu n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e F T E s 1 A i r Qua l i t y In c e n t i v e s P r o gra m Su s t a i n a b i l i t y - 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 2 S h o r t - T e r m R e n t a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n S o f t w a r e G F - 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 3 W i t h d r a w n pri o r t o t r a n s m i t t a l 4 I m m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - O n g o i n g C o s t s G F - 3 1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 On g o i n g - 4 Im m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - U s e o f V a c a n c y a n d At t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - ( 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 4 Im m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - U s e o f V a c a n c y a n d At t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 4 I m m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - T r a n s f e r t o C I P C I P 28 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - ( 5 5 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 2 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - T r a n s f e r to F l e e t Fl e e t 33 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 6 F i r e S t a t i o n 1 F e n c i n g Im pac t F e e - 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 6 F i r e S t a t i o n 1 F e n c i n g CI P 13 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a pac i t y GF - 3 4 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 On goi n g - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y G F - 5 1 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y F le e t 34 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 3 4 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 On g o i n g 3. 0 0 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y F le e t 42 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 2 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a pac i t y IM S 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 8 P o l i c e C l e a n N e i ghb o r h o o d s T e a m s G F - 1 , 8 2 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 9 P u b l i c S a f e t y Syst e m s S o f t w a r e IM S - 1 9 4 , 5 4 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 10 V e r s a t e r m C a s e S e r v i c e GF - ( 4 8 , 9 5 4 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 10 V e r s a t e r m C a s e S e r v i c e IM S - 2 0 3 , 1 4 8 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 11 O u t s i d e T r a f f i c S i gna l R e pai r GF - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 12 A P C O I n t e l l i C o m m - E M D P r o t o c o l 911 C o m m - 1 6 5 , 7 93. 0 0 On e - t i m e - 13 C i t y At t o r n e y - O u t s i d e C o u n s e l GF - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 1 Pl a n n i n g & D e s i g n D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o Appoi n t e d ( G r a d e 35) GF - - On g o i n g - 2 O n goi n g La n d f i l l P r o jec t s CI P 1,00 0 ,00 0 . 0 0 1 ,00 0 ,00 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 3 Tr a n s f e r f r o m T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o D e b t S e r v i c e f o r Ga r a ge L o a n f r o m S t a t e GF - 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 3 Tr a n s f e r f r o m T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o D e b t S e r v i c e f o r Ga r a ge L o a n f r o m S t a t e De b t S e r v i c e 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e qui r i n g No N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s - Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m s Se c t i o n D : H o u s e k e e p i n g Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Se c t i o n C : G r a n t s f o r N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n B : G r a n t s f o r E x i s t i n g S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 3 1 Bl o o m b e r g P h i l a n t h r o p i e s W a k e t h e G r e a t S a l t L a k e Mi s c G r a n t s 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 2 St a t e o f U t a h I n c r e a s e H o m e l e s s M i t i gat i o n G r a n t Mi s c G r a n t s 21 6 ,439.6 6 2 1 6 ,439.6 6 On e - t i m e - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t It e m s 4, 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - - 3. 0 0 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e Fu n d Re v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e F T E s To t a l b y Fu n d , Bu d get A m e n d m e n t # 4: Ge n e r a l F u n d GF - 3 , 8 6 0 , 2 0 5 . 0 0 - - - Fl e e t F u n d Fl e e t 72 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 - - 3. 0 0 CI P F u n d CI P 1, 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Im p a c t F e e F u n d Im p a c t F e e - 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 - - - Su s t a i n a b i l i t y F u n d Su s t a i n a b i l i t y - 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - 91 1 C o m m u n i c a t i o n s F u n d 91 1 C o m m - 1 6 5 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 - - - IM S F u n d IM S 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 0 6 , 6 8 8 . 0 0 - - - Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s F u n d Mi s c G r a n t s 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 1 , 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 - - - De b t S e r v i c e F u n d De b t S e r v i c e 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t 4 , 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - - 3. 0 0 Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Se c t i o n I : C o u n c i l A d d e d I t e m s Se c t i o n G : C o u n c i l C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s 2 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d get S u m m a r y, pro v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 3-2 4 Bu d get , In c l u d i n g Bu d get A m e n d m e n t s Re v e n u e FY 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 A d o p t e d B u d g e t - R e v e n u e BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l BA # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l BA # 5 T o t a l To t a l R e v e n u e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F u n d 1 0 0 0 ) 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 . 0 0 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 . 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 . 0 0 Mi s c S pec i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 0. 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 4, 6 8 1 , 1 8 5 4, 6 8 1 , 1 8 5 . 0 0 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 17 6 , 6 3 7 , 2 8 8 17 6 , 6 3 7 , 2 8 8 . 0 0 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 28 9 , 9 4 1 , 1 7 8 28 9 , 9 4 1 , 1 7 8 . 0 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 19 , 8 6 5 , 8 9 2 19 , 8 6 5 , 8 9 2 . 0 0 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 40 3 , 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 40 3 , 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 25 , 2 4 0 , 4 5 9 0. 0 0 25 , 2 4 0 , 4 5 9 . 0 0 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 12 , 7 1 0 , 0 6 7 12 , 7 1 0 , 0 6 7 . 0 0 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 32 , 1 0 8 , 9 6 9 3 6 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 97 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 33 , 8 4 4 , 8 5 5 . 0 0 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 36 , 2 5 4 , 3 5 7 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6, 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 36 , 2 9 0 , 3 5 7 . 0 0 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 - 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 . 0 0 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 8, 9 1 9 , 9 1 7 16 , 1 9 7 , 4 2 3 . 0 0 1 , 7 0 5 , 7 0 0 . 7 9 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 28 , 0 3 9 , 4 8 0 . 4 5 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 40 0 , 0 0 0 62 , 4 1 6 . 0 0 46 2 , 4 1 6 . 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 50 0 , 0 0 0 50 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 14 , 6 5 9 , 0 4 3 14 , 6 5 9 , 0 4 3 . 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 32 , 3 4 1 , 5 8 6 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 33 , 4 4 1 , 5 8 6 . 0 0 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 30 , 1 9 9 , 7 5 6 2 1 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 25 , 4 8 5 , 8 9 3 . 2 5 4 1 0 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 1, 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 57 , 7 2 9 , 2 2 6 . 2 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 8 8 8 , 5 8 1 3, 8 8 8 , 5 8 1 . 0 0 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 60 , 9 3 2 , 1 3 7 60 , 9 3 2 , 1 3 7 . 0 0 To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1, 6 2 3 , 6 3 1 , 4 5 1 2 6 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 4 1 , 7 5 1 , 7 3 2 . 2 5 3, 1 0 3 , 0 5 4 . 7 9 4 , 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 - 1, 6 7 3 , 2 1 4 , 7 8 6 . 7 0 3 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Ex p e n d i t u r e FY 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 A d o p t e d Bu d get g - E x pen s e BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l BA # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l BA # 5 T o t a l To t a l E x p e n s e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 2 0 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 (7 6 3 , 9 5 0 . 0 0 ) 1, 7 3 0 , 7 3 1 . 8 9 3 , 8 6 0 , 2 0 5 . 0 0 45 3 , 5 4 6 , 1 0 4 . 8 9 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 . 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 . 0 0 Mi s c S pec i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 66 4 , 2 9 3 . 7 0 2, 3 6 4 , 2 9 3 . 7 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 6, 0 4 4 , 1 1 9 6, 0 4 4 , 1 1 9 . 0 0 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 17 7 , 9 5 3 , 7 8 7 17 7 , 9 5 3 , 7 8 7 . 0 0 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 30 1 , 8 3 2 , 6 2 2 30 1 , 8 3 2 , 6 2 2 . 0 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 22 , 9 4 7 , 4 7 4 22 , 9 4 7 , 4 7 4 . 0 0 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 52 0 , 4 3 8 , 9 9 7 52 0 , 4 3 8 , 9 9 7 . 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 28 , 2 6 3 , 7 9 2 23 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 28 , 4 9 3 , 7 9 2 . 0 0 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 17 , 9 3 8 , 9 8 4 17 , 9 3 8 , 9 8 4 . 0 0 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 16 5 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 3, 9 6 6 , 1 7 8 . 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 32 , 4 9 8 , 7 5 0 1 4 , 4 6 1 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 97 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 48 , 6 5 9 , 6 2 9 . 0 0 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 38 , 7 0 2 , 1 7 1 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6, 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 , 5 3 1 , 0 8 3 . 0 0 40 6 , 6 8 8 . 0 0 43 , 6 5 4 , 9 4 2 . 0 0 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 (2 0 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 ) 9, 4 9 4 , 8 2 3 . 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 46 , 6 4 2 . 5 0 5, 6 4 4 , 4 0 5 . 5 0 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 8, 9 1 9 , 9 1 7 16 , 1 9 7 , 4 2 3 . 0 0 2 , 2 3 4 , 4 7 3 . 2 9 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 28 , 5 6 8 , 2 5 2 . 9 5 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 40 0 , 0 0 0 65 , 4 7 2 . 0 0 46 5 , 4 7 2 . 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 50 0 , 0 0 0 50 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 10 , 2 1 2 , 0 4 3 10 , 2 1 2 , 0 4 3 . 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 34 , 8 9 4 , 9 7 9 5, 7 7 7 , 7 8 4 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 41 , 7 7 2 , 7 6 3 . 0 0 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 29 , 7 0 8 , 2 8 6 2 1 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 25 , 4 8 5 , 8 9 3 . 2 5 1, 5 4 5 , 6 7 5 . 0 0 56 , 9 5 7 , 8 5 4 . 2 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 3 7 0 , 0 1 2 3, 3 7 0 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 63 , 5 7 4 , 6 5 5 63 , 5 7 4 , 6 5 5 . 0 0 - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1, 7 6 8 , 9 1 4 , 0 0 9 1 4 , 8 9 2 , 9 9 3 . 0 0 4 1 , 6 5 5 , 1 3 1 . 9 5 15 , 0 9 0 , 7 1 4 . 6 8 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - 1, 8 4 9 , 8 0 1 , 5 5 8 . 2 9 Bu d g e t M a n a g e r An a l yst , C i t y Co u n c i l Co n t i n gen t A ppro pri a t i o n 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Sustainability $230,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Nielsen For questions, please include Debbie Lyons, Angie Nielsen Sustainability proposed the creation of a new Air Quality Community Incentives Program for the FY 2024 budget and requested $230,000 to expand the incentives beyond landscaping equipment to include e-bikes, indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, and other items to help improve air quality in the community and indoors. The City Council supported creation of the program but requested that Sustainability provide a written proposal of the program policy and goals before releasing funds for the additional incentives. Sustainability recently hired the new FTE approved in FY 2024 and has been working on program design. This budget amendment serves to provide a description of the proposed program and to request additional funding which is needed for Sustainability to move forward with soliciting RFPs, the next critical step in program development. Below is a description of the proposed program. Sustainability is in the process of compiling a separate document detailing the Air Quality Incentives Program Plan, which will be made available to the City Council before the Budget Amendment is briefed. The Department is also currently working with Purchasing on the RFP scope of work but are awaiting budget approval before finalizing and releasing the RFP. 1) E-BIKE PROGRAM ($200,000) Sustainability has collaborated with other City Departments to design the program application, back-end system for the vouchers, the procurement process, and logos and branding design. Sustainability has also met with several local bike shops to get their input on the anticipated program design and contract process. To meet the goal of a Spring launch, it is crucial that an RFP be published as soon as possible so the suppliers can be selected, contracts prepared, and the implementation details finalized. The department anticipates: -Working with up to five bike shops with physical storefronts in Salt Lake City to serve as suppliers for the program. - Vouchers will be made available for cargo bikes ($800 standard voucher/$1,400 income-qualified voucher), commuter bikes ($400 standard/$1,000 income-qualified), and adaptive bikes ($600 standard/$1,200 income-qualified). Off-road bikes will not be eligible. Higher voucher amounts will be available for income-qualified applicants. Discounts will be applied at the time of purchase. 50% of program funds will be reserved for low-income vouchers. -Assuming most applicants select commuter bikes, and 50% of the funds go to low-income applicants, approximately 350 vouchers could be distributed. -Suppliers will be expected to provide a discount on bike safety accessories (helmets, lights, locks, etc), help educate customers on bike safety and etiquette, provide test rides, and provide basic maintenance support. 2) INDOOR AIR QUALITY ($30,000) The department will work with the Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs to distribute high- efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single burner induction cooktops to homeowners served by these programs. Sustainability anticipates reaching approximately 60 homes. This program will also include an educational component to help residents understand how to improve indoor air quality in their homes, such as brochures and in-person consultations. Air quality monitors may also be included as a tool to help residents become aware of how routine activities impact indoor air quality. Sustainability has asked that the E-Bike portion of this item be straw polled to move the RFP process forward. Please reference the attached documents for a program overview. I Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: Short-Term Rental Identification Software GF $49,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Antonio Padilla / Ken Anderson For questions, please include Antonio Padilla, Ken Anderson, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker and Brent Beck On April 4th, 2023, the City Council approved significant updates to the ADU ordinance. With this ordinance, the council desires to properly monitor and enforce ADUs used as short-term rentals that are non-compliant with city codes. To properly monitor permitted ADUs and ensure compliance, the city would like to contract with a company to identify rental properties used and marketed as short-term rentals accurately. Inspectors are tasked with sifting through large amounts of data to identify a potential non-compliant property manually. It is necessary to implement this strategy as soon as possible to use our resources more efficiently. CAN has coordinated with IMS and the Innovations Team prior to the decision to move forward with an amendment request. However, since this software is specific to Civil Enforcement, the decision was made to house the budget in CAN instead of IMS. The anticipated annual cost of the short-term rental software is $39,000 per year, with a 3-year agreement. Keeping up with the latest enforcement trends is necessary by sending our inspectors for training annually for short-term rental and code enforcement. The cost of training would be approximately $10,000. The total amount needed is $49,000 annually. A-4: Immediate Needs in Liberty Park GF –Ongoing Costs $31,250.00 GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings ($285,125.00) GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $285,125.00 CIP $285,125.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Toby Hazelbaker For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Toby Hazelbaker and Gregg Evans The Department of Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for Liberty Park needs totaling $316,375. A $285,125 portion of this is slated for one-time use to address the greenhouse and gates CIP needs discussed in the narrative below. This one-time portion will come from this fiscal year’s Public Lands vacancy and attrition savings which will be transferred to CIP for project completion. The remaining $31,250 is being requested from the general fund balance for ongoing costs at Liberty Park. The breakdown of all $316,375 in costs is contained in the table below. Ongoing Costs Greenhouse Costs $31,250 One-time Greenhouse Costs $248,015 One-time Gate Costs $37,110 Total Costs to General Fund for FY 2024 $316,375 The first request is to aid in the displacement of staff and operations at the Liberty Park Greenhouse due to a recent facilities condition assessment that has deemed the greenhouse to be unsafe for City employees. The second is for the purchase of gates to block roads at Liberty Park, due to increased after-hours cars entering the park. Greenhouse –In October 2023, Public Lands received a Facility Condition Assessment contracted by the Facilities Division within Public Services. The assessment identified several concerns, and that structurally, the main house, the south green house and the concrete deck over the underground garage are severely damaged. Staff and operations are no longer using this facility and the department is working on a temporary solution to accommodate operations while design and construction of a new facility is worked out. An FY 2025 CIP application will be submitted for design and to create construction documents for the mitigation and repairs of the facility. Public Lands and Engineering are currently working to secure a contractor for a structural review of the site. Depending on the outcome of that review, the current request for Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 funding could be used in one of two ways. The first and most desirable will be to make repairs to the East greenhouse (the West greenhouse and office area are very unlikely to be eligible for repair). The second option will be to purchase hoop houses for the annual plants, fencing to protect the temporary greenhouses, access to water, and to supply power with a new transformer. The current transformer is near capacity and cannot serve this temporary solution. The new transformer will be used for the greenhouse once mitigation or reconstruction is complete in either option. The Department is requesting funds to rent a mobile office with restrooms for the staff based out of the greenhouse.The one-time amount requested has been calculated to cover the cost of the hoop house option, as the structural review is not complete. SLC Trails and Natural Lands will rent underutilized greenhouse space at University of Utah to maintain the native plant program. The City will provide learning opportunities in plant propagation and production, and native plants, for University students. Liberty Park Gates –The open road into Liberty Park is leading to significant afterhours activity. This includes vehicle camping, the sale of drugs, vandalism (wire is being pulled from light posts by attaching the wire to vehicle bumpers), and other crime. In addition, many vehicles remain on site through the night after closing hours. As both Code Enforcement and Police increase efforts to secure the park at closing time, without locked gates, it is not feasible to fully achieve. Exterior gates to the main park loop (both north and south locations) will control vehicle access to the park after hours, where interior gates along the interior loop (both east and west) will help control parking problems as well as late evening vandalism, unpermitted events and illegal event parking issues in the future. The gates selected are simple, stock, tube- steel, black-painted, manual swinging and hand-locked. The historic preservation group is satisfied with the proposed solution. A-5: Public Lands One-time Budget Reallocation GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings ($558,000.00) GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $225,000.00 GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $333,000.00 Fleet $333,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans For questions, please include Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment to reallocate $558,000 as a one-time move of funds from the department’s existing personnel budget generated by attrition and vacancy savings to other operational expense categories. The Department is proposing to transfer a one-time amount of $333,000 to the Fleet Fund to order critical operational equipment for redundancy purposes, and to reallocate a one-time amount of $225,000 to the operations and maintenance budget to cover one-time contracted services. This item does not include a requested allocation from general fund fund balance. The $333,000 request mentioned above is to procure two (2) additional mowers and an excavator. The large-area mower is in regular use in the Parks division. Mowers range in age from 2010 to 2019, with a median age of 8.5 years where the average retirement age for these mowers is 10 years. At one point during the 2023 season, four of eight wide-area mowers were out of service, and it is not uncommon to have two or three units out of service at any time. Irrigation repairs are another constant in the Parks Division. Staff utilize mini excavators to dig up and repair lines. When this aging excavator equipment fails, there are increased delays in repairing leaks and breaks and a greater chance of dead trees, turf, and shrubs. Based on the latest bids for this equipment the ordering lead time was around 18 months. With lead times this far out, ordering this equipment now will significantly accelerate the purchasing process and delivery of equipment. The $225,000 request mentioned above is to address staff challenges. Hiring full and part-time positions has become increasingly challenging for the Public Lands Department, which has generated attrition and vacancy savings this year. When positions are not filled, a backlog of work accumulates. The Department is proposing to utilize contracted labor in Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 this instance to maintain continuity of operations and relieve workloads for existing staff. Without contracted labor, essential maintenance functions cannot be performed as expected by the public and the Council. A-6: Fire Station 1 Fencing Impact Fees $130,275.00 CIP $130,275.00 Department: Public Services and Fire Prepared By: JP Goates / Michael Fox For questions, please include JP Goates, Kimberley Schmeling, Michael Fox, Jorge Chamorro and Karl Lieb Fire Station 1, at 211 South 500 East, is located on the corner of 500 East and 200 South. It has one driveway that enters the parking lot from 500 E. and another that enters from 200 S. The parking lot is not well lit and is secluded. The location, pedestrian traffic, and access from two directions has led to many issues over the years. • People often cut through the parking lot to get to the businesses on 500 E. • Persons experiencing homelessness have set up camping spots in the parking lot. • When returning to the station at night, crews have seen people running out of the parking lot on multiple occasions. • Since 2019, SLC PD has opened 14 cases related to issues in the parking lot. Including vehicle theft, prowling, and property theft. • Since 2018, SLC PD has responded to 45 calls at the station that were not made into active cases. It is the Salt Lake City Fire Department’s priority to provide a safe area to conduct emergency response and for our employees to park and secure their private property while on shift. The department believes that a gated fence to the parking lot would assist in creating a safer area to conduct emergency responses and in preventing crime. The Facilities Division has received estimates for installation of security fencing at the perimeter of Fire Station 1. This will include chain link at the rear perimeter and ornamental fencing and gates at the front of the station and two access points. Fire impact fees excess capacity is proposed to be utilized for this request. A-7: Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity GF $348,809.00 GF $51,100.00 Fleet $348,809.00 Fleet 42,100.00 IMS 9,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston / Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston, Kimberley Schmeling, Denise Sorensen and Nancy Bean For the last several years the Fleet division has been extremely conservative in its budget requests as leadership was determining how Fleet maintenance needs had changed due to the long-lasting impacts of the pandemic. The pandemic caused drastic changes to the automotive industry, such as increased costs and delivery time for parts and vehicles, with some vehicle orders being completely cancelled. These issues have resulted in an older fleet that has more maintenance needs at the same time the size of the fleet has increased as departments grow. Additionally, there were drastic changes to vehicle usage during the pandemic, which are now showing lasting consequences. All these factors have necessitated creative measures to maintain adequate Fleet services. During the FY 2024 budget process, the department was hopeful it could continue to maintain its level of services for one more year with the intention to ask for more resources during the FY 2025 budget process. However, this approach is no longer sufficient. Fleet has been sending more and more vehicles to outside vendors for repairs, i.e. sublet and offering Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 overtime to existing mechanics, such that 73% of the budget for those items has already been used while only half the year has elapsed. Additionally, multiple departments in the City have experienced operational impacts due to the slow turnaround of vehicles. Unless more resources are dedicated to increased Fleet maintenance capacity, turnaround time for vehicles will continue to increase, causing City operations to be adversely affected as City employees are unable to perform their work without a vehicle. Three new mechanics (FTEs) and minimal sublet funding are being requested. The total amount needed for this request will be $399,909. An amount of $9,000 is also included for IMS to provide the necessary hardware and software for each new hire. A detailed breakdown of expenses is outlined below. Fleet Mechanics (3 FTE)–on-going $91,809 Education & Training –one-time $42,100 IMS Expense (software, hardware) one-time $9,000 Outside Repair –Mechanical (sublet) one-time $257,000 Total Costs to General Fund for FY 2024 $399,909 Adding three (3) new mechanics to the Fleet shop would increase capacity in the long term such that Fleet could maintain service levels while utilizing normal amounts of sublet and overtime funding. The original intent was to request these FTEs in the upcoming budgetary process; however, fleet maintenance capacity needs to be increased more quickly. It is anticipated that these mechanics could be hired between February and March, but until then, Fleet will need to continue subletting at the increased rates utilized so far this year. A-8: Police Clean Neighborhoods Teams GF $1,829,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich and Chief Brown The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting $1,829,000 to staff officers (hereby referred to as “mitigation officers”), on overtime, as part of the City’s ongoing efforts to reduce illegal camping, improve park safety, and to enforce the Department’s Downtown Safety Initiative (DSI). Currently, the Department is utilizing two (2) full-time sergeants to coordinate and manage mitigation officers working on overtime focused on enforcing the law, prioritizing public safety, and reducing victimization while simultaneously demonstrating compassion and empathy for the city’s unsheltered community. Due to the sheer volume of calls for service and current staffing levels, the Department does not have the available resources that can be dedicated for mitigation services without the use of overtime. In October 2023, with the increase of shelter bed availability, the Department increased the number of mitigation officers, utilizing overtime from both ARPA grant funding and general fund. These mitigation officers are primarily assigned around the “Temporary Shelter Community” (TSC) in the Rio Grande District but may assist, as needed, in other areas within the City. Within the TSC, a private contractor provides security 24/7 for operational needs. If there is a call for police services, SLCPD officers would respond. The mitigation officers, in addition to regular proactive patrol work, are frequently requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department to assist with enhanced mitigation impact clean ups. Due to fluctuation in officer availability for mitigation overtime shifts and delays in the Department’s staffing retention program, the Department had unspent budget in FY23 from vacancy savings. However, the Department does not anticipate having a large budget savings at the end of FY24 due to its increase in hiring and other financial needs including coverage for patrol calls for service and increased staffing needs for public order events, that may be covered using FY24 vacancy savings. For the remainder of FY24 and FY25, the Department will need to rely on overtime funding to staff mitigation officers, especially during the summer months when the City’s unsheltered population historically increases as the number of I Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 shelter beds decreases with the emergency winter shelters closing. The Department anticipates, and is planning for, additional FTEs for the Department to sustain its mitigation efforts. In the future, the Department intends to request additional officers for one (1) sergeant and five (5) officers. This squad will be similar to the Department’s Homeless Resource Center squads but will have a responsibility area that includes the future home of the state’s Micro Community Shelter (MCS). The MCS will qualify as a Tier 1 shelter, and is expecte d to be located on 700 West, just south of Interstate 80. This squad will only be a portion of the needed staffing as it will only cover four-10-hour days out of seven-24-hour periods. The phased deployment will coincide with hiring and training of new officers. Full implementation of the grant funded squad is expected within 15-18 months. A-9: Public Safety Systems Software IMS $194,540.00 Department: Police /IMS Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Aaron Bentley For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Shellie Dietrich, Joseph Anthony and Gloria Cortes This request is for a software solution that provides investigative tools for accessing and extracting electronic data from cell phones, offered by Cellebrite. The current process is very labor and resource intensive. This software will provide the needed tools and reduces costs to IMS in the PC replacement program and software staff. The capability for Police and Fire investigators to utilize data extraction for case investigations is very limited. The current software solution is not functional on the computers that these positions have, which is creating extensive delays in investigations and case resolution. Without this software upgrade, IMS would need to replace currently existing computers with computers that have additional functionality, including more robust storage, and better video and graphic cards. Police has worked closely with IMS in determining the best long-term solution, leading to this recommendation. The amount requested to support this need is $194,540 in ongoing cost. A-10: Versaterm Case Service GF ($48,954.00) IMS $203,148.00 Department: Police / IMS Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Aaron Bentley For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Shellie Dietrich, Joseph Anthony and Gloria Cortes This request is for Versaterm Case Service. Versaterm is the records management system (RMS) and computer aided design (CAD) system utilized by public safety. Case Services is a versaterm product that integrates with the RMS/CAD. It provides an online reporting solution for the community to report non-emergency calls for service online.They’re provided with a case number and routed to the proper area for response. This is a software upgrade that is now required with the Versaterm upgrade to 8.1 that has significant enhancements efficiencies and will provide efficiencies for the public safety departments within the city and improved customer service for the community. This upgrade provides enhanced online reporting including NIBRs data collection and validation and case auto-transcription of general offense reports of non-emergency incident entered through Case Service Reporting. It streamlines the process of receiving reports from Loss Prevention / Shoplift departments with a reporting process for big box retailers. Also significant improvements were made to the Case Service dashboard to provide better insight into quantities, types, and status of all Case Service submissions. This software also provides a phone tree for non-emergency calls to public safety. A-11: Outside Traffic Signal Repair GF $250,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston For questions, please include Julie Crookston, Jorge Chamorro, Mark Stephens Traffic signals at two separate intersections in the City have been damaged by non-city vehicles. (Gladiola and California signals were damaged by a semi-truck roll over; 200 West 100 South signals were damaged by a grade-all forklift hitting the mast arm and spinning the pole foundation.) The damage is severe enough that they cannot be repaired by our in- house technicians. Street’s staff has obtained quotes for the repairs needed from our contracted vendor. This work will ultimately be paid for by the insurance companies of the outside entities who caused the damage. However, Risk has informed us that best practice is for the repairs to be managed by the City,and then to be reimbursed by the insurance Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 companies. This will ensure the City receives full compensation for the damages as the total cost will only be known after the work is complete. Public Services does not have sufficient funding in our budget to cover the cost of repairs. No long- term impact to the general fund is expected as, once the work is completed, Risk will seek reimbursement from the insurance companies, and the money will go back to the general fund. The timing of this reimbursement is unknown and may not be in the same fiscal year as the expenditures are incurred. This request is for $250,000 which includes a 10% contingency on the quotes that we have received. This is a replacement only - no design necessary; no upgrade and no addition to be made and is not a CIP. A-12: APCO IntelliComm –EMD Protocol 911 Comm $165,793.00 Department: 911 Communications Prepared By: Lisa Kehoe For questions, please include Lisa Kehoe, Megan Dickerson and Sandee Moore The City needs to match existing medical dispatch protocol equipment and processes currently being used by the Salt Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center (“VECC”). (Salt Lake City Code subsection 3.24.160(1)(b))-The City’s continued use of ProQA’s dispatching software would also not be conducive to accomplishing the shared CAD requirements expressed by the legislature because continued use of different dispatching protocols, not only slows the City’s dispatch responses down but also hinders dispatch process es throughout Salt Lake County. The Versaterm CAD can only use one medical protocol and the fact that the City and VECC currently use different medical protocols creates unnecessary complications that arise when a 911 call needs to be transferred between the City and VECC. In such situations each agency must take time to change the call to fit the parameters in each dispatch center’s medical protocol before help can be dispatched. By contracting with APCO for medical dispatch services, the City can achieve a genuinely interoperable common CAD system that will eliminate delays in time, allow for the inefficient use of resources, and ease the continuity gaps that currently arise when calls are transferred between dispatch centers. If the department doesn’t move forward with this new equipment, it will be forced to continue with the existing equipment that is inefficient and renew the old contract. The costs shown are all one-time expenditures. Once implemented, the department will have the ability to train its staff members instead of outsourcing through another agency. If industry standards require an update to the protocols, those will not be an additional accrued cost. Funding will come from the E911 fund, which has a fund balance of $5,256,661 as of June. Please see the attached document for further detail. A-13: City Attorney –Outside Counsel GF $250,000 Department: City Attorney Prepared By; Greg Cleary For questions, please include Katie Lewis, Mary Beth Thompson, or Greg Cleary. The City Attorney Department is requesting $250,000 from fund balance (general fund) to support needs for outside counsel. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Planning & Design Division Director Reclassification to Appointed (Grade 35) GF $0.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Murdock Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Tyler Murdock and Gregg Evans In FY2024 BA2, Public Lands requested to move four (4) full-time landscape architect positions to Public Lands Department. This was in response to the urgency and high expectations that the City and the public have regarding the 100+ existing parks, trails, and open space capital projects, and particularly the dozens of high profile projects from 2022's Sales Tax Revenue Bond and General Obligation (or GO) Bond. The request included the creation of a Division with a Division Director to oversee and facilitate immediate and efficient project delivery. BA2 was left open with the intent to revisit the request to create an appointed Division Director position. At this time, the Department of Public Lands is requesting a FY24 $0 housekeeping budget amendment to reclassify the Public Lands Department's Planning Manager position (Grade 33) to an appointed Planning & Design Division Director (Grade 35). The cost difference will be made up by the Department's FY 23/24 budget's vacancy savings and the ongoing funding will be included in the department’s general budget request in the following fiscal year (FY 24/25). The updated appointed pay plan provided by HR is also included to reflect this change. D-2: Ongoing Landfill Projects CIP $1,000,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Mark Stephens For questions, please include JP Goates, Kimberley Schmeling, Mark Stephens and Jorge Chamorro The landfill unallocated CIP account has been receiving revolving funds for various ongoing landfill projects. The funds placed in the account are applied to individual projects and then reimbursed to the General Fund. Module 8 is the next step in the series of landfill modules where refuse will be placed. It is needed to continue the expansion of the landfill to accommodate ongoing growth. Module 8 is approximately 40 acres and has a clay liner and HDPE welded liner underneath to protect the groundwater from the landfill leachate. There have been change orders to Module 8 that require the fund to be replenished. This reimbursable fund also needs to be in place for current and future projects on a revolving basis. Public Services’ Engineering Finance bills the County after services are provided. This is a pass-through cost that used to reside under Waste and Recycling but has since been moved to Engineering. Since Engineering oversees the improvements, it was determined that Public Services should process the pass-through costs as well. D-3: Transfer from Transportation to Debt Service for Garage Loan from State GF $1,100,000.00 Debt Service $1,100,000.00 For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Marina Scott, Samantha Kenney and Gabby Ewell This is a housekeeping item related to the State Infrastructure Bond repayment. This item is to transfer the $1.1M received from the State to the Debt Service Fund, to support the approximate $7m State Infrastructure Bond for the construction of a parking garage. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Bloomberg Philanthropies Wake the Great Salt Lake Misc. Grants $1,000,000.00 Department: Salt Lake City Arts Council (ED) Prepared By: Felicia Baca; Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City applied for a grant with Bloomberg Philanthropies. The grant aims to educate and inspire residents and visitors to identify possible solutions and take action locally and nationally. Public art projects will be structured around major themes such as water conservation, air quality, agriculture, industry, environmental and social justice- including indigenous rights and lake ecology. Salt Lake City's proposed project consists of 1) a series of 3-5 significant artworks created by world-renowned artists across the city. These artists will be selected to leverage their notoriety and practice while bringing awareness to our civic issues. 2) a series of temporary public art projects by local and regional artists and organizations in various disciplines, including but not limited to performers, sculptors, painters, muralists, printmakers, filmmakers, poets, new media, etc. By commissioning our local community of artists to create context and site-specific artworks about the Great Salt Lake, our local community will be able to reflect on this crisis in new and compelling ways. Bloomberg Philanthropies is awarding the City $1,000,000 to fund the two-year public art project, Wake the Great Salt Lake. Salt Lake City will be providing a match of $1,060,000 with in-kind staff time and other grant funding. A public hearing was held on April 18, 2023. G-2: State of Utah Increase Homeless Mitigation Grant Misc. Grants $216,439.66 Department: Housing Stability/Police Department (Community and Neighborhoods) Prepared By: Michelle Hoon; Amy Dorsey The State has given the City an increase for the Homeless Mitigation grant. As a reminder, the City was awarded $3,107,201 for FY 2024. This award was for 1) Public Safety staff, program supplies, equipment, and vehicle maintenance, 2) Two sub-awards for Volunteers of America and Downtown Alliance, and 3) 2 HEART Coordinators, a Case Manager, half the salary of a grant’s person along with training, travel,and program supplies. Due to the City hosting overflow beds, the City will receive additional funds for FY 24. In total, the City will receive $650,000. 2/3 of that money will go directly to shelter providers. The City will retain $216,439.66, which is required to be put toward public safety. This money will be used for PD overtime in the Rio Grande area around the new Temporary Shelter Community. A public hearing was held for the Homeless Mitigation Grant on September 19, 2023. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ 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 I 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$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ ~~_________L_____L_______l_________L____J D ~~~ =====-====~-===l===f=~===== -===== -=====-=====-====I ~ I I I I ♦ ~r----=====---==±==+=------==JI______ I I - I I I I I ~ - I I I I I ~ Atachmens A-1 Ver 1/9/2024 Page 1 of 7 Clean Air SLC Initiative The Sustainability Department is developing Clean Air SLC, an initiative that aims to distribute equipment and information to help residents improve air quality in their communities and inside their homes.Clean Air SLC will distribute resources through three incentive programs: E-Bike Rebates, Indoor Air Quality Tools, and Electric Yard Care Equipment. The City Council supported the creation of an Air Quality Incentives Program during the Citywide FY24 budget process. Budget was appropriated to continue offering Electric Yard Care Equipment exchanges and hire a new full-time employee (FTE) to help design and administer a more comprehensive Air Quality Incentives Program tailored for Salt Lakers. During the FY24 budget process, the City Council requested that the Sustainability Department provide a written proposal of the program policy and goals for the Electric Bike Rebates and Indoor Air Quality incentives before approving funding for those two incentives. Summaries of the three Air Quality Incentives Programs are provided below: 1) Electric-Bike (E-bike) Rebate Program will distribute vouchers to encourage the purchase of e-bikes as transportation alternatives to cars. 2) Indoor Air Quality Program will distribute indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, and induction stoves though the City’s existing housing programs. 3) Electric Yard Care Equipment Program will offer rebate for residents to purchase electric yard care equipment, such as snowblowers, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc. The Sustainability Department continues to work closely with the Utah Division of Air Quality on the details of this program. This program is not addressed in this document because the Department is waiting on critical decisions from DAQ before designing this program. The Department is requesting $230,000 to fund the E-bike Rebate and Indoor Air Quality Programs. Funding is needed for the Department to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the E-bike Program and to purchase equipment for the Indoor Air Quality Program, the next critical steps in program development. The purpose of this document is to provide information for the City Council about the currently proposed E-bike Rebate and Indoor Air Quality program design, the programs for which funding is being requested. The proposed program components described here are based on feedback from internal and external stakeholders and research of similar programs in other cities. Program details are still under development and will be finalized this Winter and Spring. The Department looks forward to incorporating the City Council’s feedback into the proposed program design. The Department considers this first round a pilot launch and will adjust future launches according to public needs, lessons learned during the pilot launch, and City policy priorities. The Department plans to e CLEAN &Dfil SLC 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 2 of 7 explore available federal and other funding sources to provide supplementary funding for this program in the future. Establishing a successful pilot will be an important step in securing additional funding sources. 1. E-Bike Rebate Program Overview The E-Bike Rebate Program will provide financial incentives for e- bikes purchased as a transportation alternative to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The goal of this program is to make e-bikes more accessible and affordable and inspire residents to embrace a greener and healthier mode of transportation while contributing to the reduction of transportation-related emissions in our city. The Department anticipates using $200,000 of the budget amendment request for the E-bike Rebate Program and aims to launch this program in Summer 2024. The proposed program description provided in this document is based on feedback and information collected from local bike shops, bike organizations, and similar programs. The actual program design may change with additional feedback from stakeholders and depending on the results of the RFP process. Research that informed the proposed program design include: - Bike shops:The Department interviewed five local e-bike suppliers to gather information on the types of bikes provided, warranty options, and educational and service support provided. The Department also collected feedback on key program components, such as anticipated voucher amounts and redemption process, e-bike specifications, and procurement process. The bike shops interviewed represented a range of business types and included a local e-bike manufacturer and retailer, locally owned businesses, a national manufacturer and retailer, and a national retailer. - Bike organizations:The Department gathered feedback and explored partnership opportunities with Bike Utah and other local organizations. Additionally, the Department researched policy documents prepared by national bicycling organizations, such as The League of American Cyclists and People for Bikes. - Other E-Bike Incentives Programs:The Department conducted extensive researched on e-bike incentive programs across the country and have been in close communication with UCAIR about the Magnum+UCAIR E-Bike Incentive Program, which launched Summer 2023. This research was intended to understand different program options, models, and lessons-learned. 1.1. Vouchers and Applicant Eligibility Criteria The Department anticipates vouchers will range from $400 to $1,400 depending on bike type and income. Higher voucher amounts will be available to income-qualified applicants. Vouchers will be used at the point-of-sale to reduce the purchase price of the e-bike. The table below provides a summary of the anticipated voucher amounts: CLEAN~ &Om. SLC \3(C) 0 CLEAN &lll;l SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 3 of 7 Bike Type Standard Voucher Income-Qualified Voucher City and Commuter $400 $1,000 Adaptive $600 $1,200 Cargo & Utility $800 $1,400 1.1.1. Eligible E-Bikes Below is a list of the anticipated eligible e-bike types and specifications. Final equipment eligibility is subject to change. 1) Eligible E-Bike Types a) Cargo & utility b) City and commuter c) Adaptive d) Mountain and gravel bikes are not eligible 2) Eligible bike classes: Classes 1, 2, and 3 3) Max nominal power output (motor): 750 watts 4) Be newly manufactured or purchased, with original proof of purchase. 5) Have a MSRP of not more than $4,000 6) Manufacturer’s warranty must be available for frame, battery, and components for a period of not less than one (1) year. 7) Electrical drive system must be certified by an accredited testing laboratory for compliance with UL 2849 or EN 15194 1.1.2. Voucher Distribution It is anticipated that the application period will be open for at least one week for the general public. Vouchers will be distributed through a lottery system, ensuring a fair and random allocation among participants. The Department proposes to prioritize vouchers distribution to income-qualified applicants to ensure this program benefits a demographic that may face financial barriers to adopting e-bikes for transportation and welcomes the City Council’s feedback on how to design this prioritization structure. The Department is considering strategies to effectively encourage low-income residents to apply, such as targeted outreach, a longer application period, and bike safety training events. These strategies are further discussed in Section 1.3. Voucher recipients will be able to redeem their vouchers at any of the participating bike shops. The Sustainability Department has been working with IMS to develop a program application and an automated voucher reimbursement process. 1.1.3. Applicant Eligibility Applicants must be residents of Salt Lake City and 18-years of age or older. A valid driver’s license or other State-issued ID card will be required to apply. A utility bill or bank statement will be required to demonstrate proof of residency. Each household will be eligible to receive up to two vouchers. e CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 4 of 7 1.1.4. Income-Qualified Applicants To receive an income-qualified voucher, applicant must meet one of the following criteria: 1) Have a household income of less than 80% AMI. See below for income limits amounts per household size. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOW INCOME 80% AMI $57,350 $65,550 $73,750 $81,900 $88,500 $95,050 $101,600 $108,150 Source:https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2022/08/HOME-Income-Limits-2022-23.pdf 2) Be currently registered in an approved state or federal income-qualified program. A list of approved programs include: • UTAH Family Employment Program • UTAH Medicaid • UTAH HeadStart • UTAH Home Energy Assistance Training Program HEAT To qualify for the income qualified voucher, applicants can submit one of the following documents: • Tax document (W-2, 1099) for all income-earning members of the household • Employer attestation(s) to verify income • Proof of enrollment in another State or federal income-qualifying assistance program 1.2. E-Bike Suppliers Feedback gathered from potential bike suppliers has been incorporated into a draft RFP. The competitive selection process will be initiated if funding is appropriated by the City Council. The Department anticipates selecting up to 5 suppliers for the e-bike program. Suppliers will be selected based on the quality of bikes sold, proposed bike safety accessory packages, level of maintenance support provided, and staff experience and knowledge of e-bikes. Anticipated bike eligibility requirements and supplier responsibilities are listed below, but all are subject to change. Suppliers must have a storefront within Salt Lake City boundaries and will be responsible for the following: • Voucher Redemption o Verifying identity of holder of the voucher with a valid driver’s license or government-issued identification. o Verifying voucher expiration date, eligibility of the e-bikes with program requirements and/or a list of eligible bike models. o Fulfilling voucher recipients' orders within a 14-day period from purchase. • Voucher Reimbursement e CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 5 of 7 o Submitting vouchers to the Sustainability Department’s Program Administrator for reimbursement within 10 business days from date of transaction along with receipts. • Customer Education/Support o Providing a smooth and consistent process for users picking up their e-bikes. Suppliers must explain and set expectations with customers about e-bike maintenance and care. o Sharing cycling and e-bike ownership educational materials provided by Salt Lake City to program participants. o Providing information to support recipients registering their bikes with the manufacturer and the Salt Lake City police department. o Providing an opportunity for voucher recipients to test ride e-bikes before the final sale. • Bike Safety and Maintenance Support o Offering a discount on bike safety accessories, including helmets, lights, patch kits, and locks, to voucher recipients at the time of purchase. o Providing a free 90-day tune-up on bikes sold from their location. o Installing and maintaining on-site flat prevention systems. 1.3. Outreach Strategy The Department is currently developing an outreach plan and tools. The plan will outline details for press releases, social media posts, and other promotions. This plan will also detail strategies to reach low-income residents, such as partnerships with organizations working in these communities, culturally appropriate materials, and bike safety training and bike demonstration events to educate new and inexperienced bike riders. Graphically designed materials are being developed and include logos, social media templates, brochure templates, and other resources, which you can see in this document. The Department will work with IMS’ Civic Engagement and Media Teams and the Transportation Division in the development of the outreach plan and tools.The Department welcomes the City Council’s feedback on the outreach strategy. 1.4. Program Metrics The Department will track metrics to measure the effectiveness and impact of the program. Some of these metrics could include: • Engagement rates with outreach materials • Percentage of applicants that are new to bike riding • Applicant demographics • Percentage of vouchers redeemed • Follow-up survey to gauge usage frequency, miles travelled, car miles replaced, costs to operate, and participant satisfaction with purchased e-bike and the program • Estimated greenhouse gas and air pollutant emission reductions • Number of educational sessions conducted, number of attendees 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 6 of 7 1.5. Other Considerations It is important to recognize that bike storage, riding etiquette, parking, and infrastructure are critical considerations that can impact the adoption of cycling as a transportation alternative. While the Department cannot resolve all these issues through a voucher program, we are assessing the challenges and identifying opportunities to incorporate solutions into this program, for example through requiring discounted safety equipment, assistance with registering bikes, analyzing bike storage and security solutions to propose and work with partners to support implementation, and continuing to develop relationships with bike advocacy organizations to assist with education and outreach. Through this program the Department will continue to explore opportunities to work in partnership to address challenges to the adoption of e-bikes as transportation. Recognizing these issues cannot be quickly resolved, this program can be a catalyst to systematically address some of these challenges. 2. Indoor Air Quality Program Research continues to show how the air inside our homes can, at times, be more polluted and harmful to health than the air outside. Furthermore, during high pollution periods, outdoor air can infiltrate homes and buildings, impacting the health of those inside. Thankfully, there are simple equipment and behavioral measures that can significantly improve indoor air quality. For these reasons, the Sustainability Department began an educational campaign in 2022 around indoor air quality, hosting a partnership event to learn about the latest research, and incorporating messaging on the SLCgreen social media platforms, blog posts and website. Under the leadership of Mayor Mendenhall, in the FY24 budget process the Department proposed enhancing the air quality incentives program by providing tools that will directly improve the air inside people’s homes, particularly those who have lower household incomes. To do so, the Department plans to collaborate with the Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair programs to distribute high-efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single-burner induction cooktops. The Department anticipates using $30,000 of the budget amendment request for this Indoor Air Quality program. Based on Housing Stability’s program data from past years, the Department anticipate working with 60 homes over a one-year period. The number of homes served will depend on the number of applicants the housing programs enroll, and types of repairs performed. If funding is approved, the Department will begin working with contractors for the Handyman and Home Repair programs to start distributing indoor air quality tools. 2.1. Indoor Air Quality Assessment For their existing programs, Housing Stability staff conducts a home assessment to assist residents with their applications and evaluate the rehabilitation needs of the home. The Department plans to work with Housing Stability staff to collect information during these assessments to identify the appropriate indoor air quality interventions for each home, such as furnace type and age, stove type (gas vs. electric), age of household members, and health concerns (such as respiratory and heart diseases). CLEAN~ &Dfil SLC _lQ-% 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 7 of 7 2.2. Indoor Air Quality Equipment The Department proposes distributing the following interventions: • High-efficiency furnace filters with efficiency ratings of MERV 13 or higher will be offered along with instructions for replacing filters, and reminders for filter replacement. MERV 13 filters are not appropriate in all instances because they can diminish the efficiency and performance of the furnace. An assessment of the age and condition of the furnace will be conducted, and the highest-efficiency option will be provided if a MERV 13 filter is not appropriate. • Air Purifiers will be offered to homes where residents have health conditions exacerbated by poor air quality or where high efficiency filters cannot be installed. • Single-burner induction stoves will be offered to homes that have gas stoves. Stoves fueled by natural gas can result in high levels of indoor air pollution. Program participants will be provided information on the impact of gas stoves on indoor air quality and will be offered a single-burner induction stove along with appropriate cookware. • Indoor Air Quality Monitors will be offered as a tool to increase awareness of how routine activities impact indoor air quality. 2.3. Educational Components This program will also include an educational component to help residents understand how to improve indoor air quality in their homes. The materials will discuss strategies for improving indoor air quality and will include instructions for the materials distributed by our program. These materials will be distributed through the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs. Sustainability is also exploring partnerships with other organizations, such as community health workers, to distribute educational materials and promote the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs and the Clean Air SLC programs. 2.4. Program Metrics & Outcomes The Department will track metrics to measure the effectiveness and impact of the program. Some of these metrics could include: • Engagement rates with outreach materials • Percentage of applicants interested in these interventions • Types and number of interventions installed • Applicant demographics • Follow-up survey to gauge usage frequency, impact of educational material, and satisfaction with the program 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Atachmens A-12 REQUEST FOR WAIVER – APCO CONTRACT SalLake Ciy’s E991 Deparmen(he “Deparmen”) hereby asks he SalLake Ciy Corporaon (“Ciy”) ChieProcuremenOcer o waive he sandard procuremenprocess and allow he Deparmen o pursue a conrac or medical dispach proocols and processes wih he Associaon oPublic-Saey Communicaons Ocials Inernaonal, Inc. (“APCO”). A procuremenwaiver is needed in his siuaon because: 1. The Ciy needs o mach exisng medical dispach proocol equipmenand processes currenly being used by he SalLake Valley Emergency Communicaons Cener (“VECC”). (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(b)) 2. The supplies and services needed o mach VECC’s dispach proocol equipmenand processes is only available rom a sole source, and a soliciaon process would be exremely unlikely o produce a meaningul compeon. (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(a)) 3. A waiver o he soliciaon process in his siuaon would be in he besinereso he Ciy and he convenience o he public. (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(d)) BACKGROUND In recenyears,he Uah Sae Legislaure expressed a srong ineresin ensuring he 911 services beween PSAPS are rapid, ecien, and ineroperable. See Uah Code Subsecon 63H-7-302(1). The Ciy’s E911 Deparmenand VECC are he wo primary Public Saey Answering Poins (“PSAPs”)ha provide dispach services or he SalLake Valley. Because he wo enes share he responsibiliy o providing dispach services in he SalLake Valley,hey are consanly working ogeher o provide as and accurae responses o calls seeking emergency dispach services. Using a ruly ineroperable sysem is crucial o providing medical dispach services o he public in a rapid and ecienmanner. In ac,o provide emergency dispach services as quickly and accuraely as possible, and a he urging ovarious Sae governmenenes,he Ciy and VECC use a shared, or common, compuer aided dispach program (“CAD”) known as Versaerm. However,he Ciy and VECC currenly do nouse he same medical dispach proocols. VECC previously issued a reques or proposals relaed o medical dispach proocols and seleced he Associaon oPublic-Saey Communicaons Ocials Inernaonal, Inc (“APCO)o provide VECC’s medical dispach proocols and relaed services. Since moving o APCO, VECC has noed ha he me required o dispach a medical call has signicanly reduced – resulng in help being sen aser han wha he Ciy is currenly experiencing operang using Pro-QA dispach proocols. A highlighed comparison using he sascal CAD repors or Augus1so Augus20h 2023 is aached. The me a call is “In Queue” represens he me a call is waing or sucieninormaon beore ican be dispached on. One reporshows SalLake Ciy Fire (CF) and he oher shows Unied Fire (UF). The me beore dispach services are able begin dispaching any re/medical response is whais highlighed in he “In Queue” column. The aached documens indicae ha he “In Queue”me or SalLake Ciy using ProQA are commonly over a minue or an overall average o1.53 minues. This is under he required 2 minues o sarhelp or a medical call. However,he aached documens also show ha Unied Fire (UF), which is dispached by VECC using APCO’s medical proocol haallows hem o dispach when cerain pieces oinormaon are obained (whereas ProQA’s dispach proocols would normally preven his more rapid dispach approach) resuls in an average oonly 39 seconds “In Queue” beore VECC begins sending help. These resuls indicae ha, even disregarding he eciencies gained by he Ciy and VECC operang oa single proocol sysem,he overall me “In Queue” beore SalLake Ciy Fire could be dispached on medical calls would be much lower using APCO’s medical proocol ha does nohinder he Ciy’s abiliy o begin sending help once he dispaching process reaches a poin where ibecomes clear wha ype ohelp is needed. Currenly he ProQA dispaching sofware prevens he Ciy rom aking acon unl he dispach process is enrely complee. The Ciy’s connued use oProQA’s dispaching sofware would also nobe conducive o accomplishing he shared CAD requiremens expressed by he legislaure because connued use odieren dispaching proocols, noonly slows he Ciy’s dispach responses down bualso hinders dispach processes hroughouSalLake Couny. The Versaerm CAD can only use one medical proocol and he ac ha he Ciy and VECC currenly use dierenmedical proocols creaes unnecessary complicaons haarise when a 911 call needs o be ranserred beween he Ciy and VECC. In such siuaons each agency has o ake me o change he call o  he parameers in each dispach cener’s medical proocol beore help can be dispached. By conracng wih APCO or medical dispach services,he Ciy can achieve a genuinely ineroperable common CAD sysem hawill he eliminae delays in me,he inecienuse oresources, and he connuiy gaps hacurrenly arise when calls are ranserred beween dispach ceners. FIRST BASIS FOR WAIVER: MATCH EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - CONTRACTING WITH APCO WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO MATCH VECC’S EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES. Conracng wih APCO o provide medical dispach proocol services will allow he Ciy o mach is PSAP parner’s exisng medical dispach proocol equipmenand processes such ha he Ciy and VECC will be able o joinly ulize an ineroperable CAD sysem hapermis calls o he ranserred smoohly and consisenly rom one PSAP o he oher. This ineroperable sysem would be a signicanupgrade rom he currendisjoined approach haprevens eiher VECC or he Ciy rom being able o use he CAD’s ull unconaliy. In conras, I he Ciy obains is medical dispach proocols rom any vendor oher han APCO,he abiliy or he Ciy and VECC o use a ully ineroperable CAD sysem disappears and he currenineciencies inherenin a less-han ineroperable sysem will persis. SECOND BASIS FOR WAIVER: SOLE SOURCE – APCO IS THE SOLE VENDOR THAT THE CITY CAN SELECT IF IT WANTS TO ACHIEVE A FULLY INTEROPERABLE CAD SYSTEM THAT WILL REDUCE DELAYS AND FACILITATE THE RAPID AND EFFICIENT PROVISION OF MEDICAL DISPATCH SERVICES. Moso he raonale supporng his reques or a sole source waiver is already addressed in he preceding paragraph. APCO is he only vendor who can mach VECC’s exisng equipmenand processes, and APCO is hereore he only vendor he Ciy can selec o achieve a genuinely ineroperable CAD sysem haeliminaes he exisng ineciencies and ully mees he Sae governmen’s expecaon ha he enre SalLake Valley will operae on a common CAD THIRD BASIS FOR WAIVER: BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY – CONTRACTING WITH APCO IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY BECAUSE RESULTS IN AN INTEROPERABLE COMMON CAD SYSTEM AND BECAUSE APCO’S SYSTEM, INDEPENDENT OF ANY INTEROPERABLE EFFICIENCIES, IMPROVES THE CITY’S ABILITY TO TIMELY PROVIDE MEDICAL DISPATCH SERVICES. Having a ully ineroperable common CAD hawill allow or he seamless ransion ocalls and inormaon beween VECC and Ciy is in he besineress o he Ciy and is residens. The mely and compeenprovision omedical dispach services o persons in need omedical assisance is an incredibly imporanservice o he public. However, even setng aside he benes o he ully ineroperable CAD sysem, conracng wih APCO or medical dispach services will bene he public. Afer moving o APCO, VECC noced he signicanimprovemens relaed o he me in which help could be dispached in response o medical emergencies. The circumsances in which SalLake Ciy dispach services operae are very similar o he circumsances presenaVECC, and iis reasonable o conclude hamany o he benes VECC has realized by conracng wih APCO should also be realized by he Ciy. CONCLUSION: For all o he reasons saed above,he Ciy’s E911 Deparmenis requesng ha he ChieProcuremen Ocer waive he sandard procuremenprocess in his siuaon and allow he Ciy o pursue enering ino a conracwih APCO or he provision omedical dispach proocol services. While we believe ha all o he reasons supporng a reques or waiver are jused, any o he hree bases or waiver described above would by iselbe sucien o gran he E911 Deparmen’s waiver reques. Atachmens D-1 911 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. 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. 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: Jennifer Bruno & Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analysts DATE:February 6, 2024 RE: RESOLUTION: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH BASEBALL STADIUM PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a public benefit analysis conducted by Salt Lake City that would allow the University of Utah to lease approximately 1.175 acres of City-owned land at a below-market rate and term for 99 years. The land is located at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue and is currently used for a softball field and a multipurpose field at Sunnyside Park. The University requested this lease to facilitate expansion of its baseball playing field to meet National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requirements. The University has stated that this lease would enable sufficient expansion of the baseball playing field to avoid the need to construct undesirable elements, such as a 35-foot wall between the western boundary of Sunnyside Park and the ballfield. The Administration believes the benefits from an expanded ballpark, which would be available to the public when not in use by the University teams (pending negotiations), combined with a $4.2 million contribution from the University for new amenities at Sunnyside Park, would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed agreement represents an overall benefit for the public. The Administration is recommending that the Council approve the public benefits analysis, as it believes the agreement is in the long-term interest of the City. A public hearing on this item will be scheduled for February 20, 2024. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis and, after a public hearing, consider adopting a resolution which would authorize the below-market ground lease rate and term to the University of Utah. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 Proposed Leased Area and New University Ballfield Design Page | 3 Note: The above image is a concept rendering used to explore options and make cost estimates. Results from the City’s forthcoming community engagement process may change this design substantially. Page | 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.Lease Term. The proposed lease term is $1 per year for a 99-year term. The 2023 fair market value of the property was assessed at $0.68 per square foot, for a total of $434,279. B.The Public Benefits Analysis. 1.Legal Framework. Under Utah Code 10-8-2 (1)(a)(v), after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” The University of Utah qualifies as a nonprofit entity. The Council will consider scheduling a public hearing on this potential agreement for February 20, 2024. 2.Public Benefits Identified. The University has already decided to build this new stadium. The only question for the City is whether the benefits of the proposed below-market ground lease of adjacent property outweigh the alternatives, which would include the installation of a 35-foot high wall on University property. The Administration’s Public Benefits Analysis found that such a wall would obstruct existing sight lines in Sunnyside Park that provide natural surveillance and improve park safety. The specific public benefits from allowing the University to build a ballpark with an outfield that would extend onto City-owned property in Sunnyside Park are summarized below. a. A $4.2 million contribution from the University for new amenities at Sunnyside Park (and potentially relocating softball fields). b. Potentially, when not in use by University teams (subject to negotiation): i. allowing the City to program a multi-use field within the future ballpark; ii. allowing City and public access to a portion of the leased acreage, including a proposed berm and other landscape features; and, iii. allowing City and public access to amenities like bathrooms and concessions maintained by the University and located inside the future ballpark. c. Promoting the City’s reasonable goals and objectives as set forth in the SLC Public Lands Master Plan, Reimagine Nature. These include: i. Expanding the amenities in Sunnyside Park to allow it to support more users and uses, including, potentially, additional active programming that brings people out for art, events, programs, recreation, and community. ii. Leveraging resources to make the public space more usable for both the public and the University while preserving the open space and use of Sunnyside Park. iii. Expanding the usable area in Sunnyside Park, provided that the University agrees to allow public access onto portions of the University property for recreational purposes. 3.City Code Relating to Open Space Inventory. Leasing this part of the park property for use as a baseball facility would comply with City Ordinance 2.90.070 (C), since it would continue to be “in accordance with [its] intended use.” For this reason, the lease does not trigger the legal process that includes extended public notice for this proposed disposition of open space. POLICY QUESTIONS Page | 5 1. The Council may wish to discuss options to provide replacement softball fields with lighting, given that the existing fields at Sunnyside are heavily used by recreation-level leagues. a. The Council could discuss potential funding sources with the Administration. The Administration has estimated that if a lighted softball field is constructed on City land, it could cost approximately $1.5 million. There is a cost efficiency in building two ($2.5 million), and additional parking would cost approximately $750,000. b. Vacant City land exists that could host additional softball fields. The Council could also ask Public Lands if there are any other softball fields in its inventory where lights could be added, to ensure users of Sunnyside Park softball fields have access to fields on the same basis as they do currently. The Administration has indicated that they have a submitted a CIP application for additional soccer fields at the RAC, and softball could be added to that project or funded separately. c. Staff note: The original proposal for the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) included several lighted softball and baseball fields, but these were ultimately not constructed due to cost constraints. d. The Council could ask the Administration if impact fees are eligible to use for enhanced amenities at Sunnyside park, which could free up funds from the University to use towards replacing the softball fields. 2. The Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council submitted a communication to the Council expressing opposition to the proposal (attached). See item B3 above as it relates to the assertion that this action violates 2.90.070 Removal Of Lands From The Open Space Lands Inventory of the City code. 3. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the timeline for the University’s stadium construction. 4. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how programming and activities are proposed to be managed at the ballpark to minimize impacts on neighboring residential areas and wildlife that use the area. 5. The Council has authorized significant expansion to the Public Lands Department in recent years, both to provide the basic staffing needed by e new department, and to help ensure timely and efficient use of the $85 million bond which was approved by voters in late 2022. Would the Council like to request additional information on how Public Lands could accommodate another large project into its existing queue? From: Jan Hemming <hemmingjan@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 9:05 AM To: Mayor <mayor@slcgov.com> Cc: Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Dugan, Dan <Daniel.Dugan@slcgov.com>; Petro, Victoria <Victoria.Petro@slcgov.com>; Puy, Alejandro <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; Lopez Chavez, Eva <eva.lopez@slcgov.com>; Wharton, Chris <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Young, Sarah <sarah.young@slcgov.com>; Ballpark <amy.j.hawkins@gmail.com>; Anthony Wright <anthonywright13@gmail.com>; David Leta HRC <david.leta@gmail.com>; East Central <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com>; Bonneville Hills <ellenred@comcast.net>; Kimball Young <kimball.young@gmail.com>; Shelby Herrod <shelbyherrod@yahoo.com>; Mary O’Connell <fishgal58@gmail.com>; Robin Carbaugh <robin@carbaughassociates.com>; KEEPYalecrest <lkpershing@gmail.com>; James Webster <jwalandscape@gmail.com>; Stuart Bevan <stuart.bevan@gmail.com>; Eric Povilus <eric_povilus@msn.com>; Jennifer Evans <jenniferevans1522@gmail.com>; Marguerite Henderson <margueriteh100@hotmail.com>; Timothy Ermish <timothyermish@gmail.com>; Eric Dyer <eric.miles.dyer@gmail.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Meeting with Yalecrest Neighborhood Council re: U baseball stadium Mayor Mendenhall: One correction to my previous email. The city owns Smith’s Ballpark and the LHM Company has a lease agreement. This certainly affects the dynamics of the situation but it may give the city more leverage to explore creative ways to address these baseball-related impacts on two neighborhood communities. Jan On Jan 24, 2024, at 5:34 PM, Jan Hemming <hemmingjan@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Mendenhall: The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council is appreciative of your emphasis on public parks and their place and necessity in the fabric of a healthy city. We commend you for your vision to promote and win approval for the $85 million GO bond that will fund new parks and rehabilitate older ones. We are especially appreciative of your firm stance — on at least three previous occasions — to decline requests from the University of Utah to lease, sell, gift or transfer land in Sunnyside Park to the U for their use as part of a new, proposed collegiate baseball stadium. However, it has come to our attention that the University of Utah will pay the city $4.2 million to lease a sizable portion of Sunnyside Park property for a new baseball stadium. We understand the land deal is imminent. If approved, the public will lose precious open space in the park — a major existing baseball field, a lacrosse field, mature trees and portions of an existing soccer field. When not in use by athletic teams, these spaces are popular places for dog walkers, runners, casual park visitors, informal sporting organizations, and all who cherish our diminishing green spaces on the East Side. We vehemently oppose this land transaction. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. •It contradicts the intent and spirit of the East Bench Master Plan. •It ignores community and public opinion. •It breaks a promise the U gave the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council in 2018 that it would never build a baseball stadium on the baseball practice field property. •It dismisses the reality of thousands of students who will occupy new housing units along Sunnyside Avenue (some built; some under construction) with pent-up needs to use Open Space in Sunnyside Park. •It dismisses the fact that the proposed collegiate baseball stadium doesn’t fit the small practice field and should never be located there. The alternative to this land transaction is a monster 35- 40 foot wall in left field which we’ve heard that even Layton Construction company thinks is ill- advised from an engineering standpoint. •It violates Salt Lake City Code 21A that relates to Open Spaces, specifically, 2.90.070 (Removal of lands from Open Space inventory) which requires the mayor to “explain why the proposed sale or transfer is in the best interests of the city” in writing; “hold a public hearing before the mayor and the City Council;” "provide adequate public notice of the proposed sale or transfer;” provide a myriad of public notifications through mailers to nearby property owners, published declarations, and public signs;” and prevents the sale or transfer of public lands prior to the six month period following a public hearing. We respectively ask the city to adhere to its own laws governing open space transactions. We also respectfully ask the city to postpone any deal with the university until: 1. Immediate disclosure of the proposed land deal — in the spirit of government transparency. 2. A meeting with the city, impacted neighborhood councils and interested community residents. 3. A transparent public engagement process. 4. Compliance with all city codes pertaining to the sale or transfer of public Open Space land, which includes a public hearing and a six month waiting period. With recent news that the Oakland As is interested in using the new professional baseball stadium in Daybreak under construction by the Larry H. Miller Company — which owns Smith's Ballpark where the U has played baseball for years — it seems prudent to pump the brakes on any imminent transaction. This could lead to the Salt Lake Bees and University of Utah having use of Smith’s Ballpark for three more years — and give the U additional time to find a more suitable location. In other words, a win-win. This is a time sensitive and urgent matter. Please let us know when you would be able to meet with us along with several concerned community councils and affected residents. Respectfully, Janet (Jan) Hemming Chair Yalecrest Neighborhood Council cc: Amy Hawkins, Chair, Ballpark Community Council Anthony Wright and David Leta, Chair and Vice Chair, East Bench Community Council Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council Ian Arnold, Chair, Wasatch Hollow Community Council Ellen Reddick, Chair, Bonneville Hills Community Council Kimball Young, Chair, Foothill-Sunnyside Community Council Shelby Herrod, Chair, Sunnyside East Association Mary O’Connell, Friends of Sunnyside Park Robin Carbaugh, Lynn Pershing and Jim Webster, former YNC chairs MARY BETH THOMPSON Finance Director ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: ___________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 23, 2024 Victoria Petro FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Katherine Lewis, City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorizing a below-market ground lease for the University of Utah for approximately 1.175 acres of Salt Lake City owned property that would allow the University to expand its baseball playing field to meet the NCAA requirements for a competition field. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over a 99-year lease term: Public Benefit Analysis under Utah Code Section 10-8-2. SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly Chytraus, City Attorney (801) 535-7685 Kristin Riker, Director of Parks and Public Lands Department Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606, DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council approve a below- market ground lease of 1.175 acres of Salt Lake City owned property at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue to the University of Utah to facilitate the expansion of the University’s baseball playing field to meet NCAA requirements for a competition field. Expanding the property on which the field is built will allow the design to avoid undesirable elements such as the need for a 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park. Under the proposed ground lease between the City and the University, the City will maintain ownership of the Leased Area. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over the 99-year lease term. The ground lease will require that the Leased Area be used solely for recreational and baseball field purposes, with defined access to the public. The 2023 lease value of the City Property is approximately $0.68/square foot, based on the assessed value. Katherine Lewis (Jan 23, 2024 17:25 MST) April Patterson (Jan 23, 2024 18:06 MST) April Patterson rachel otto (Jan 23, 2024 18:22 MST) 01/23/2024 01/23/2024 The lease would impact an existing city-owned softball field and multi-purpose field located at Sunnyside Park; however, the expanded ballfield could provide certain benefits to the public and users of Sunnyside Park, including field use and access to additional amenities. BUDGET IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2024 (Authorizing Ground Lease Rate and Term to The University of Utah) WHEREAS, the University of Utah (“University”) owns real property adjacent to Sunnyside Park where its practice baseball field is located. The University is designing a new ballpark to serve the University’s baseball program and meet the practice and competition needs of the program (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the University desires to ground lease from the City a portion consisting of 1.175 acres of the City’s property on 1735 Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, and designated as Sunnyside Park (the “Leased Area”) to allow the University to expand the outfield of the baseball field to meet National Collegiate Athletics Association requirements; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant to the University a ground lease rate for the Leased Area in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 99 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the ground lease on the conditions set forth in the Analysis, or on more terms beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2024. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The University of Utah Baseball Field Expansion in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property DATE: January 23, 2024 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 27.5 acres and designated as Sunnyside Park (the “City Property”). The University of Utah (the “University”)owns the property adjacent to the City Property to the northwest on Guardsman Way where its practice baseball field is located. The University is designing a new ballpark to serve the University’s baseball program and meet the practice and competition needs of the program by expanding the ballpark outfield (the “Project”). The redesign is necessitated by the loss of access to Smith’s Ballpark, which has been the historic home for University of Utah Baseball. The new ballpark must also meet the National Collegiate Athletics Association requirements for a competition field, which would result in the design incorporating several less desirable elements due to the existing site constraints, including a 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park and no setback from Guardsman Way. To mitigate the less desirable design elements on the site, the University has requested, and the City administration desires, to ground lease a portion of the City Property to the University to expand the outfield of the baseball field, in the approximate amount of 1.175 acres (the “Leased Area”), depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto. Attached as Exhibit B are (1) a depiction of the current Sunnyside Park layout, and (2) the University’s conceptual plan for the rebuild baseball field and Sunnyside Park amenities (the “University Concept Plan”). The lease would impact an existing softball field and a multi-purpose field at Sunnyside Park. However, the expanded ballfield could provide certain benefits to the public and users of Sunnyside Park, including field use and access to additional amenities. In addition, granting a ground lease would allow the ballpark to have a reasonable non-buildable setback from Guardsman Way and would eliminate the need for the 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because the University is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the ground lease at the below-market lease rate. 2 Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity are set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2) The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3) Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose (emphasis added). TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I. Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed ground lease between the City and the University, the City will maintain ownership of the Leased Area. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over the 99-year lease term. The ground lease will require that the Leased Area be used solely for recreational and baseball field purposes, with defined access to the public. The 2023 lease value of the City Property is approximately $0.68/square foot, based on the assessed value. The assessed fair market value of the Leased Area is $434,279. Impacts to the City include the loss of 1.175 acres of Sunnyside Park. Granting the lease will result in the removal of one existing softball field and one existing multi-use/lacrosse field. However, the net result could be the loss of two softball fields at Sunnyside Park which could be replaced by different park amenities such a multiple multi-use fields and other amenities, depending on the reconfiguration of the fields and amenities selected through a community engagement process. One potential reconfiguration and additional amenities is shown on the University Concept Plan. II. Public Benefits Provided by the Project. The Project will provide certain benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals and objectives set forth in the SLC Public Lands Master Plan, “Reimagine Nature,” adopted June 7, 2022 (the “Master Plan”). In exchange for the ground lease of the Leased Area, the University has offered to commit $4.2 million to be used by the City for replacement of impacted park land and amenities and 3 enhanced improvements at Sunnyside Park. In addition to the $4.2 million, park impact fees may be available for additional amenities. The final type of amenities would be determined through a community engagement process. The University Concept Plan illustrates some possible amenities that could be constructed: 1. Increasing the number of multi-use sports fields. The City could increase the number of multi-use sports fields from four fields to five fields (two would be new) and an option to program the outfield of the collegiate field as a possible sixth multi-use field. 2. Providing two new multi-use fields. The two newly constructed multi-use fields could be programmed for 130 days per year with an average of 500 participants/per week playing 28 weeks equates to 13,000 user visits/per year. 3. Three Pickleball Courts. Pickleball use has continued to rapidly increase throughout Salt Lake City. For the past two years there has been a constituent Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) request to add pickleball courts at Sunnyside Park. 4. Walking path that would increase the perimeter path up to 1.7 miles from 0.8 miles. 5. Additional parking areas. Public Lands also recommends that the ground lease be contingent on securing an agreement with the University that provides for the following benefits to the City’s reasonable satisfaction: 1. Allowing the City to program the multi-use field within the stadium during non-collegiate use. 2. City/public access to a portion of the 1.175 acres for public use during non-collegiate activities. This area would include the proposed berm behind the baseball field and other landscape features. 3. City/public access to amenities such as bathrooms and concessions maintained by the University and located inside of the ballpark for community use. Upon approval of the lease terms, the Administration will negotiate a ground lease with the University that will require these benefits and conditions as well as those required by Council. If the Leased Area ever ceases to be used for the permitted purpose or the University does not provide the required benefits or meet the required conditions, the City will be able to terminate the ground lease. III. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. The National Recreation and Park Association has studied the impact of parks and recreational areas on the economy, health, and wellness. It found that physical activity, access to green spaces, and services and programming that promote better health outcomes lead to less reliance on medication, fewer trips to the hospital, and lower healthcare costs. There is significant research that connects parks with positive mental health, resulting from both increased physical 4 activity and being near green space. This may include reductions in stress levels and antisocial behaviors. Parks can promote social cohesion, which is associated with reduced levels of depression, stress, and cardiovascular issues. Parks can also improve air quality, help communities adapt to changes in the climate (including providing shade in areas seeing increased heating), and provide support to disaster planning and social resilience. The Project may effectively expand the size of Sunnyside Park if the University allows public access onto portions of the University property for recreational purposes. Allowing the installation of a 35-foot wall would negatively impact the City Property by obstructing lines of sight that provide natural surveillance, impacting park safety. In addition, the University’s commitment to enhance the amenities at Sunnyside Park increases its usefulness to the public and provides additional recreation facilities. The additional open space and amenities have a positive effect on the community’s physical and mental health. IV. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The Master Plan has five main goals of what the Public Lands Department is aiming to achieve over the next 10-20 years: (1) Sustain: Environmental Health and Sustainability; (2) Connect: Accessible and Connected Green Spaces; (3) Welcome: Active, Authentic and Inclusive Places; (4) Protect: A Commitment to Stewardship; and (5) Grow: Expand our Public Lands System. Support of the Project with the ground lease accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities. (3) Welcome: Active, Authentic and Inclusive Places. Ideal parks are actively used by the community, inclusive for all ages, abilities and cultures and strive to be authentic, or reflective of the neighborhood and community’s culture. The Public Lands Department, in alignment with the Mayor’s 2021 citywide vision, is committed to looking at top-down and bottom-up community driven solutions to welcoming more people. Expanding the fields and amenities in Sunnyside Park will allow the City to welcome more people and supports active programming that brings people out to their parks for art, events, programs, recreation, and community. (4) Protect: A Commitment to Stewardship. The Public Lands Department leads the stewardship and care of urban green spaces and seeks out opportunities to partner with advocacy groups and schools to educate on how the public can be stewards of the land. Partnering with the University achieves this goal by leveraging resources to make the public space more usable for both the public and the University while preserving the open space and use of Sunnyside Park. (5) Grow: Expand our Public Lands System. Sunnyside Park could effectively be expanded to meet the goal of increasing the size and access of the City park space. In a fully developed area, it is challenging to increase recreational opportunities as the population grows. The use of the ballpark property will help grow the City’s park system and will provide additional recreational use to the community. Partnering with the University will improve the quality of the amenities offered at Sunnyside Park. In addition, with funds to build new softball fields and a parking lot at the RAC, the Public Lands system will be expanded by up to 7 acres. 5 CONCLUSION The development of the Project by the University incorporating the Leased Area will be a benefit to residents of the City as outlined and conditioned in this memo. Providing a below-market ground lease for the Parcel is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s goals and enhancing the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City. 6 EX H I B I T A De p i c t i o n o f L e a s e d A r e a ( R e d H a t c h M a r k s ) 7 EX H I B I T B De p i c t i o n o f E x i s t i n g S u n n y s i d e P a r k C o n f i g u r a t i o n 8 Un i v e r s i t y C o n c e p t P l a n Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/19/2024 11:55 Constituent Message/D6 Hi there! I saw on NextDoor a notice that someone is proposing a development at the end of Lakeline Drive near the Jacks Peak trailhead. Can you fill me in on what’s that about? Thanks very much. Best, Debbie Watters 1/19/2024 14:29 Alice Rathofer Speed Bumps on 1300 South Between Foothill Drive and 1700 East Who had the bright idea to make the speed bumps uneven on this section of 1300 South? This is redicloius to have uneven bumps and with a recommended speed of 20 MPH. That speed is too fast for those bumps even in a lifted off-road capable SUV. I cannot think of any reason to make these speed bumps the way they were made. It is not safe and not good for any vehicle. Are you all unaware that going over bumps you need to either go over straight on and keep the vehicle even or you stop and go over as if you are driving over steps one wheel at a time. Either Fix these speed bumps or remove them! 1/19/2024 15:53 Anonymous Constituent Scooters Rider Hello, I'd to see how SLC starts handling these scooters, where there's no helmet, no license, they act like a car, you know? because they think they are electric, They do not have to have a license. They do not have to wear a helmet they think they are a car and they don't stay on the bike lane. I would like to see what Council Members will do anything about this just to protect the rest of us. When you're driving and going to Twilight and you have somebody driving in the car lane, acting like a car and they are not because they are scooters without the license plate that's just a dangerous hazard for all of us who using the road. please put them in place because this is just causing the problems 1/22/2024 9:34 David Osokow Jordan River Trail Persistent Drug Market Hello, I'm wondering if there's any sort of safety plan for what to do on the Jordan River trail by the state Fairpark? In the past the city has been able to disrupt the open air drug markets and this particular location has persisted since at least early August. I'm wondering at what point does the city and public lands consider declaring an emergency closure of that section of the trail similar to what was done at Madsen park since the police operations do not seem to be able to disrupt this ongoing problem area? This particular location is very secluded and creates a number of safety issues which the city is obligated to address. We should have some sort of dignity in using a community amenity and from talking with a lot other members of the community no one feels safe to go to this section of the trail. Thank you, David Osokow 1/22/2024 10:01 Katie Normandin Potholes Hello, I just moved into downtown SLC a few months ago and I can't tell you how messed up my tires are from these downtown streets. As someone who has lived in multiple states around the country for work, I have never in my life seen so many potholes in my life. Every single street/corner/intersection has MASSIVE potholes and I can only imagine how many people need to get new tires because of this. My question is are you guys doing anything about that? And if I get a flat tire because of these streets, do you compensate? I can't imagine I'm the only one who has inquired about this. But I don't have $400 to fix a tire every time I drive to work. 1/22/2024 10:02 Kurt R Ovard Importance of grass The next time zeroscaping the city arises, please arm yourselves with the information contained within the firsts 2 minutes of this video from Anmalogic/Floralogic. Grasses are better at cleaning up CO2 and producing oxygen than trees.... https://youtu.be/IILV90TROnA Kurt & Charlotte Ovard 1/23/2024 9:47 Dirk Lamb Palestine Do you support the Genocide in Palestine? Your silence on the issue tells me you support the Genocide. Your silence tells me you support our tax dollars continuing to support the Genocidal actions of the state of Israel. Your silence tells me you support the destruction of hospitals, universities, government institutions, olive trees, children, mothers, fathers. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/24/2024 9:24 Thomas Weed 1/2 Bluegrass and climate science Dear Mr Dugan, I was happy to join in the celebration of yours and Mayor Mendenhall’s reelection at the January 2nd Inauguration Ceremony. Congratulations! I am grateful for all you do for our city. And I appreciated your remarks reflecting balanced and wise perspectives on Salt Lake City moving forward. If you’ll permit me, I thought to offer a brief comment—relative to accurate climate science and current circumstance—on the “Kentucky bluegrass” condemnation. Our current drought situation (including the disappearing Great Salt Lake) is quite paradoxical, given that the unprecedented melting of polar ice means that there has perhaps never been so much of Earth’s water in liquid and vapor form, ready to precipitate as rains and to fill our aquifers. Indeed, more rain may be falling from the skies above Utah than at any time in our history. The problem is that much—perhaps most—of the rain evaporates before hitting the ground, a phenomenon called virga (as I’m sure you know.) Driving this virga phenomenon is excessive heat radiating from the ground below. The underlying problem in drought, then, (certainly our drought, and perhaps all droughts) is not one of too little water. The problem in drought is that there’s too much heat. Measurements taken overhead and on the ground confirm that Salt Lake City now radiates more surface heat than ever before, as was recently reviewed at an excellent presentation by local researchers, including Salt Lake City climate scientists at the Utah Museum of Natural History. It may be that few observers of climate would recommend Kentucky bluegrass as a mainstay of water-wise landscaping. But in fact, on a sunny summer day, a surface of mixed planting and turf is 30-50 (F) degrees cooler than a paved surface (something pretty noticable to anyone attempting to walk barefoot or even just cover a block or two on one of our city’s sidewalks.) The bottom line is that pavement, not bluegrass, is the culprit. And the same satellites that note our extreme heating also calculate that Salt Lake City is one of the most over-paved cities in America. Unfortunately, we now are witnessing many instances where turf and planted areas are being converted to pavement. One the drivers of this is the mistaken belief is that pavement conserves water while plants consume it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Heat radiation from pavement both promotes virga and hastens drying, at a far greater cost of surface water than impermeable pavement “saves" by covering the ground beneath. This occurs at every scale, whether obliterating acres of plants in favor of large expanses of pavement or simply widening the driveway of a suburban home. 1/24/2024 9:24 Thomas Weed 2/2 CONTINUED!! Bluegrass and climate science Some climate-wise municipalities are starting to substantially restrict installation of any amount of new pavement and even encourage removal of pavement to permit re-vegetation. A simple and basic recommendation of climate science is that the most beneficial thing anyone with any sized property can do to benefit water conservation is to make sure that as much as that property as possible is covered by plants. Impermeable surface pavement actually causes a loss of water greater than the amount of “loss” caused when water is used to maintain the same area as planted surface. While the people of Salt Lake City seem to be strangely comforted by pavement, nothing that doesn’t involve combustion is more damaging to the climate. A current, unfortunate example of this is the Central 9th neighborhood, where five lanes of new pavement have made those streets virtually unvisitable—and substantially unwalkable—during summer daylight hours. My appeal to you, then, is that perhaps it would be beneficial to go a little easier on Kentucky bluegrass and instead point out that pavement is a far, far more destructive presence in our urban climate. If more pavement had the potential to save our city and our lake, we could just keep doing what we're doing and kick back. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Thomas Weed Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/24/2024 9:40 Monica Hilding Traffic Study, Health Impact Study, and Community Impact study Hi Eva, I'm writing because I am very concerned about the lack of a Traffic Study, Health Impact Study, and Community Impact study that were to be completed by Dec. 31, 2023. I hope that the city council will work with the Mayor to remedy this situation. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help make sure these studies are completed before there is more construction in the North West Quadrant project area of UIPA. Congratulation again on your election, Monica Hilding Environmental Caucus Chair 1/26/2024 9:32 Jan Hemming 1/2 Meeting with Yalecrest Neighborhood Council re: U baseball stadium Mayor Mendenhall: One correction to my previous email. The city owns Smith’s Ballpark and the LHM Company has a lease agreement. This certainly affects the dynamics of the situation but it may give the city more leverage to explore creative ways to address these baseball-related impacts on two neighborhood communities. Jan......................................................... On Jan 24, 2024, at 5:34 PM, Jan Hemming wrote: Dear Mayor Mendenhall: The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council is appreciative of your emphasis on public parks and their place and necessity in the fabric of a healthy city. We commend you for your vision to promote and win approval for the $85 million GO bond that will fund new parks and rehabilitate older ones. We are especially appreciative of your firm stance — on at least three previous occasions — to decline requests from the University of Utah to lease, sell, gift or transfer land in Sunnyside Park to the U for their use as part of a new, proposed collegiate baseball stadium. However, it has come to our attention that the University of Utah will pay the city $4.2 million to lease a sizable portion of Sunnyside Park property for a new baseball stadium. We understand the land deal is imminent. If approved, the public will lose precious open space in the park — a major existing baseball field, a lacrosse field, mature trees and portions of an existing soccer field. When not in use by athletic teams, these spaces are popular places for dog walkers, runners, casual park visitors, informal sporting organizations, and all who cherish our diminishing green spaces on the East Side. We vehemently oppose this land transaction. • It contradicts the intent and spirit of the East Bench Master Plan. • It ignores community and public opinion. • It breaks a promise the U gave the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council in 2018 that it would never build a baseball stadium on the baseball practice field property. • It dismisses the reality of thousands of students who will occupy new housing units along Sunnyside Avenue (some built; some under construction) with pent-up needs to use Open Space in Sunnyside Park. • It dismisses the fact that the proposed collegiate baseball stadium doesn’t fit the small practice field and should never be located there. The alternative to this land transaction is a monster 35-40 foot wall in left field which we’ve heard that even Layton Construction company thinks is ill-advised from an engineering standpoint. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/26/2024 9:32 Jan Hemming 2/2 CONTINUED!! Meeting with Yalecrest Neighborhood Council re: U baseball stadium • It violates Salt Lake City Code 21A that relates to Open Spaces, specifically, 2.90.070 (Removal of lands from Open Space inventory) which requires the mayor to “explain why the proposed sale or transfer is in the best interests of the city” in writing; “hold a public hearing before the mayor and the City Council;” "provide adequate public notice of the proposed sale or transfer;” provide a myriad of public notifications through mailers to nearby property owners, published declarations, and public signs;” and prevents the sale or transfer of public lands prior to the six month period following a public hearing. We respectively ask the city to adhere to its own laws governing open space transactions. We also respectfully ask the city to postpone any deal with the university until: 1. Immediate disclosure of the proposed land deal — in the spirit of government transparency. 2. A meeting with the city, impacted neighborhood councils and interested community residents. 3. A transparent public engagement process. 4. Compliance with all city codes pertaining to the sale or transfer of public Open Space land, which includes a public hearing and a six month waiting period. With recent news that the Oakland As is interested in using the new professional baseball stadium in Daybreak under construction by the Larry H. Miller Company — which owns Smith's Ballpark where the U has played baseball for years — it seems prudent to pump the brakes on any imminent transaction. This could lead to the Salt Lake Bees and University of Utah having use of Smith’s Ballpark for three more years — and give the U additional time to find a more suitable location. In other words, a win-win. This is a time sensitive and urgent matter. Please let us know when you would be able to meet with us along with several concerned community councils and affected residents. Respectfully, Janet (Jan) Hemming Chair Yalecrest Neighborhood Council cc: Amy Hawkins, Chair, Ballpark Community Council Anthony Wright and David Leta, Chair and Vice Chair, East Bench Community Council Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council Ian Arnold, Chair, Wasatch Hollow Community Council Ellen Reddick, Chair, Bonneville Hills Community Council Kimball Young, Chair, Foothill- Sunnyside Community Council Shelby Herrod, Chair, Sunnyside East Association Mary O’Connell, Friends of Sunnyside Park Robin Carbaugh, Lynn Pershing and Jim Webster, former YNC chairs Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/29/2024 9:36 Rebecca Biggs Tier B Baseball Fields Hi Dan, I’m writing to seek your support of reducing fees to rent our Tier B baseball fields from Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation department. Our local rec league, Forthill Baseball, is helping to raise awareness about this issue. I am a parent of four boys, all of whom have enjoyed playing in our local league for many years. I felt like I’ve raised my kids on those baseball diamonds. We love gathering with members of the community and our neighbors to help our kids learn about teamwork and enjoy playing the game. If you haven’t been recently, its worth a visit - it offers everything a neighborhood rec league has to offer - wooden bleachers in the shade, an announcer booth run by 6th graders that announce the line up (usually older siblings of the players or kids of the coaches), and a snack shack where you can buy microwave popcorn for $1.50 - a wonderful timesaver if you are there with little ones for a long game. Unfortunately we have seen a sharp decline in registration in recent years as we’ve lost out players to other leagues who offer lower fees or better amenities. Part of what makes our neighboorhood great is being able to offer wholesome recreation, like the baseball diamonds. I was discouraged to hear that not only do our rates increase every year but that none of the rental money we pay goes toward improving the fields, as is the standard in other counties. Taylorsville, for example, rents 5 fields in an updated complex and pays less than $7,500 per year. The county provides them with marking chalk and other items that we usually pay for. Other leagues that rent county fields are paying a similar amount and the county does most of their field maintenance and marking. Some background on the current situation… in 2015 the rate was $2 per hour. In 2020 that rate jumped to $8 per hour. In 2023 the rate leaped to $16 per hour and in 2024 it is now $17 per hour. At $17 per hour it will cost our league over $22,000 to rent our 4 baseball fields for spring and fall. As these rates have gone up the conditions of our baseball fields and buildings have deteriorated. None of this money has been used to improve our fields. Our league has used our own funds to make the fields at Oak Hills what they are today. The other 3 leagues that operate in the city pay a similar rate and their fields are in the same situation. Together we pay the city almost $90,000 to rent baseball fields. Our (FYBA) average cost per kid based on 300 participants is $68 per kid just for field rentals. While I am aware that the league is considering how to reduce fees for players, I am concerned with why the city makes a such a large profit from local youth baseball non profit organizations without substantial field upkeep or consideration of community value when making annual rate increases without community input and why we can’t reduce the rental fee. These fees are creating inequality in our communities by putting youth baseball out of reach for the average middle class family. Families are being priced out of the sport we feel the field fees are a big part of this problem. And the field maintenance burden should be shared by the city for the fees we’re paying. If our local league crumbles, what will happen to these fields if they are abandoned? Please consider reducing the rent on Tier B baseball fields in our district at the upcoming Feb. 1st meeting. Sincerely, Rebecca Biggs 1/29/2024 11:12 John Nelson Petition PLNPCM2023-00403 Council members: I live at REDACTED in SLC and I don’t support rezoning of properties at ~357 E 500 S, 464- 466S 400E and 460-462 S 400 E. as requested by Zachary Jones of Cowboy Partners on behalf of the property owners. This rezoning would allow for increased building height that would negatively impact surrounding properties. The recent building of a large apartment complex on the corner of 500 S and 400 E reduced the views surrounding property owners enjoyed and adversely impacts future property value. We have endured over two years of construction noise, roadway impacts and other disturbances since that project began. The petitioner did not include any proposed plans for those above mentioned properties, so it would not be prudent to approve the rezoning without knowing what is planned. Once those plans are published that would be the time to hold hearings and seek input from current property owners and affected tax payers. I don’t support rezoning without a submitted building plan. A rezoning decision should take place only after plans are submitted that require rezoning so that the project can be considered in its totality. Thank you. John Nelson Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/29/2024 11:13 Carlos SILVA City government i have a issue of the city there a lot of people trafficking the downtown there's got ta be way solve the area of the housing is not is so good condition and with the pollution is fearing bad when i go out to the public city. The city has very bad clean drinking water and the major issue is when cars are speeding when there are school morning hours and very bad habits of the speed. The service such as quality of housing. The infrastructure and negative effects on the of life of citizens lading to health problems poverty and even the poor conditions on the street 1/29/2024 15:51 Wendy Young Baseball Fields Link Hi Dan Trust all is great with you! I saw this on Nextdoor, and wanted to send the information to you. As you were so involved with Lacrosse & Youth Sports, I know you understand the challenges of staying on budget & supporting kids. And I don't have to tell you, how important youth sports are, for keeping kids heading down the right path. Hoping you can be involved in this issue, and help out the leagues. The rate of increases, seems to be very high. Thanks! Wendy 1/30/2024 11:21 Terry Marasco Westside Developments Folks, I am concerned that the opportunity for vendors at the various developments, including the Power Development, will sway hugely toward chains. Property owners first look at a vendor’s ability to pay and always seek to minimize risk. They then look at past profitability and longevity, and whether or not the business plan is sound. I recommend when in discussions with the LMG and the Power Development they give westside vendors right of first refusal on opportunities and some form of favored rent and lease terms (operating expenses, length). Additionally, whether chains or small businesses, the hiring needs to be first solicited from westside citizens. This may be a hard sell, but you must take them at their word regarding their commitment to the westside. Best, Terry Marasco 1/30/2024 11:26 Terry Marasco Recycling at New Developments . All, there is a need for a revised ordinance regarding recycling at apartments. With thousands of new units coming online, we need to get responsible and effective about recycling. My example: the building in which I rent is three years old without recycling. The former manager claimed they were working on it. It never happened. The new manager did not know of the existing ordinance; apparently the leasing contractor nor the property owner informed the new manager. The valet service is disposing of recycling into the landfill; I have contacted the valet service; they claim their hands are tied. Revise the ordinance as follows: 1. Must have a recycling dumpster/facility before opening its doors for business; 2. The business cannot open until the first criteria is met; 3. Penalties ($$$) for not circumventing the responsibility. 4. Delay any new construction by the same developer if one of their properties is in default. I have spoken with both Debbie Lyons and Chris Bell about this. Best, Terry Marasco 1/31/2024 10:17 Brandy Smith Expressing support for The Front Climbing Club Hello Mr. Puy, I am writing on behalf of Utah Clean Energy to provide a letter of support for The Front Climbing Club. While we do not have the background information to comment on the current loan freeze, we would like to highlight what a vital and impactful community partner The Front Climbing Club is to Utah’s environmental community. Utah Clean Energy is a grateful recipient of The Front's Impact Coalition program. Their support has helped to improve local air quality and advance clean energy solutions to combat climate change. Further, they lead by example as adopters of electric vehicle charging, rooftop solar, and high-performance building as illustrated at their two locations in Salt Lake City. We want to express our support for The Front Climbing Club and acknowledge their strong business leadership and community involvement for the betterment of all of Salt Lake City. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Brandy Smith Communications Director Utah Clean Energy Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/31/2024 10:25 Grady Tibboel Concern over pause of RDA loan to The Front Dear Mr. Walz, I read with dissappointment recently that the RDA had suspended its loan to The Front climbing gym. The Front is, of course, a business, but it also is central to developing climbing as a sport in the Salt Lake area. It supports one of SLC's two biggest USA Climbing teams (114 youth athletes), hosts events that bring top international talent to Salt Lake, and in recent years has hosted International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) paraclimbing events. The gym is central not only to the regional climbing community (to include other local businesses that market to climbers), but also to bringing positive attention for SLC to a world-wide audience of climbing enthusiasts. Those outcomes are real, and current -- but now limited by a paused loan, with lack of transparency about the pause to even the loan recipient. From the perspective of the RDA mission, ". . . to improve livability, create economic opportunity, and foster authentic, equitable communities . . .", The Front absolutely provides benefits in those veins. The year-round fitness and exercise opportunities, in a highly supportive and social environment, provide many benefits to include strong connections within a very welcoming community. I personally benefit from that environment and know many others who do. Further, my son benefits as a member of the youth team. He has amazing coaches and world-class facilities, in which he has grown tremendously -- physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. Sport climbing has been growing as a youth sport. The Front's expansion, with dedicated space for the youth team, state of the art Olympic style climbing training, and specialized training equipment, will provide opportunities for Salt Lake City youth teams to grow and enhance the team's experience and potential. Those benefits extend beyond our own youth team. With local teams often doing "trade days," many other young Salt Lake area climbers will benefit. Further, with young climbers and their families travelling from other counties and even other states to participate in special training events, these facilities also bring economic benefit. The Front also support a strong program of paraclimbing -- coached climbing for people with a variety of disabilities -- and this portion of our community will also benefit from the new facilities. These facilities are not just about climbing; they are about nurturing resilience, teamwork, and a commitment to personal excellence. The Front’s expansion is not merely an upgrade of facilities; it is an investment in the future of our athletes and community. It was on track to be completed within a year, but with the RDA's recent actions, it has been put indefinitely on hold. Salt Lake's sizeable climbing community stands to lose out on a great benefit. 1/31/2024 10:25 Grady Tibboel 2/2 CONTINUED! Concern over pause of RDA loan to The Front In addition to belonging to the Front, I am also a USA Climbing (USAC) member, frequent volunteer, and stakeholder as the parent of a USAC athlete. That organization has given its own membership no transparency into its plans to open a commercial gym. While my issue there is with USAC, not with the SLC RDA, it is worth noting that USAC is likely to face opposition from its own membership, from across the U.S., as details become known about the overall scope of the project. It begs the question: how far will the RDA go to support a project with a partner that doesn't have most of its own stakeholders on board? I respectfully call upon the RDA to reinstate the loan for The Front's expansion. I believe that the facility expansion will have a tangeable benefit for the development of many young athletes, and for Salt Lake's broader climbing community, for decades to come. That benefit comes not just from having a building and climbing walls, but from The Front's unique ability to combine the facilities with top notch coaching in a very supportive environment. Sincerely, Grady Tibboel Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/31/2024 12:33 Robert Bain Building proposal Dear city council member, I am a resident of sugarhouse -I live on REDACTED near the Post office. I am taking the time to write to you to express my concern with regards to the proposed building of the high Rise at the Wells Fargo site on 2100 S. I just have to ask, Do you support or oppose the building of the high rise at the Wells Fargo site? I ask because I am surprised that you all the City Council has not struck this project down by now. I mean, we are still talking about it and now we have to talk about it at Highland highschool. I have listened to other meetings and read articles and forums on this issue and it is overwhelmingly opposed by the community and I presume the same thing will happen at the highland meeting. To me it seems like an absurd proposal despite the money or benefit -if there really is any- it may bring to the community. I mean is there a silent majority that supports this project? What percentage of comments have you received in support vs opposed? Do we still have to talk about this? What is there really to talk about? I would like to know your position on this issue at this time. In addition, I'd like to know the position of the City council in general if you can speak to this. And finally, I'd ask that you oppose this project. Thank you for your time and consideration, Rob Bain 1/31/2024 13:39 Nathan Auck Support for the Front Climbing Gym | D6 Hi Dan, I live in the Yale crest neighborhood and go to the front climbing gym, 2 to 4 times a week. I was dismayed to read the recent tribune article that clearly shows the city is holding the fronts loan hostage to aligning with their opinions about a competitor climbing gym, that they are seeking to build. Dustin Buckthal, and the entire Front CLimbing Club, The have done a wonderful job of meeting the needs of all of its community members over the past 15 years that I have been a member. If given the opportunity, please express your voice and influence in anyway you have to help the city, see the error of its way and stop blackmailing it’s local businesses. Thanks for your time and consideration. Nathan Auck 2/2/2024 11:45 Callie Blaylock Homelessness Hello Dan Dugan, I am Callie Blaylock and I live on REDACTED, Distract 6. My issue about our Salt Lake Community is the homelessness. Homelessness Is really hard during the winter month especially for living in the Utah snow. My concerns about homelessness is how little shelters that are provided to them. I did some research and found that the Salt Lake City Council is creating a Temporary Shelter Community (TSC) that will be able to hold up to 50 people for six-months with all the essentials provided. However, my issue with this is that 50 people is not a lot. Holding them for six-months is also a great amount of time but will be hard for those who are stuck on the streets to get a space/spot within these shelters. I was wondering if the city council and you will have any other shelters that will soon open in different locations. Sincerely, Callie Blaylock 2/2/2024 11:49 August WACHTER University of Utah baseball field expansion Linda, It has been brought to my attention the University of Utah is asking the city to lease over an acre of land at Sunny side Park. I understand there is a public hearing about this February 6. I would like to propose the city ask the University of Utah to create a Youth Baseball Fund to benefit the recreational baseball leagues in our city to improve our youth baseball park's and infrastructure. I also feel if the city can lease this ground for 1$ per year to a billion dollar University they surely can lower our rental fees as non profit organizations. Is there a way for me to speak to Dan prior to this meeting to layout a framework for this request? Best, August Wachter 2/2/2024 13:24 Aline Devaud support of limiting artificial turf I see artificial turf as similar to rockscapes and concrete as it doesn't get watered and it doesn't support our urban forest. It just creates hot spots in our city. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/2/2024 13:48 Elaine Toronto Please no skyscraper in sugarhouse!!/D6 Dear Dan, I have lived in Salt Lake City near Sugar House, my entire life and I have watched it go through many many changes and most have been very good. For example, changing keds Shoes/Keith O’Brien‘s, an old shoe store and clothing store into Barnes & Noble was a great change; putting in the Commons was a great change. but what’s recently been happening with all of these apartments and the skyscraper planning is not a great change. It’s making it so that you can’t drive through Sugar House I don’t wanna go down to Sugar House. I actually am thinking of relocating outside of Salt Lake City because I don’t like how most of the planning is going in the city right now -or lack of planning for certain other issues. I don’t see any reason to make sugarhouse into a big city - there’s not enough room for the development, and it’s losing its charm with every giant apartment building. Anyway, my voice may matter or it may not, but I will still most likely move away if the development continues at this crowding pace. Thank you for the good work you do on behalf of those of us in Salt Lake City and I hope you think about what the people are saying more than you think about what the developers want to do. Elaine Toronto 2/2/2024 15:04 Chris Storbeck Sunnyside Baseball Field I've reviewed the benefit analysis for the proposed expansion of the baseball field and find it both incomplete and biased. The negative aspects of increased traffic on Guardsman Way and inadequate parking are not addressed at all. The analysis cites the disruption of a sight line as a negative against erecting the wall. However, the obstructed line of sight is not in a location that would affect anyone, as it exists between the solar collection field and the baseball field, away from any other public space. Also, the analysis' proposed benefits essentially make the Sunnyside Park greenspace more congested, or eliminate greespace to add additional parking. Parking at the Salt Lake County Sports Complex is already compromised by University football and hockey games. It will be negatively impacted further by field offices and baseball games. In general, I think the Council is going through the legal motions to approve a motion that caters to the University over the objections of area residents. With additional expansion in the area, like the Sunnyside Apartments and the proposed Roland Hall High School, a bad situation will only become worse. The quality of life in adjoining neighborhoods is deteriorating due to congestion from land development. The University has other sites for their facility and they should use one. The "benefits" cited in the analysis do NOT offset the costs. The Council should oppose the land lease. If the Council opposes the lease, the University will, in all likelihood, build their NCAA compliant field at a different location. 2/3/2024 13:38 Octavia Haines Landscaping and Buffers changes to ordinances I support this, wholeheartedly! It addresses water, (GSL health), and removing sources of plastic from our environment. Hear, hear!! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/5/2024 10:17 Adrienne White Opposition to PLNPCM2023-00960 & PLNPCM2023-00961 Rezoning Proposals - Attached Public Comments |D2 Hello Councilmember Puy, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Adrienne White and I am a resident of District 7. My dad is also from Argentina - born in Córdoba - and I have hopes of visiting for the first time in the next year or two. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the rezoning proposals PLNPCM2023-00960 & PLNPCM2023-00961 submitted by Harbor Bay Ventures. As you may be aware, Harbor Bay Ventures, a company based in Chicago, recently acquired the parcel of land where Wells Fargo currently stands at the corner of 2100 South and 1100 East. I am an active member of the Sugar House Community Council's Board of Trustees, representing the Westminster neighborhood, which includes this aforementioned parcel. Additionally, I also serve on the council's Land Use and Zoning committee. I have taken the time to carefully outline my concerns and opposition to these proposals in my public comments, which are attached to this email. I believe it is crucial for our community's voice to be heard on this matter, and I appreciate your attention to the potential impact these rezoning changes may have. If you have any questions or would like to discuss my perspective further, I am more than willing to make myself available at your convenience. I believe open dialogue is essential in addressing the concerns and aspirations of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Adrienne 2/5/2024 12:57 Chris Storbeck Sunnyside Ballpark . Hi Dan, Thank you for sending the information to Jeri regarding the proposals for the ballpark. The information provided by the city in support of leasing additional area to the University is biased and incomplete. While it is legal to lease the land at below market rates, the justification that a facility will somehow be beneficial to the community is largely nonsense. The University may say that restrooms and the field itself will be available for use by the public, but such "public use" either never materializes, is extraordinarily limited, or other similar park property is more accessible. The restricted line of sight argument, while factually correct, is misleading. I've never seen a law enforcement officer or other individual surveying the park area from the solar collection fields or the rooftop of a building along Guardsman Way. In other words, the view obstructed by a wall isn't being used by anyone. While praising the health benefits of greenspace, the city wishes to reduce the public greenspace and make what's left more congested by adding parking spaces, pickleball courts, or other limited use parcels. Additionally, the lack of parking for games and the traffic congestion associated with them isn't addressed in the public benefits analysis at all - surely because it is entirely negative. It is my strongly held opinion that this proposed baseball field is not a benefit to the area residents at all. While some upgrades to the existing park facilities will occur, the cost in terms of additional park congestion, loss of open space, and additional traffic are not offset by the improvements. While the city can't prevent the University from making changes to structures on University property, in all likelihood the University will find another site for their competitive field if the land is not leased. They simply won't have room for the offices, stands, and other amenities they wish to add. I would ask that you oppose leasing land to the University for expansion of the baseball facility, regardless of revenue. This area is already under stress from development like the Sunnyside apartments, and proposed facilities like Roland Hall High School. Salt Lake City has a responsibility to make the city a better place to live, not a more congested space that benefits institutional interests. Thanks, Chris Storbeck PS - I recognize that you only have one vote on this issue. But, I applaud you for voting in the interests of your constituents, as you've done in the past. 2/5/2024 17:10 Don Bell Sunnyside Park as a daily user of this park, walking my dog. i fully support the City agreeing to the sggested leasing arrangment. My conern tests only with what type of fencing will secure the new ball park and if any mature trees will be removed, if so will new trees be planted? Thanks! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/5/2024 19:08 Bill Garff Proposed U of U baseball field at Sunnyside Park If the U of U is proposing to may improvements to Sunnyside Park, I would suggest some Pickle Ball courts. There are no public Pickle Ball courts in the neighborhood of Sunnyside Park. 2/5/2024 19:40 Linda Harrison baseball field rowland Hall is expanding its campus at the same time... parking and traffic issues will be a nightmare!!! 2/5/2024 19:51 Jacquie Bernard parking strips I think property owners should not be required to have z minimum amount of vegetation in their parking strips. Vegetation is not more necessarily attractive than hardscape--it often turns into a weedy mess. We need to conserve water and hardscape parking strips are one way to do this. 2/5/2024 20:45 Stanley Holmes Ordinance 21A.48 Revision "Dear Council Members. Please ensure that no city resident is penalized for having taken the initiative to conserve water by xeriscaping or zeroscaping their park strip. No resident or business should be retroactively impacted by any aspect of the revised Ordinance 21A.48. All city residents and businesses should be encouraged to save water, and should be contacted with information about the new landscaping ordinance before it is enforced. Thank you." 2/6/2024 7:02 Anonymous Constituent Liberty Park is turning into Pioneer Park! So, illegal drugs have nothing to do with the camping condominiums I am forced to look at on a daily basis in once beautiful Liberty Park?? Mayor Mendenhall is a failure. Making statements on the news beside the police chief does not make it true 2/6/2024 11:12 John Lin Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Amendments Dear Council Member, Please ensure that no city resident is penalized for having taken the initiative to conserve water by xeriscaping or zeroscaping their park strip. No resident or business should be retroactively impacted by any aspect of the revised Ordinance 21A.48. All city residents and businesses should be encouraged to save water, and should be contacted with information about the new landscaping ordinance before it is enforced. Thank you, John Lin 2/6/2024 11:42 Lon r Richardson Jr Artificial Turf I spent over $3,000 last year to install Artifical Turf in my parking strip to help save water. If you change the ordinance, will I have to take it out and put something else in which will use more water? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/6/2024 12:38 Rachel Quist PLNPCM2023-00403 500 South & 400 East Rezone Dear Council members: Regarding PLNPCM2023-00403 500 South & 400 East Rezone, I have the following comments. I am Rachel Quist and one of my interests is preserving the historic built environment and archaeological resources contained within the city. You may find some of my research and writing on my Instagram at @rachels_slc_history or slchistory.org. I own a historic home within the Central City Historic District. My single concern with this rezoning proposal is the fate of the historic apartment building (office conversion) at 460-462 S 400 East. It was built around 1905 and served several incarnations as housing, including a women's boarding house. More and more of the historic parts of the Central City neighborhood are being demolished. And zoning often drives demolition or preservation in areas not included in the H-overlay. Understanding why certain areas are local historic districts (and thus subject to the H-overlay) and why other areas are not is an important aspect of making decisions that affect the future of the Central City neighborhood. When the Historic Districts were originally established, the focus was on pretty architecture, which generally are associated with wealthy White males (there are exceptions). This area of Central City (Main St to about 500 East, 400 S to 900 S) and many other parts of the city, were not included in local historic districts because they lack those pretty mansions. This is because this area of Central City is within the redlined areas of SLC - meaning those areas where people of color were *allowed* to live and included all types of lower-income individuals. Consequently, historic districts have systemically underrepresented non-White and non-wealthy individuals. This building has persisted for nearly 120 years and has been occupied and maintained, including a renovation by preservation-minded Capitol Hill Construction in 2011. A similar building has already been demolished at 435-437 S 400 East. One by one these smaller historic apartment buildings are being lost. This is unfortunate because these apartment buildings from the early 1900s are associated with women's independent living and the development of professional careers. I don't know the solution to this particular rezone. Is there a way to keep this historic building and allow the other newer buildings of this proposal to be demolished? Can the building be adaptively reused as part of the new development? I ask that when making your decisions please keep in mind that zoning changes to higher density often mean the loss of existing historic buildings. And keep in mind, that the greenest and most environmentally sustainable building is the one that is already built. I hate seeing these old buildings end up in the trash. thank you Rachel Quist SLC Resident 2/6/2024 12:39 Rhianna Riggs CCNC Comments RE: 500 S & 400 E Rezone Dear SLC Council Members, In response to the outcome of the January 9th council meeting, the Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC) would like to weigh in on a community benefit that would favorably impact the Central City neighborhood - the incorporation of family-sized housing. We ask that Cowboy Partners consider this option when thinking about ways that their project can meaningfully benefit our community. Additionally, I would like to request that the public hearing be extended until after Cowboy Partners submits their updated plans to the city council. This will allow CCNC to thoroughly review and provide thoughtful comments on the project. Respectfully, Rhianna Riggs, Chair Central City Neighborhood Council Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/6/2024 12:42 Allen Sanderson Landscaping & Buffers Chapter Amendments To the Salt Lake City Council, I have been long been involved with the ordinances regarding park strips. Going back nearly 25 years. With the each revision they improve. However what has not improved, in fact has become worse for property owners who take the time to xeriscape their park strips is the damage done by utilities working in the park strips. In the past five years I have had my park strip trashed not once, but twice by the utilities. The first fiasco was Google Fiber. The second fiasco was by Lumen via Osmose. In both instances, the utilities working in the park strip had zero regard to the plants or decorative rock work that I spent considerable time installing, watering and maintaining. I will not go into details other than state the following: While the City states property owners are to be made whole, we are not. That is because to be made whole, property owners must spend many many hours hounding the City and the utilities to restore their park strip. At this point, I have lost count of the number of hours I have spent. Property owner are NOT reimbursed for this time. My time is valuable. Under the current City process, not all utilities are required to have a permit or notify the City for work in the park strips. As such, damage can be done and the City will have no one to hold responsible. The property owner is left to repair the damage. Further, the utilities are not competent to repair the damage. As such, property owners have to repair the work often spending addition monies to make it right. This issue is the fault of City. That is because the City has no process, procedures, or best practices regarding such work. The City and the utilities are still in grass mode. Over the past two years I have tried to engage the City on this issue. I have met with the Director of Public Services, I have proposed ideas in writing, I have volunteered to be on a working group. The response, crickets. As such, if the City wishes to continue to encourage property owners to xeriscape then the City needs to fully stand behind property owners who invest their time and money. Given the proposed changes in the ordinances, the tree in my park strip would be sufficient. As such, the next time my park strip is trashed my plan is to remove every thing and leave it bare. I do not think the City wants that. Thank you, Allen Sanderson 2/6/2024 13:20 Anonymous Constituent U of U baseball stadium. I don't object to the concept. I don't know what attendance is at the baseball games . I would rather see a shuttle system feom the parking lot at the football stadium than having a large parking lot use up land at the park for what has to be relatively few occasions when sufficient parking already exists so close by. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/6/2024 13:42 Jan Hemming More negative issues related to the University stadium land deal Council Members: As you receive a briefing today about the U-SLC baseball stadium land deal, Yalecrest residents have asked me to raise these issues and concerns with you: 1. Will Sunnyside Park actually receive all the money from the deal — $4.2 million + the $750,000 allocated from the $85 million GO bond — or will it go into the General Fund? SLC parks have have so many needs. Might funds be diverted to something else? For example, Fairmont Park expects to receive $5 million to repair tennis courts and improve facilities currently used by the Boys and Girls Club. Those upgrades are expected to cost $5 million. The city hopes to completely remodel Sunnyside Park for the same amount. Is that realistic? 2. Have any engineering studies been done? There is a significant slope (12 foot grade) between the existing softball field and the U’s practice field. The U will acquire land 90 feet beyond (east) of the current left field foul pole encroaching on softball field land. This will intrude onto a sloping hill and require significant grading and even a wall that might be as high as 20 feet to hold and contain the soil and account for water runoff. Any softball field land that remains and transitions into a lacrosse/soccer field will require a lot of work. This could be a costly “fix.” 3. 12 feet of the 35 foot wall would be below grade. Because of the 12 foot slope between the U’s practice field and the upper softball field this means the U could build a 35 foot wall in left field because 12 feet would be below grade. 20 feet would be above grade. If the city has to to build a 20 foot retaining wall to contain the land that remains from the softball field — there is no justifiable reason not to build the 35 foot wall. 4. Climate change is real. Does anyone remember the two tremendous floods (2017 and 2021) that came roaring down 800 East/Sunnyside flooding East High School and causing enormous damage to the basketball court, other gyms, the East High baseball field, kitchen, clothing room, computer labs, record rooms, etc.? The cost to fix the East High basketball court alone — which was brand new — was $2 million. The city spent millions more to fix everything else. 4. Major water and irrigation issues. Is the Council aware of the substantial cost PL will incur to relocate a 4” main water line and back-flow valve that will require excavation into Guardsman Way? Additional costs will involve the relocation of Rainbird Maxicom controller(s), the design and construction of a new irrigation system, additional sod installation and demolition of the existing fencing and lighting at the softball field. 5. Twenty beautiful, mature 35 foot tall trees will be lost. While the mayor is promoting planting new trees on the west side, 20 beautiful, mature trees — that have taken decades to grow — will be destroyed in Sunnyside Park for the U’s baseball stadium. Jan 2/6/2024 16:33 Cael Crosby General Comment It's incredibly important that our Utah representatives heed this community call for a permanent ceasefire and an immediate end in the financial support to Israeli arms. It is also important that the SLC community take serious measures to protect it's muslim citizens who are facing hatred and violence daily. 2/6/2024 16:35 Mary ann Eastman General Comment I support permanent ceasefire in Israel. I oppose sending any more of my tax dollars to fund genocide in Palestine. 2/6/2024 16:36 Cael Crosby General Comment Please add your voice - this great city - Salt Lake - ceasefire and peace NOW. 2/6/2024 16:39 Cael Crosby General Comment Please call for an immediate ceasefire in gaza. Please stop using our tax dollars for the palestinian genocide. 2/6/2024 16:43 Mary Sizemore General Comment Please pass policy and influence the State to advocate for a ceasefire in Palestine so all in the area can be safe. Please use your power for peace!! :) Thank you Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/6/2024 16:57 Cael Crosby General Comment Please support a ceasefire now. Why are palestinian lives worth so little? Why does Palestine not have a right to defend itself? We send money to Israel when we have a devistating homelessness issue on the very strees of SLC. 2/6/2024 17:01 Cael Crosby General Comment Please stop sending our tax dollars to fun the Israeli genocide. My heart has broken & shattered seeing the ruthless killing & war crimes on innocent civilians. Ceasefire now! End the Apartheid Regime. Please. End the illegal occupation. 2/6/2024 17:10 Cael Crosby General Comment Israel from its inception in 1947 has been based in intentions of an ethnocracy. Apartheid states have no right to exsist. The US has been using the Jewish peoples pain to be used as pawns in their imperialism. The Palestinians deserve their freedom and human rights. A ceasefire is the first immediate action and a complete stop in funds to Israel must happen. I want no money going to this brutal occupation. FREE PALESTINE! 2/6/2024 17:16 Cael Crosby General Comment With the UN general assembly decision to call for an immediate ceasefire, the United States government has a responsibility to discontinue funding and pressure the Isreali forces occupying Gaza to end this genocide so humanitarian efforts can be provided to the thousand of displaced and injured Palestinians. This change will start on the local level. I urge Salt Lake and Utah to draft ceasefire resolutions to where we can ensure that Israel is held accountable. 2/6/2024 19:39 Sara Woolsey University of Utah Baseball Field As a citizen that respects the impact and benefit that parks have on neighborhoods, I wish to express concern at a recent decision of the Mayor of SLC to lease a parcel of land to the University for a baseball field without due discussion with the neighbors, assessment of impact on the area, consulting the master plan and addressing the history of relations regarding this parcel. As I am not 100% apprised of the process, it may be this exploration is wghat the Mayor is doing, but I am not sure. Please slow this process down, ensure folks are heard, and due the dilligence that is needed. I am suspicious when public lands are being privatized. Thank you