Loading...
02/20/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   February 20, 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: 11:14:41 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 December 5, 2023 and December 12, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of January 9, 2024 and January 16, 2024, and the January 2, 2024 Oath of Office meeting minutes. 5.The Council will consider adopting a ceremonial resolution regarding peace. 6.The Council will welcome representatives of the Department of Homeland Security who will give a brief introduction to their work on the state of hate and bias incidents. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Resolution: University of Utah Baseball Stadium Public Benefits Analysis The Council will accept public comment and consider authorizing a 99-year below- market ground lease to the University of Utah of 1.175 acres of Salt Lake 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 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Avenues Restrictive Covenant The Council will 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s).   3. Ordinance: Rezone at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South The Council will 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s).   4. Ordinance: Community Benefit and Tenant Displacement Amendments The Council will 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s).   5. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will 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 and Tuesday, February 20, 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE.   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 704 East 900 South Extension The Council will consider adopting a resolution extending the time period for satisfying the conditions set forth in Ordinance No.6 of 2023 rezoning the property at approximately 704 East 900 South from R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) to SNB (Small Neighborhood Business). The deadline extension would give the property owner an additional year to satisfy the conditions of the ordinance.    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 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and adopt.     F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.   G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment for Daycare Facilities The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 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 childcare facilities, including Daycare Centers, Home Daycares, and Home Occupations. The proposal would amend sections 21A.33 Land Use Tables, 21A.36.030 Home Occupations, 21A.36.130 Daycares, 21A.60.020 List of Defined terms, and 21A.62.040 Definitions of Terms. The proposed amendments intend to align City daycare related regulations more closely with Utah State Code and reduce zoning barriers to childcare facilities in the City. The proposed amendments would apply citywide. Petition No.: PLNPCM2019-00225.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments at Approximately 2445 South 500 East (Woodland Commons) The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 2445 South 500 East from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). This proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendments would facilitate the construction of eight townhomes at this property. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Ordinance: Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District. The proposal includes 66 homes located on Laird Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East, including the homes on Laird Circle and Uintah Circle. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Kelly McAleer. Petition No.: PLNHLC2023-00074. For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North from R1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family). The proposal would also amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow greater flexibility in housing types to develop these properties. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: NeighborWorks. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/SimondiAve300NorthRezone.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 13, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   5. Ordinance: Zoning Terms and Definitions Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the zoning ordinance. The proposal would remove Chapter 21A.60 List of Terms and would also amend Chapter 21A.62 Definitions. Other amendments are made throughout Title 21A for clarity and consistency. No zoning standards or land use regulations are changed by this text amendment. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00194.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 13, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   6. Resolution: Authorizing the Salt Lake County Housing Authority to Operate within Salt Lake City for The Deeply Affordable Housing Development 44 North Apartments The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution declaring there is a need for the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Resolution would allow Housing Connect, in partnership with the nonprofit First Step House, to develop 67 apartments of one and two bedrooms as an affordable housing development at 44 and 48 North 1000 West. The rents would be affordable to tenants earning 25% - 35% of area median income or AMI.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   7. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funding Allocations for One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an appropriations resolution that would authorize grant funding to selected applicants and adopt the One-Year Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2024- 25. The plan includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The resolution would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date.   8. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Alex Vandiver The Council will consider approving the appointment of Alex Vandiver to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   9. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Detria Taylor The Council will consider approving the appointment of Detria Taylor to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   10. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Chloe Raymundo The Council will consider approving the appointment of Chloe Raymundo to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   11. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Diya Oommen The Council will consider approving the appointment of Diya Oommen to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   12. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Heather Stringfellow The Council will consider approving the appointment of Heather Stringfellow to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   13. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Jason Hinojosa The Council will consider approving the appointment of Jason Hinojosa to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   14. Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Rodrigo Fernandez-Esquivias The Council will consider approving the appointment of Rodrigo Fernandez-Esquivias to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 6:45 pm on Monday, February 19, 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, December 12, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young 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, Stephanie Elliott – 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 Norris – Planning Director, Sam Owen – Public Policy Analyst II, Bill Wyatt – Executive Director of Airports, Brady Fredrickson – Director of Airport Planning & Capital Programming, Nannette Larsen – Senior Planner, Stephanie Duer – Water Conservation Program Manager, Jesse Stewart – Deputy Director - Public Utilities, Greg Cleary – City Budget Director, Hannah Barton – Community Liaison The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:15 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.      Hannah Barton provided the following administrative updates: •Community Engagement Highlights and feedback located at www.slc.gov/feedback/ •600/700 North Reconstruction ◦Stakeholder meeting held on December 12, 2023 ◦Basic design rolled out publicly in January 2024 •The Westside Public Art Feedback session held November 16, 2023 ◦Had 19 attendees ◦Data is being compiled for the next steps •2023 Winter Clothing Drive – December 11-15 from 8 am to 6 pm - primary drop- off point on the 2nd floor of the Salt Lake City & County Building •Final 2023 Community Outreach Office Hours held on December 15, 2023, at Redmond Heritage Farm Store located at 2209 S. Highland Drive from 1-3 pm Andrew Johnston provided the following updates regarding: •Winter overflow information available, stating locations, hours, and contact information ◦Shelters contact number (801)-990-9999 ◦Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH): endutahhomelessness.org/salt-lake-valley ◦Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS): jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/index.html •Homeless Resources Center utilization ◦99% full capacity at Homeless Resource Center (HRC) •Micro Temporary Shelter Community (TSC) scheduled to open as soon as possible ◦Site preparation began September & finished first week of November •Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) information on Victory Road •Medically Vulnerable Population (MVP) – The Road Home/4 Street Medical Clinic opening for 165 residents as soon as possible in December or January •Code Blue information and more beds available during Code Blue Mayor Mendenhall thanked the Communications team, City Attorney’s Office, and Andrew Johnston for all their hard work on the solutions to the Micro Temporary Shelter. Council Member Mano expressed gratitude for everyone who contributed to the Micro Temporary Shelter and other housing solutions for the community. 2.Ordinance: Airport Board Code Revisions ~ 4:30 p.m.  10 min. th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2 The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, Airport Board, and Subsection 5 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named.      Sam Owen introduced the ordinance. Bill Wyatt and Brady Fredrickson presented the following information regarding the Ordinance: •Purpose of the amendment was to clarify the role of the Board and solidifying the current processes •Current City Code regarding the Airport Advisory Board was outdated •Dire need for code to be updated to reflect current laws 3.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment Follow-up ~ 4:40 p.m.  30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments. The proposed amendments would seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposal would also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user-friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal.      Nannette Larsen, Stephanie Duer, Nick Norris, and Jesse Stewart discussed the following with the Council: •Why the Landscape chapter needed to be updated •Defined goals such as: ◦Promoting water conservation ◦Preserving and expanding the Urban Tree Canopy Reducing the heat island effect ◦Protecting and helping stormwater runoff •Turf limitations on height and type of grass •Planning Commission recommendation to prohibit artificial turf ◦Protect surrounding vegetation ◦Artificial turf health impacts, microplastic and metals released into the ground and air •Modifications from the Planning Commission on Landscape Buffer Table Correction •Grass in parking strips regulations •Size requirements for trees in a park strip •Rock or gravel allowable size in park strips and yards •Rock Mulch limitations and percentage areas required to have vegetation •Artificial/ rubber mulch restrictions Council Members requested a review of the following: •Rock mulch requirements and research MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3 •Tree canopy actual coverage area versus projected coverage •Turf restrictions and data for the new regulations ◦Council Member Young stated concern that could arise from the community regarding local recreation areas using turf and how the City can explain which factors were considered and what impacts made the decision •Nick Norris discussed the height of vegetation in park strips, requesting that the Council make additional changes to the ordinance that would include other items like sunflowers and trees, making sure the sidewalks are not impeded. Nick Norris suggested a limitation height of 22 inches because all yards and park strips are not created equal. 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 5:10 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 among other items. The Council may reconsider their December 5th straw poll relating to the proposed Legislative Division positions in the City Attorney's Office For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.      Ben Luedtke reviewed the budget amendment including: •A-15 Mill and Overlay Pilot Program with approved $750,000 funding from the Capitol Investment Program •A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) •D-2 – $4.2 Million from IMS fund re-appropriation back to IMS balance to buy the needed equipment •Requesting changes to eight funds •A-4: Four full-time employees (FTEs) for the City Attorney’s new Legislative Division Council Members thanked the City Attorney Katie Lewis for the hard work on the Ordinance and the communication with the Council. Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Jennifer Bruno, and Mary Beth Thompson discussed: •Concern about creating new positions and divisions halfway through a yearly budget •Responsibilities of the new support staff and how their time would be spent outside of the legislative session •Utilizing the senior staff and their expertise and spending less time on daily tasks MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4 •Changes to the Ordinance will include increased accountability of the Director of the Legislative Division to the Council •Being proactive instead of reactive to legislative situations Straw Poll Support for the creation and funding of all four new full-time positions in the Legislation Division. 5-1 Yes – Council Member Valdemoros was in opposition and Council Member Puy was absent. 5.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Brian Scott ~ 5:40 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Brian Scott prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 12, 2027.      Council Member Mano recused themselves due to working at the same architectural firm as the board appointee. An interview was held. Council Member Petro said Brian Scotts’ name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 6.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Lana Taylor ~ 5:45 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Lana Taylor prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council Board for a term ending December 12, 2026.      An interview was held. Council Member Mano said Lana Taylor’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 7.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Sabrina Martinez ~ 5:50 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Sabrina Martinez prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council Board for a term ending December 12, 2026.      An interview was held. Council Member Mano said Sabrina Martinez's name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 8.Board Appointment: Airport Board – Luz Escamilla ~ 5:55 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Luz Escamilla prior to considering appointment to the Airport Board for a term ending December 12, 2027.      The interview was not held and will be rescheduled for a future meeting. Standing Items   Report of the Chair and Vice Chair MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 5 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair   Report of Chair and Vice Chair.    No report from the Chair or Vice Chair.   10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -  - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to: •Approval of the 2024 Annual Meeting Calendar; and •Scheduling items.    Jennifer Bruno asked the Council to review the annual calendar and respond to staff with any conflicts or updates needed.   11.Tentative Closed Session -  - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 6    Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Petro to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of discussion of pending or reasonably imminent litigation, deployment of security personnel and devices and for attorney-client matters. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Closed Session relating to the deployment of security personnel and devices began at 6:00 pm, ending at 6:11 pm. Minutes and Recording not created pursuant to UCA 52-4- 206(6)(b). Closed Session relating to the pending or reasonably imminent litigation and attorney- client matters began at 6:15 pm. Held via Zoom and in the Historic Meeting Room of the City Council office (Room 304). Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Mano, Petro, Dugan, Young, Wharton, Valdemoros and Puy. City Staff in Attendance: Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Megan Yuill, Katherine Lewis, Mark Kittrell, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Whitney Gonzalez Fernandez, Ben Luedtke, Sam Owen, Allison Rowland, Holly Lopez, Eva Chavez-Lopez, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 6:31 pm.     MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7 Meeting adjourned at 6:31 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder 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 Work Session 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 8 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, December 5, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive 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, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Jennifer Bruno – Council Deputy Director, Tom Millar – Public Lands Planning Manager, Ashley Cleveland – Mayor's Senior Advisor, Michaela Oktay – Planning Deputy Director, Nannette Larsen – Senior Planner, Chief Karl Lieb – Fire Chief -89, Clemens Landau – Justic Court Judge, Jaysen Oldroyd – Senior City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 2:04 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Ashley Cleveland provided updates regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Public Lands: ◦ Steenblik – Phase 1 engagement done, SLC Public Lands staff have analyzed the results of the first phase of community engagement visit https://www.slc.gov/parks/steenblik-park- reimagine-neighborhood-park/ ◦ North Gate Park and Warm Springs Park – Phase 1 engagement beginning with Indigenous & Native American community groups in December 2023 ◦ Allen Park – Public engagement for the three proposed concept designs recently closed ◦ A virtual open house to reveal the final recommended concept design for the park will be held on December 11, 2023 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm register for the Zoom meeting at: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZIodOGgqjgpGdaL2J5vPHqq3z8kTSC0c8c8 • Transportation: ◦ Techlink TRAX Study - UTA has launched the TechLink TRAX Study to improve east-west, downtown Salt Lake City, and regional TRAX connectivity in Salt Lake City. https://www.techlinkstudy.com/ ◦ 1300 East Construction – 1300 East construction has been bumped to 2025. The 1100 East project began in mid-June 2023 and was initially scheduled to be completed in late 2023 but has been pushed to 2024 • 2023 Winter Clothing Drive – December 11-15, 2023 from 8am to 6pm - primary drop off point on the 2nd floor of the Salt Lake City & County Building • Mayor’s Office: ◦ Community Office Hours MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 2 • Homeless Resources Center utilization • Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) information • Temporary (Micro) Shelter Community • Medically Vulnerable Population (MVP) – The Road Home/4th Street Medical Clinic ribbon cutting December 9, 2023, opening for 165 residents as soon as possible in January 2024 • Code Blue information Council Members and Andrew Johnston discussed: • The possibility of shelters in Odgen or St. George Utah and if police would have to transport individuals to those shelters • Notification possibilities during Code Blue nights that helped not only homeless individuals know where to go but volunteers know where they were needed • How residents would be determined for the MVP facilities • Challenges with enforcement and abatement during the winter months • Addressing homelessness along the Jordan River • The operation, residential selection, and services for the shelter pods Tom Millar provided updates regarding: • Parks Trails & Open Space Bond and Sales Tax Revenue Bond • Cemetery irrigation and roadways • Urban wood reutilization • Pioneer Park updates • Glendale Park updates • Liberty Park Playground updates • Allen Park updates • Folsom Trail completion and landscaping • Public space at the Fleet Block • Fairmont Park • Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Open Spaces • Steenblik Park • Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks • Taufer & Richmond Parks • Donner Park Trail Park • Jordan River Corridor The Council requested the Parks Trails & Open Space Bond and Sales Tax Revenue Bond update be added to a future agenda as a stand alone agenda item to allow for further discussion. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3 Andrew Johnston provided updates regarding: •Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH): endutahhomelessness.org/salt-lake- valley • Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS): jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/index.html • Location and hours for homeless services For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4 2.Informational: Planning Director’s Local Historic District Report ~ 2:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Local Historic District Designation report. The proposed boundaries of the Upper Yale Local Historic District are approximately 1800 East to 1900 East along Yale Avenue. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council in order to continue the designation process. Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the report. Nannette Larsen presented the Director’s Report for the Yalecrest – Upper Yale – Local Historic District (LHD), including: • Boundaries for: ◦ Established local historic districts ◦ Local historic districts review in process ◦ Proposed new local historic district • Process of creating a local historic district • The Council’s role in the process Council Members, Nannette Larsen, Brian Fullmer, and Michaela Oktay discussed: • Where the Laird Avenue historic district was in the process • The purpose of Council’s decision at this point in the process • If the City was looking to create historic districts in other areas of the City Straw Poll Support for the process of the historic district to move forward. Supported by all Council Members present. 3.Resolution: Recertifying the Salt Lake City Justice Court ~ 2:40 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution requesting the recertification of the Justice Court of Salt Lake City in order to provide for the Court's continued operation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the resolution. Judge Clemens Landau stated the resolution was a standard re-certification that all justice courts went through on a regular basis that gave the City a chance to review the operations of the justice court system. Council Members, Jaysen Oldroyd, and Judge Clemens Landau discussed: • The Council’s authority to grant the re-certification • Deadline for submission - December 15, 2023 • Re-certification was required every four years MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 5 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 3:00 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.3 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes four new full- time paramedic employees in the Fire Department's Medical Response Team, creation of a Legislative Division with four new full-time employees in the City Attorney's Office, over $6 million of additional transportation impact fees for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business district and the 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project among other items. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6 Ben Luedtke reviewed the budget amendment including: • Budget amendment number three included 31 proposed amendments • $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in expenditures of which $1,718,732 was from General Fund Balance • Requesting changes to eight funds • Four full-time employees (FTEs) (Item A-1) for the Fire Department, four FTEs (Item A-4) for the City Attorney’s new Legislative Division, and one FTE (Item A-13) for the Finance Department •A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics Request for Four New FTEs ($160,519 from General Fund Balance) Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Jennifer Bruno, Karl Lieb, Mary Beth Thompson, Katie Lewis, and Rachel Otto discussed: • The new FTE positions in the Fire Department and their job duties ◦ The Council requested follow up information on these positions to ensure they were beneficial • Why the nine positions were being asked for now instead of in a regular budget season ◦ For Fire it would be to ensure the single role paramedics were available and worked in this capacity before the 2024 budget was presented ◦ Were there vacant firefighter positions that could be reclassified for a short time to determine if the program worked ◦ Whether or not it was a benefit to hire new FTE’s now or wait until the new budget season to request the positions • The sales tax revenue included in the budget amendment ◦ Sales tax numbers would be updated in the next few weeks • Proposed FTE’s for a new Legislative Division in the Attorney’s Office ◦ If these would be new hires or transfers from other departments ◦ How this system would be different than what was done in the past • Prioritizing which positions were needed now and which could wait for the regular budget season • One new FTE (Item A-13) for the Finance Department funded with the Community Development Block Grants ◦ The purpose and job duties for the position ◦ Ensuring the position was fully utilized now and in the future ◦ Splitting funding to allow flexibility in job duties ◦ The administrative cost allowed under the Grant ◦Cindy Gust Jenson stated the proposal was to also resolve transparency issues Straw Poll Support for the first two FTEs – Division Director and Senior Attorney - for the Legislative Division. Supported by all Council Members present. Council Members and Katie Lewis discussed if the two position would be a benefit to the Division or if all positions were needed. Straw Poll Support for hiring the two Legislative Division support staff positions as requested. Supported by Council Members Dugan, Wharton, and Young. Council Members Valdemoros, Petro, and Mano were not in support. Council Members and Katie Lewis discussed: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 7 • The need to have staff support for the Senior Staff • If there were in house talent that could step into the positions Ben Luedtke reviewed: •A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) Council Members, Andrew Johnston, and Ben Luedtke discussed: • The reasoning for the gap in financing for non-congregate care in Salt Lake City • Motel rooms were the most efficient short-term option until the shelter came online • If there was any possibility that other City’s could help pay to cover the cost to house families • Conversations having changed over the last few years and improvements made in regard to other City’s helping to address the homeless crisis Straw Poll Support for approving the funding of $300,000 for The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan. Supported by all Council Members present. Ben Luedtke reviewed: •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) Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: • Reason the request was an emergency and required a straw poll Straw Poll Support to approve Item A-15. Supported by all Council Members present. 5.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment ~ 3:45 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments. The proposed amendments would seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposal would also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user-friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 8 Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. Nannette Larsen presented the text amendment, including: • Why the landscape chapter needed to be updated • Promoting water conservation • Preserving and expanding the urban tree canopy • Reducing the heat island effect • Reducing stormwater runoff • Improving air quality • Best practices applied City-wide • Standards simplified • When and where standards applied • What has not changed • Turf & rebate eligibility • New Landscape Plan updated • Prioritizing trees • Parking lot updates • Stormwater integrated • Rock mulch limitations • Public comment concerns and additional clarity • If trees were required in the park strip • Planning Commission recommendation • Modification after Planning Commission • Next steps Further discussion will be held on this item at the December 12, 2023 Work Session meeting. 6.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Matt Gray ~ 4:10 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Matt Gray prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Matt Gray’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 7.Board Appointment: Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) – J. Clair Baldwin ~ 4:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview J.Clair Baldwin prior to considering appointment to the Citizens Compensation MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 9 Advisory Committee for a term ending December 5, 2027. This is a Council-appointed position, therefore an Administrative Recommendation letter is not included. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said J. Clair Baldwin’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. Council Member Mano stated the end of the year also brought the end of his time as Chair of the Council. Council Member Mano thanked Staff and fellow Council Members for all their assistance over the past year. 9.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to: • Approval of the 2024 Annual Meeting Calendar; and • Scheduling items. Cindy Gust-Jenson reported on the following: • The Annual Meeting Calendar and whether or not Council wanted to hold a meeting on January 2, 2024 or January 9, 2024 due to the swearing in ceremony held January 2, 2024. • The Council usually held a retreat and the available dates were January 16 or 23, 2024, with the retreat being held during the day Council Members indicated they would send their availability/date preferences to Cindy Gust-Jenson. 10.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 10 (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Closed Session Started at 4:55 pm Held via Zoom and in Room 542 – Cutler Room of City Hall Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Mano, Puy, Wharton, Petro, Valdemoros, Young and Dugan. City Staff in Attendance: Katherine Lewis, Kimberly Chytraus, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Sam Owen, Kira Luke, Ben Luedtke, Allison Rowland, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 6:09 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of advice of counsel relating to attorney client matters. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Alejandro Puy Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to exit Closed Session and adjourn. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSTAIN: Victoria Petro, Sarah Young Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11 Meeting adjourned at 6:09 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder 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 Work Session meeting held Tuesday, December 5, 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 5, 2023 12 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, January 9, 2024.  The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Eva Lopez Chavez, Chris Wharton, Darin Mano, Victoria Petro, Sarah Young, Daniel Dugan Present Legislative Leadership: 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, Lindsey Nikola – Mayor's Deputy Chief of Staff  The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm. A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano 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 November 14, 2023 and December 8, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of December 5, 2023. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the work session meeting minutes of November 14, 2023, and December 8, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of December 5, 2023. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 1 1. Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment The Council will 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. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/SLCLandscapingAndBuffers.     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    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Young to close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Jennifer Bruno provided a brief introduction.  Stanley Holmes (District 3 resident) said the Council needed to take the lead on a water conservation goal and model for Salt Lake County, both the landscape buffer text amendment ordinance and Urban Forest Action Plan required a deeper dive for what was really needed, and expressed concerns regarding excessive water wasted with the new requirements of the proposed ordinance.  Jen Colby (District 4 resident) spoke regarding the relative lack of good green infrastructure in the City, concerns regarding poor landscaping choices by well meaning neighbors in the name of water conservation, and suggested to retain the ban on artificial turf and remove the allowance for tree canopies to count as landscaping cover. Dulce Horn (District 3 resident) expressed the importance of water conservation and shared a personal experience with xeri-scaping her own yard only to be met with enforcement by the City for violating City code and said residents should not be punished for attempting to slow the effects of the climate crisis.  MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2 Cindy Cromer urged the Council to not allow artificial turf on City-owned property (including park strips), include information on the negative aspects of artificial turf in communications with constituents, and said the City must continue to promote water conservation.   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE.   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Item not held. 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.)   En Canada (District 5 resident), Robert Moyer, Liz DeFriez, Ambreen Khan (District 2 resident), Rylee Marron, Stuart Robinson, Emira Fandaeian, Hana Korkut, Molly Chien, Ethan Maryon, Erin Lynn (Distrtict 5 resident), Alisandra Reed (District 5 resident), Zeaid Hasan, Aziz Abuzayed, James Macari, Logan Gardner (District 5 resident), Jakey Siolo (District 4 resident), Olivia Marron, Rita Dosanjh, Daniel White, William Buwaya, Kaile Akina, Fern Robin, Josefa Martinez, Dani Erickson (District 7 resident), Venus Tea, Weston Nichols, Lilah (no last name), Sophia Friesen, Brianna Bellamy, Rodney Roberts, Autumn Watts, Sahar Al-shoubaki, Jenna Martin, Afa Aikona, and Dalia Solloum spoke regarding the conflict in Palestine and commented the following: the Council needing to back an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza, a resolution was needed to immediately end the genocide and free all prisoners/hostages, tax-dollars were funding genocide and crimes against humanity, Salt Lake City needed to join the many other Cities backing a permanent cease-fire in Palestine, allow humanitarian aid to get to Gaza, requesting the Council allocate funds to assist the aid efforts in Gaza, current death toll was over 22,000 and increasing exponentially. Jen Colby (District 4 resident) encouraged the Council to improve transit access/ridership by focusing on local bus service and to expand the free fare zone for local buses only to the boundaries of Salt Lake City, helping those who tended to be more reliant on local bus service and reducing the City’s car dependency. Council Member Lopez Chavez took a moment of personal privilege to thank colleagues/those who provided comment, recognized the Muslim community members and allies in the City as well as the hurt of the community/City, acknowledging their efforts, and sought to bring attention to those acts – Salt Lake City was home to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 3 vibrant Muslim and Jewish communities and the City needed to continue to stand with them against all forms of bigotry and xenophobia.  Council Member Wharton took a moment of personal privilege and spoke regarding Larry Livingston a District 3 resident who had recently passed away, mentioned the key role he played in the transformation from the commission form of government to the Mayor/Council form of government, both as a community activist and City employee and did so as an openly gay man in the 1980’s. He went on to recognize Larry’s efforts in the early days to guide the Council regarding land use and urban design for the City, as well as his involvement in the spirit of recognizing all the members of the community who took their time to meaningfully engage with the Council on policy items they were passionate about.      E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Motion: Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2024 The Council will consider a motion to ratify the election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Salt Lake City Council for calendar year 2024.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to Ratify the election of Council Member Petro as Chair and Council Member Wharton as Vice Chair of the Salt Lake City Council. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 4   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Airport Board Code Revisions The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, Airport Board, and Subsection 5 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/slcairports.     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, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 1 of 2024 Airport Board Code Revisions. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass   G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. to 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 5 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Nathan Rafferty The Council will consider approving the appointment of Nathan Rafferty to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   3. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Luz Escamilla The Council will consider approving the appointment of Luz Escamilla to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   4. Board Reappointment: Mosquito Abatement District – Van Turner The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Van Turner to the Mosquito Abatement District Board for a term ending December 31, 2027. This is a Council- appointed position, therefore an Administrative Recommendation letter is not included.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   5. Board Reappointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board – Ginger Cannon The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Ginger Cannon to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending January 9, 2027.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Tanya Hawkins The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Tanya Hawkins to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 29, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024    Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 7   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT:       MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 9, 2024 8 Meeting adjourned at: 8:44 pm.  Minutes Approved:  _______________________________  City Council Chair – Victoria Petro _______________________________  City Recorder – Cindy Trishman 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 Formal 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 9 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, January 16, 2024.  The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez The following Council Members were absent: 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, Lisa Shaffer – 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, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant  The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: B.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting. C.Pledge of Allegiance. D.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. E.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of November 7, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of November 14, 2023. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to approve the work session meeting minutes of November 7, 2023 as well as the formal meeting minutes of November 14, 2023. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass A.OPENING CEREMONY: B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Grant Application: 2023 Marathon Community Investment Programs - First Responder Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to Marathon Petroleum. If awarded, the grant would fund a drone to train first responders to prepare for an emergency response. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2 Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the proposal. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 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 and Tuesday, January 16, 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 - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Ordinance 02 of 2024 Budget Amendment no. 3 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 amending the final budget of Salt Lake City including the Staffing MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 3 document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2.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; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 9, 2024 and Tuesday, January 16, 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 - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Resolution 01 of 2024, requesting that emergency medical service personnel including paramedics and social workers be admitted to the Tier 2 Firefighter Utah Retirement System. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4 Rae Lubbert, Stewart Robinson, Trinity Silimon, Mick Schoon, Maria Rivera, Christina Perez-Christenson, Bethany Halcomb, Josefa Martinez, Melissa Espinoza, Hafsa Abdikadir, Rita Dosanjh, Jakey Siolo, Claire Adams, Jenna Lieder, Cali Wilson, Daela Taeoalii-Tipton, Fave Wilder, Jenna Martin, Ermira Fenaeian, Emily Heider, Josh Darner, Grae Wason, Kaile Akina, Fern Robin, Jackie Daniels-Brown, Stephanie Miller, Karly Walton, Grant Miller, Leila Mujic, Hana Korkut, Daniel White, Konver Bingham, Abby Carroll, Dalia Salloum, Venus Tea, Zero Romrell, Zeaid Hasan, Natalie Diltz, Cristobal Villegas, Natty Taylor, Lekla Ramic, Jill Alger- James, Marin Gawkoski, Weston Nichols, Areli Gonzalez, Catherine Anderson, Sahar Alshonbaki, Meg Griffes, and Jaz Dumas stated the following  regarding a request for a cease-fire in Gaza: • The Council needed to represent the constituents of Salt Lake City and call for a cease fire in Gaza • Help those in Palestine just like the homeless that live on the streets of Salt Lake City • Not happy with the lack of response from the Council • People in Gaza needed hospitals, food, and basic aid • Under represented populations needed to be represented and deserved a voice • There was mass destruction in Gaza and something needed to be done • Please give an answer as to why the Council and the Mayor would not sign a Resolution for a cease fire • The holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers –  it started with dehumanizing people just like this genocide has done • Stop sending money to Israel and funding the genocide • Threats of removing Council Members from office if a Resolution was not provided • Important to protect the health care workers that were still available for those in Palestine • Group would not go away and would grow, attending meetings each week until the Council signed a cease fire Resolution • Why was life only valued when it landed on US soil • Waiting until the end of the conflict was not the time to provide aid • People were stuck in Gaza and needed help to get out MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 5 D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. There were no questions. 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 Petro reviewed the rules of decorum. En Canada, Olivia Marron, Dani Erickson, Laurel Hiatt, Ambreen Khan, Omar Alam, Fran Lopez, Aziz Abuyazed, Oswaldo Ponce de León Council Member Wharton stated the following (in summary): thanked the members of the community that spoke tonight for their comments and reviewed the mixed cultures of people who had reached out with comments/concerns over the trauma in Gaza, expressed sympathy with the events in Gaza and spoke to the first duty by law of a Salt Lake Council Member was to keep the residents of Salt Lake City safe. Expressed concern over the rise in hate crimes for Islamic people and spoke to the importance of people feeling safe no matter who they were or what race they were. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance: Rezone at 357 and 375 East 500 South, 464-466 South 400 East, and 460-462 South 400 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00403 For more information visit http://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 - Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6 Fave Wilder spoke to the need for a cease fire and asked the Council to look at HB 261 Equal Opportunity Bill and HB 257 Trans Bathroom Bill which would not help the queer community. Council Member Puy spoke to the number of volunteers that served the Utah Food Bank on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the number of bills that would be coming from the Legislature in the next few weeks that the Council would be paying attention to, and thanked the Council for the work they would be doing in the next 45 days to protect their neighbors. 2.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.3) for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 3) 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 3.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Barri Allaire The Council will consider approving the appointment of Barri Allaire to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 7 4.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Sheridan Mordue The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sheridan Mordue to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – Lisia Santini The Council will consider approving the appointment of Lisia Santini to the Human Rights Commission Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – Lucia Rodriguez The Council will consider approving the appointment of Lucia Rodriguez to the Human Rights Commission Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board –Travis English The Council will consider approving the appointment of Travis English to the Arts Council Board for a term ending January 16, 2027. 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, January 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 8 Meeting adjourned at 9:24 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 Formal 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 H. ADJOURNMENT: 9 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, January 2, 2024.  The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Ana Valdemoros, Council Member Elect 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, Stephanie Elliott –  Minutes & Records Clerk  The meeting was called to order at 12:02 pm Opening Ceremony Council Member Alejandro Puy was sworn in and expressed excitement to serve District Two for another term.  Council Member Elect Eva Lopez Chavez was sworn in, thanked her family and the community for the opportunity, and stated excitement for the ability to serve the community. Council Member Mano thanked former Council Member Ana Valdemoros for their dedication and service to the community as a Council Member for District Four. Council Member Dan Dugan was sworn in and expressed desire to help improve public transportation within the city and connect the communities.  Council Member Sarah Young was sworn in, expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve the community, and thanked all the City Departments that contribute to the well-being of the community.  Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall was sworn in, thanked the community for attending the ceremony and for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Salt Lake City for another four years.  Council Member’s full speeches can be found in the Meeting Materials.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 2, 2024 1 Meeting adjourned at 1:33 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 Formal meeting held Tuesday, January 2, 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 2, 2024 2 Item B1 TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director DATE:February 20, 2024 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY RE: Resolution: University of Utah Baseball Stadium Public Benefits Analysis MOTION 1 (close hearing and adopt (if the Council wishes to adopt this night)) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 (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 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 20, 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 is scheduled for tonight, 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? 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 Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: Avenues Restrictive Covenant MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 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 20, 2024 RE: Avenues Restrictive Covenant BRIEFING UPDATE During the January 16, 2024 briefing the Council confirmed that the subject properties are the only ones with the restrictive covenants, and are no longer owned by LDS Hospital. Planning staff stated this is correct. They also noted there was community concern at the time that the properties could be sold and used for something other than housing. The following information was provided for the January 16, 2024 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to remove a restrictive covenant from 18 properties located primarily between B Street and D Street and between 9th Avenue and 11th Avenue in City Council District Three, as shown in the image below. (Please note the property at 390 D Street in the lower right corner of the image is one of the affected parcels.) The covenant was discovered by Planning staff when the owner of 453 North C Street applied for a lot consolidation with the intent of constructing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their property. While reviewing the restrictive covenant, Planning staff found it also applied to 17 other properties in the area. Planning then consulted with the City Attorney’s Office and decided to work toward removing the restriction from all 18 properties. This covenant was established in 1981 as part of closing a portion of 8th Avenue for LDS Hospital expansion. At the time, the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) would not oppose the street vacation if these other properties, owned by the hospital at the time, were subjected to a restrictive Item Schedule: Briefing: January 16, 2024 Set Date: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20, 2024 Potential Action: March 5, 2024 Page | 2 covenant ensuring they would be limited to single-family, two-family, or other uses that conformed to R-2 zoning then in effect. When the restrictive covenant was recorded, R-2 zoning prohibited ADUs that could be used as a dwelling. (The properties were later zoned to SR-1A as part of the 1995 comprehensive zoning rewrite.) Each subject property is privately owned, and Planning staff believes the covenant’s intent has been satisfied. Planning recommends the Council remove the restrictive covenants from all the affected properties. This is an uncommon land use item Council Members likely have not seen before. It will follow the pattern of most other land use items before the Council, with a briefing, public hearing, and then a vote on an ordinance to remove the restrictive covenant. The Planning Commission is not required to review the proposal and hold a public hearing. Council staff asked the Chair and Vice Chair if they prefer to have the Planning Commission review. They felt that was not necessary. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed restrictive covenant removal and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Page | 3 Vicinity map with the subject parcels shaded in red. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to remove the restrictive covenant from all 18 affected properties or just those with property owners who are supportive. It is worth noting that if the restrictive covenant is not removed from some properties, future owners wishing to remove it will need to initiate the process for their property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 4 Planning staff were unable to find correspondence from 1979 detailing the agreement, but the City Recorder’s Office found a 1979 letter from GACC related to the 8th Avenue closure. The letter noted a loss of 44 homes as part of the hospital expansion. Planning staff believes it is likely that the restrictive covenant was intended to prevent further loss of single-family homes in the area and replace them with more intense land uses. The letter is included in Exhibit 3 (pages 34-35) of the City Council transmittal. The following uses are allowed in the SR-1A zone provided they meet applicable zoning requirements but are prohibited by the restrictive covenants: •Accessory dwelling unit (permitted) •Assisted living facility (2-5 individuals) (conditional) •Congregate care facility (conditional) •Group home (conditional) •Community garden (conditional) •Urban farm (permitted) •Daycare center (conditional) •In-home daycare (conditional) GACC is listed as an interested party in the restrictive covenant, so it must also vote to remove its interest. Planning staff met with the community council on September 13 and October 4, 2023 to discuss the removal. GACC voted to release its interest in the covenant at its November 1, 2023 meeting, and a letter noting the release was sent to Planning after the transmittal was received in the Council Office. The letter is attached to this report. Planning staff sent notice to all affected property owners letting them know about the covenant and its potential removal. A 45-day comment period was provided, after which Planning staff would begin the process of requesting removal of the covenant. The notice stated if responses were not received, Planning staff would proceed with the covenant removal based on a presumption that the property owners did not object. Planning received four individual responses from property owners and participated in a call with multiple property owners. Three of the individuals who responded were supportive of removing the restrictive covenant, and one was opposed. That owner is against removing the covenant due to insufficient space to construct an ADU on their property. Although more than one owner expressed support on the phone call, Planning felt only the caller should be recorded as supportive. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April 2023 – Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore became aware of restrictive covenant and began researching the removal. • May 24, 2023 – Notice sent to affected property owners and tenants. • August 30, 2023 – Draft ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. • September 12, and October 4, 2023 – Planning staff met with GACC to discuss removing the restrictive covenant. • November 1 2023 – GACC voted to release its interest in the restrictive covenant. • November 3, 2023 – Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. Page | 5 • November 9, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. • December 6, 2023 – GACC letter releasing its interest in the restrictive covenant sent to Salt Lake City Planning Division. (Attached to this report.) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2024 (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 8 th 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 WHEREAS, 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 1; 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 1 Likewise, the Greater Avenues Community Council is no longer interested in maintaining the Restrictive Covenant. See Exhibit A. 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 ______________, 2024. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2024. Published: ______________. Ordinance removing restrictive covenant related to Ord 40 of 1981v2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney February 14, 2024 Exhibit A 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 Item B3 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 20, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South PLNPCM2023-00385 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 20, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South PLNPCM2023-00385 BRIEFING UPDATE Much of the January 16, 2024 briefing was focused on potential affordable housing in the proposed development. Council Members expressed a desire for affordable units either with, or separate from, the Affordable Housing Initiative. The petitioner said they hadn’t planned on including affordable units but will review possibilities to include them. Planning staff will work with the petitioner to let them know what options exist for affordable units. When asked about maintaining current zoning on the subject parcels and constructing fourplexes, the petitioner said it wouldn’t be financially feasible, and the existing homes would likely stay. Without these parcels, there is not enough space to do a development in the current parking lot. They are amenable to exploring available tools and include them as options for future development. The petitioner will discuss with the property owner and follow up once they have more information. The petitioner clarified that the subject parcels, vacant restaurant, and parking lot are under common ownership. There are plans for a new tenant to move into the restaurant space. The proposed building would utilize most of the parking lot and include 50-60 units, providing an additional housing option in an area of predominantly single-family homes. The existing gas station/fast food restaurant, and hotel are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal. The petitioner will provide more information to the Council after discussions with the property owner. Item Schedule: Briefing: January 16, 2024 Set Date: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20, 2024 Potential Action: March 5, 2024 Page | 2 The following information was provided for the January 16, 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 2260 East, 2270 East, and 2290 East 1300 South in City Council District Six from their current R-1/7,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation to CB (Community Business). The petitioner has not submitted development plans for the parcels, but it is anticipated they would be developed along with adjoining property to the south for multi-family housing or a mixed-use development. The parcels are between Foothill Drive and 2300 East, as shown in the image below, and each has a single-family dwelling currently used as rental housing. Adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned CB and include a parking lot, gas station/fast food restaurant, a two-story restaurant and office building (the restaurant is currently vacant), and a three-story hotel. Properties on the north side of 1300 South are zoned R-1/12,000 and include single-family homes. A cemetery zoned OS (Open Space) is on the east side of 2300 East. The Foothill Village shopping center is on the west side of Foothill Drive and is zoned CS (Community Shopping). The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted 7-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. One Commissioner who voted in opposition cited concerns with what could be built on the site under the proposed zoning, and a potential loss of residential feel. She prefers moderate-density residential zoning for the parcels. The other Commissioner who voted against the motion did not state why he was opposed. Planning staff received a letter from the East Bench Community Council outlining their opposition to the proposed zoning map amendment. It is included on pages 21-24 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized here. Concerns include changes to the neighborhood and encroachment, and the proposed zoning does not follow some initiatives found in the East Bench Master Plan. In addition, Planning received email comments expressing concern with neighborhood impacts including parking, traffic, and reduced walkability. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject properties outlined in yellow. Aerial view looking south with the subject properties outlined in yellow. Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. 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 Page | 4 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. 3. The Council may wish to ask if tenants of the properties will be offered relocation assistance. 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 three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Master Plan Compatibility. Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt Lake, East Bench Master Plan, and the Salt Lake City Housing Plan. It has the potential to increase moderate-density housing in a neighborhood with existing infrastructure. Combining the parcels with adjacent parcels already zoned CB would allow cohesive development for the block and vehicular access from a key intersection on Foothill Drive. Consideration 2 – Housing Loss Mitigation. When properties with housing units are rezoned to a zoning district that allows non-residential uses, a housing loss mitigation plan approved by the City is required. Options for mitigation are found in Chapter 18.97.030 Salt Lake City Code. They include replacement housing, a fee based on the difference between existing housing and replacement cost, and a fee where deteriorated housing exists, not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner. In this case, the petitioner chose to enter a development agreement with the City requiring the three single-family homes to be replaced with at least the same number of dwelling units if the homes are demolished. Consideration 3 – Neighborhood Impacts. The CB zoning district is intended to provide close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, the subject properties abut CB-zoned development to the south and west. Planning staff found that if additional development occurred on the CB zoned properties, the single-family homes would feel isolated and potentially out of place. Future buildings larger than 7,500 square feet within the CB zone would require additional design standards and design review approval from the Planning Commission. As shown in the zoning comparison table below, the 30-foot maximum building height in CB zoning is similar to the 28-foot maximum height under current R-1/7,000 zoning. Planning staff found that 1300 South will help buffer single-family residential properties to the north. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height, setback, and other requirements for the current R-1/7,000 and proposed CB zoning districts. Page | 5 R-1/7,000 (Current)CB (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or average of block face. 20 feet for flat roofs. 20-foot maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards. 30 feet. Setbacks Front - average of buildings on block face or 20 feet where none exist. Corner side - average of buildings on block face or 20 feet where none exist. Side - 6 feet and 10 feet. Rear - 25 feet. Front - none. Sides - none. Rear- 10 feet. A maximum setback of 15 feet is required for at least 75% of the façade. Exceptions approved only through design review. Coverage/Open Space At least 60% required.All provided yards to be landscaped. Parking Two parking spaces per dwelling unit.Minimum: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per dwelling unit. Maximum: All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. Lot Area/Width No minimum size or width for municipal services, open space and trails, utility lines. 12,000 square feet and 80 feet wide for places of worship less than 4 acres in size. 7,000 square feet and 50 feet wide for all other permitted uses. None Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 17-19) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with 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 Page | 6 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. Some City public facilities and services may need to be upgraded and improved if the density changes or if land use changes to a more intense use. 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. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • May 19, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • June 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Eric Daems, Senior Planner. • July 3, 2023- o Notice sent to East Bench Community Council. o Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the 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 the public hearing. • September 7, 2023- o Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted and mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. o Notice of public hearing emailed to listserv accounts. • September 13, 2023- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 7-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • August 22, 2023-Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • November 16, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • November 20, 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: 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 Item B4 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, Senior Policy and Budget Analyst DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: ORDINANCE: COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND TENANT DISPLACEMENT AMENDMENTS 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. 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 Item B5 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, Allison Rowland, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number Four 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 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT STRAW POLLED ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and 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 air quality incentives program expansion. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. The budget amendment is still open, and the Council may consider the remaining items at a future date. A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account to the Sustainability Department One-time and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) Staff note: The Council intends to discuss the air quality incentives program in the future. New contracts for the program should not assume ongoing funding including for the existing categories (gas-powered lawnmower exchange, e-bikes, and indoor air purification) A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance of which $91,809 is ongoing and $308,100 is one-time) A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance ongoing) A-10 Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund Balance one-time) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Allison Rowland, Jennifer Bruno, Kira Luke DATE: February 20, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number 4 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the February 13 briefing, the Council discussed and unanimously passed nonbinding straw polls for four items as listed below. The Council is scheduled to continue reviewing proposed items at the February 20 work session briefing. There is a new Council-added item I-2 which the Administration requested after the budget amendment was transmitted. The write-up for A-4 is updated based on new information from the Public Lands Department after the first briefing staff report was published. Four Straw Polls A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) - The Council’s straw poll was to approve these funds for FY2024 only as a one-time transfer to the Sustainability Department. The Council also signaled to the Administration that new contracts for the program should not assume ongoing funding for the existing incentive categories. Council Members expressed an interest to review the income-qualified amounts and percentages and continue the department role clarity discussion including how the air quality incentives program can follow that legislative policy guidance. - Council Member Wharton highlighted potential confusion for some residents if the City on one hand is issuing vouchers for non-pedal assisted electronic bikes while on the other hand prohibiting those bikes on certain trails and natural lands. He suggested this information and other rules be provided to program participants at the time of voucher issuance. A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) - The Council’s straw poll was to support early advertising of the three new mechanic FTEs. The hiring of the positions would be after a vote formally approving the funding and updating the staffing document to authorize the positions. - Council Members expressed support for increasing maintenance capacity to avoid greater costs in the future. They also requested that the FY2025 budget reflect how to address the multiple challenges to keep the City’s vehicle fleet well maintained such as continuing supply chain uncertainty, staffing levels, and leasing vs purchasing vehicles. A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) - The Council’s straw poll is to support this item to avoid likely cost increases. Project Timeline: Set Date: February 6, 2024 1st Briefing: February 13, 2024 2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: February 20, 2024 3rd Briefing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 5, and/or March 26, 2024 A-10: Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund) - The Council’s straw poll is to support moving ahead with this item to avoid a yearlong delay if funding were unavailable until next fiscal year. - Council Members expressed support for increasing the public’s access and options to file public safety reports. This includes up to 30 languages for verbal communications and up to 60 for texting and form based communications. This is part of a larger streamlining process including an upcoming launch of mySLC later this year. The current mobile app contract is scheduled to end in November and be replaced with the new consolidated system. Updated Write-up Based on New Information from the Public Lands Department A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouse Stabilization and Entrance Gates ($31,250 from General Fund Balance for Ongoing Greenhouse Operations, $248,015 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Greenhouse Repairs, and $37,110 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Entrance Gates) There are three separate appropriations proposed in this item. Two are related to the greenhouses in the center of Liberty Park. A recently completed facility condition assessment concluded the greenhouses are significantly deteriorated and damaged. As a result, they are closed and not being used for operations. The original building was constructed in 1902 and multiple additions were added in later decades around the historic house in the center. The facilities are estimated to cover 11,000 square feet. $2 million is a high-level cost estimate to address the multiple issues identified in the assessment. The $37,110 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would purchase several gates to control afterhours access to Liberty Park. The gates would be posted at the north and south entrances as well as east and west along the interior vehicle loop. The Historic Landmarks Commission would need to review and approve the gates. The $31,250 from General Fund Balance is partial year funding for ongoing greenhouse operations. These funds could be used for temporary operations such as to rent a mobile temporary office, rent underutilized greenhouse spaces at the University of Utah to continue the native plant program, and pay related utilities. The total annual cost that would need to be included in the FY2025 annual budget is estimated to be $62,500. The $248,015 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would be used for urgent repairs to an east bay. The Department and Engineering Division completed a preliminary structural assessment with external architects. The cost estimate for urgent repairs to the east bay is $283,720. The $35,705 gap would be covered by the existing budget in the Public Lands Department. Further structural assessments will determine the extent of necessary repairs and refine cost estimates. A CIP request may be submitted to fund some or all the structural repairs and renovations. I-2: Placeholder for Housekeeping Move of CDBG Dormant Program Income (5,633,511 from the Housing Loan Fund to the Grants Fund) This includes three separate budgets the Council previously approved and were later approved by HUD as a substantial amendment to the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. They are $5.6 million for property acquisition, $250,000 for the small business façade improvement program within the targeted geographic area, and $250,000 for Westside sidewalks. The Administration stated that moving the funds would improve the City auditor’s ability to meet federal single audit compliance requirements. Currently the federal CDBG dollars are comingled with non- federal housing loans. This transfer is a housekeeping item that’s not legally required but is a best practice for government accounting. This also furthers the Council’s goal of enhancing oversight of federal grant programs with the new grants administrator FTE in the Finance Department that was approved in Budget Amendment #3  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Four includes 20 proposed amendments, $4,464,748 in revenues and $9,248,709 in expenditures of which $3,860,205 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to nine funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of three FTE’s for the Fleet Fund in A-7 Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity. Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget (See Attachment 1 at the end of this staff report) The chart of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2025 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 and included at the end of this document. If all the items are adopted as proposed by the Administration, then the FY2025 annual budget could have $2,253,085 of new ongoing costs. The total new ongoing costs from Budget Amendments 1 through 4 would be $7,452,172. It’s important to note that $3.1 million of that could be covered by the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant assuming the Legislature continues to appropriate sufficient funds under the current formula and law. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 31.73% which is $83,247,761 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. It’s important to note that while Fund Balance at this level is healthy the FY2025 annual budget (like the FY2024 annual budget) is anticipated to have a relatively large structural deficit necessitating use of one-time Fund Balance. The latest revenues update from Finance also shows that sales tax revenues are coming in about $3 million below budget. The Administration has requested straw polls for the following items: A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds), A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) and A-10: Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund) CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 The Administration indicates that revenues are trending below the initial budget projections. 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. 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 #4. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 31.73%. 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: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) See pages 23 – 29 of the Administration’s transmittal for an overview of the proposed expansion. Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for part of this item. The new funding is proposed to be split into two parts: $200,000 for e-bike vouchers to approximately 350 residents and $30,000 for indoor air purification to approximately 60 households. The program would partner with five local bike shops to supply the bikes, safety accessories, education, and basic maintenance support. The program would also partner with the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs in the Housing Stability Division to provide indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, air quality monitors, and single burner induction cooktops. The Council approved an Air Quality Incentives Program Coordinator FTE in the annual budget to administer the existing gas-power lawnmower exchange program and the proposed expansion. The table below shows proposed bike voucher amounts based on the applicant’s income and type of bike. If the Council approves program funding, then issuing a request for proposal or RFP would be the next step. The Administration has requested a straw poll on the e-bike portion of the program expansion. Bike Type Standard Voucher Income-Qualified Voucher City and Commuter $400 $1,000 Adaptive $600 $1,200 Cargo & Utility $800 $1,400 In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council put $230,000 into a Nondepartmental holding account for a potential expansion of the City’s air quality incentives program and approved the below condition on the appropriation as part of the budget adoption ordinance. The Council also adopted the below legislative intent identifying the Sustainability Department as priority for a policy discussion on role clarity and updating City Code. The Council could first address the role clarity question, so the outcome informs whether and how to expand the air quality incentives program. In prior discussions, some Council Members expressed interest in more clearly defining the City’s role, avoiding duplication of services between levels of government and local service providers / organizations, and recognizing the competing funding needs of core city services. For example, on one end of the spectrum could be the City directly providing services to residents, on the other end the City convenes and funds existing service providers to administer programs and services, or a hybrid approach between the two. Conditional Appropriation -- Air Quality Incentives Program $230,000 of new ongoing funding for an expanded Air Quality Incentives Program is hereby adopted contingent upon the Administration providing a written proposal of the program policy (such as but not limited to: income- qualification guidelines, prioritization criteria, maximum awards by incentive type, equity considerations, and other details) and Council approval of the program policy and goals. Legislative Intent from the FY2024 Annual Budget Adoption Motion Sheet Department Role Clarity in Ordinance - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that define and discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but not be limited to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council discussion, Sustainability is the priority. $250,000 Existing Ongoing for Gas-powered Lawnmower Exchange Air Quality Incentives Program The Council previously funded $250,000 annually over three years for a gas-powered lawnmower exchange program in partnership with the State. Residents can choose to participate in the Call 2 Haul program for old gas-powered lawnmowers to be picked up and recycled. The State has ended the residential component of the program to solely focus on commercial landscaping businesses. The City has more flexibility to tailor goals and eligibility by taking on the residential portion of the program. The Sustainability Department plans to broaden eligible incentives beyond lawnmowers to other gas-powered lawn maintenance equipment such as weed whackers, edgers, trimmers, leaf blowers, snowblowers, etc. Policy Questions: ➢Department Role Clarity – The Council may wish to continue the discussion of providing role clarity and how the Air Quality Incentives Program could follow that direction (e.g., City directly provides services to residents, convenes and funds local organizations to administer the program, or hybrid approach). ➢E-bike Programs Provided by Other Entities – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have reviewed other e-bike incentive programs offered in the Salt Lake Market to evaluate whether there is greater efficiency partnering with those programs. Staff is aware of a program offered to all Salt Lake County residents by the Utah Clean Air Partnership (UCAIR), as well as Utah Clean Energy (UCE). ➢Types of Air Quality Incentives – Does the Council support the proposed mix of air quality incentives (e.g., e- bikes, indoor air purifiers, and electric yard maintenance equipment) to advance the City’s goals or are different targeted incentives preferred? The Council may also wish to discuss how the expanded Air Quality Incentives Program would balance indoor air quality improvements which benefit the members of the immediate household (and where people spend most of their time) with reducing outdoor air pollution which benefits all residents and visitors in the local airshed. ➢Air Quality Incentives Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to provide policy guidance to the Department for how to prioritize an expanded air quality incentives programs such as outreach to support geographic equity, the proposed income-qualified approach and amounts, limiting a maximum of two vouchers per household, identifying at least half of the funding for low to moderate income households, focusing indoor air quality incentives on neighborhoods with greater levels of pollution and asthma rates, etc. A-2: Short-Term Rental Identification Software ($49,000 Ongoing from General Fund Balance) This budget item would purchase software and training to help the Civil Enforcement Division monitor and enforce violations by short-term rentals that do not comply with City codes. These would include ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units), as well as apartments, single-family homes, and other structures. The Division worked with IMS and the Innovations Team to identify options for software, but the software costs will be charged to Civil Enforcement as the only entity using it. The software will allow inspectors to identify these properties more quickly and easily, saving time to be used on other priorities. This funding includes $39,000 for the software and $10,000 for training. Two Civil Enforcement positions were added in the last annual budget. A-3: WITHDRAWN A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouse Stabilization and Entrance Gates ($31,250 from General Fund Balance for Ongoing Temporary Greenhouse Operations, $248,015 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Greenhouse Repairs OR Stay in Operational Budget for Temporary Greenhouses, and $37,110 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One- time to CIP for Entrance Gates) There are three separate appropriations proposed in this item. Two are related to the greenhouses in the center of Liberty Park. A recently completed facility condition assessment concluded the greenhouses are significantly deteriorated and damaged. As a result, they are closed and not being used for operations. Parts of the facilities are historic dating back to the late 1930s and possibly earlier. $2 million is a high-level cost estimate to address the multiple issues identified in the assessment. The $37,110 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would purchase several gates to control afterhours access to Liberty Park. The gates would be posted at the north and south entrances as well as east and west along the interior vehicle loop. The Historic Landmarks Commission would need to review and approve the gates. The $31,250 from General Fund Balance is partial year funding to rent a mobile temporary office, rent underutilized greenhouse spaces at the University of Utah to continue the native plant program, and pay related utilities. The total annual cost that would need to be included in the FY2025 annual budget is estimated to be $62,500. The $248,015 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would be used for temporary greenhouses (“hoop houses”), fencing, access to water, and a new transformer. The Department and Engineering Division are currently working on a structural review of the greenhouses. The review results could change the Department’s recommendation to use these funds for repairs to the east and west greenhouses if possible. At the time of publishing this staff report an update was pending on which option the Administration is recommending (e.g., repairs to the greenhouses vs temporary greenhouses) and clarification of what expenses qualify as capital expenditures in the CIP Fund. A-5: Public Lands One-Time Budget Reallocation ($558,000 one-time of Vacancy and Attrition Savings; $333,000 to the Fleet Fund and $225,000 to Contract Temporary Labor) The Department of Public Lands wishes to reallocate $558,000 from attrition and vacancy savings to other expense categories. Under this proposal, the Department would: - transfer a one-time amount of $333,000 to the Fleet Fund for new equipment, and - reallocate a one-time amount of $225,000 to the operations and maintenance budget to cover contracted services through June 30, 2024. The equipment that Public Lands wishes to purchase includes two wide-area mowers ($133,000 each) and one mini- excavator for irrigation system repairs ($67,000). These would ensure that the regular repairs needed on their current models do not result in unnecessary work delays. At last check, the lag between ordering and delivery of this equipment is around 18 months. The Department would use the remaining $225,000 to contract temporary labor to perform essential maintenance in parks, on medians, and on right of way properties from early spring to June 30, 2024. This additional labor would relieve the excess workloads for existing staff and ensure that new FTEs hired with additional FY24 budget are able to keep pace with Council and public expectations. Most of the FTEs funded in FY24 have been hired or are anticipated to be hired soon, though the Department acknowledges ongoing challenges with recruitment and retention. It is working with the City Human Resources Department to promote hiring through several different initiatives. Public Lands does not anticipate requesting a pay increase for seasonal staff for FY25, which now stands at $17.85 per hour, but notes that the labor market remains highly competitive. A-6: Fire Station 1 Perimeter Fencing ($130,275 one-time from Fire Impact Fees as Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund and Transfer to CIP Fund) 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. This project would be combined with the Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension project that was fully funded in FY2024 CIP. Combing the projects might result in less disruption to the neighborhood and potential cost savings. A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting three (3) new FTE mechanics and additional funding to address immediate Fleet maintenance needs. As identified in the transmittal, due to significant changes in the automotive industry during the Pandemic, costs and delivery times for parts and vehicles have increased and some orders have been cancelled, resulting in an older fleet requiring more maintenance. Fleet mechanics have been offered overtime to work longer shifts. More vehicles have been sent to outside vendors for maintenance, and Fleet has used 73% of its maintenance budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. As a result of these factors, the Administration indicates Fleet is unable to keep up with the recent growth of departments and the corresponding increase of Fleet vehicles for new employees. The full cost of a new mechanic position is $104,195 each or $312,585 annually for three new FTEs. To add the 3 new mechanics at this time, Fleet would need the following: 3 FTE Fleet Mechanics (last 3 months FY23-24) $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 FY2024 $399,909 Fleet indicated that they previously requested one-time budget adjustments to supplement sublet costs and has limited the number of vehicles sent out to external vendors. This has caused increased wait times for vehicle repairs which will continue to increase if Fleet is unable to add capacity, either with internal or external resources. Additionally, preventative maintenance may be delayed as repairs are prioritized, potentially causing a ripple effect on fleet vehicles by deteriorating faster and needing more intensive repairs soon. Council staff asked if costs for outside vendor vehicle repairs are typically greater than hiring more mechanic FTEs. Fleet indicated that to increase Fleet capacity to the same levels as the 3 FTEs would produce, Fleet would need $650,000 to pay for outside repairs. Fleet further indicated their total annual budget (FY24) for outside vendor vehicle repairs is $1,197,688 which was increased by 10% from FY23 to keep up with inflation. A-8: Police Overtime Ongoing Budget Increase ($1,829,000 from General Fund Balance in FY2024 and Ongoing in future fiscal years) This item would double the annual ongoing overtime budget for the Police Department from $1,814,784 to $3,643,784. This fiscal year, most of the funds would be used for “mitigation officers” which the Administration states would focus on reducing illegal camping, park safety, and the Downtown Safety Initiative. The Department stated the increasing volume of calls for service related to mitigation services has required increasing use of overtime this fiscal year. In particular, overtime needs increased from calls related to the temporary sanctioned campground and from the County Health Department requests for enhanced mitigation impact clean ups. As of late January, the actual overtime expenses for the Police Department were nearly $2.8 million which exceeds the $1,814,784 overtime budget line item. Vacancy savings are often used to cover overtime shifts. The Police Department has over $7 million of unused budget lapse to General Fund Balance at the end of FY2023. The Department does not anticipate a similarly large amount of unused budget at the end of FY2024 because of increasing overtime and progress to reach full staffing of both sworn and civilian positions. In Budget Amendment #3, the Council recently approved $500,000 for police officer overtime related to the temporary sanctioned campground using ARPA funds that were budgeted but not spent in prior fiscal years. Progress to Reach Full Staffing The Department reports a high officer participation rate in the retention and hiring bonuses program where an $8,500 bonus is provided in exchange for a two-year employment commitment. As of February 6, there were 21 vacant sworn officer positions and 11 vacant civilian positions. Three lateral police officer hires and seven civilian hires are in process. A new hire academy is planned in May. Upcoming Requests for New Police Officer FTEs The Department states requests for new police officer FTEs are being planned. An application to the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant is planned for a new squad dedicated to calls for service related to the permanent micro shelter community at approximately 750 West and 550 South. The squad would include one sergeant and five regular police officers. This would be like the two squads dedicated to the Miller and King Homeless Resource Centers. The same state grant currently pays for 17.5 FTEs including the two squads. It’s important to note that the annual grant award is subject to appropriations by the Legislature. Policy Questions: ➢Alternative Response Programs and Mitigation Officers – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how mitigation officer overtime fits into the City’s diversified public safety response approach (police civilian response team, community health access team or CHAT, park rangers, street ambassadors, partnership with mobile crisis outreach teams or MCOT, rapid intervention team). Over the past few years, the Council has significantly expanded these alternative response programs so police officers can focus on more serious crimes. ➢Available Vacancy Savings to Cover Overtime – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when Workday entries will be completed so budget to actual reporting and available vacancy savings can be shared. Vacancy savings could be used to fund some overtime this fiscal year instead of General Fund Balance. ➢Overtime Budget Increases vs New FTEs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to evaluate when increasing FTEs (civilian and sworn officers) makes sense vs increasing the ongoing overtime budget. Overtime hourly wages cost the City more than regular hourly rates. ➢Metrics on Mitigation Calls for Service – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on mitigation calls for services including how these needs have changed, where they are occurring, and diverting calls to alternative response programs. A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item. This budget request addresses the outdated and inefficient process of mobile phone data extraction used by various departments. Currently, investigations incur staff time costs of $3,000-$6,000 per case, with additional expenses for training and forensics-grade computers. Currently, the Police Department, Fire Department, and Human Resources all require the ability to extract data during investigations. The existing practice has been put together to meet short-term needs and relies on the availability of individual staff and more powerful computers than would typically be needed by the positions who conduct investigations. The recommended solutions standardize the data extraction process and make the software available to all positions who do investigative work. IMS reports that the recommended solution also provides better security for the personal data extracted. The software is intended to be more compatible with what’s used by other law enforcement and judicial partners, like the District Attorney’s Office, which enables the City to work more securely and collaboratively when sharing information. A-10 -Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund Balance) Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item This request is for an improved case service solution for the Police Department, replacing the current Coplogic online reporting system. The FY2024 budget included $48,954 for a new case service program, but implementation couldn't begin until after case management was moved to the cloud. Since the original quote, the vendor has added more features and improvements to the software, resulting in the $203,148 cost. Since the new features include enhancements that will be beneficial to multiple departments, like Dispatch and Fire, the general fund will see a reduction of $48,954 while the full cost will be allocated from IMS Fund Balance. Enhancements include public availability in multiple languages, and a phone tree to better direct calls to the non-emergency line. This software provides the public with options to report an issue via phone, app, or web browser, as opposed to the existing solution that was only available online. The Department has requested a straw poll for this item. The vendor currently has a yearlong waitlist but based on Salt Lake City’s prior relationship and commitment to the software, is willing to begin implementation this fiscal year if funds are committed. A-11: Replacing Two Traffic Signals Damaged in Accidents ($250,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) 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 inhouse 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 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 project. A-12: Medical 911 Dispatch Software Change to Improve Response Times ($165,793 one-time from the Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund or E-911 Fund) The 911 Department is requesting one-time funds to change the medical dispatch protocol equipment and processes which is expected to improve response times. It’s important to note that on an annual basis the Department already exceeds the industry best practice for 90% of 911 calls to be answered within 10 seconds. This software change is expected to improve the time a call is in queue waiting for sufficient information before it can be dispatched. The Association of Public-safety Communications Officials or APCO IntelliComm EMD Protocol is used by the Valley Emergency Communications Center or VECC. The City’s 911 Department and VECC already use the same computer aided dispatch or CAD systems but do not use the same medical protocol. This item would further integrate a more seamless handoff between the agencies when a call for service needs to be transferred. The CAD system can only use one medical protocol. This means that a dispatch must take additional time to change a call to fit the parameters in each dispatch center’s medical protocol before help can be dispatched. The 911 Department and VECC are responsible for providing emergency dispatch services in the Salt Lake Valley. The Utah Legislature directed the Utah Communications Authority to help create a “unified statewide 911 emergency services network” and “coordinate the development of an interoperable computer aided dispatch platform.” This item would advance this state goal. This item is also a follow up to findings from a 2019 performance audit of the 911 Department that recommended continued use of standardized script-based software but noted the current medical dispatch ProQA software scored poorly on public safety service provider feedback assessments. The E-911 Fund revenues come from a 911 excise tax paid on phone bills. The E-911 Fund has its own Fund Balance (savings account) that ended FY2023 with approximately $5.2 million. This fund has provided several software and hardware upgrades for the Department in recent years. A-13: Outside Legal Counsel for the City Attorney’s Office ($250,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) This is a request from the City Attorney’s Office for a one-time appropriation of $250,000 from General Fund Balance to hire outside counsel to handle items where the Attorney’s Office needs additional or specialized expertise or where the Attorney’s Office is recused. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Creating a Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department and Reclassifying an FTE to be the Appointed Division Director (Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings) This is a follow up from Budget Amendment #2 when the request was originally proposed. In that budget opening, the Council transferred four existing landscape architects from the Engineering Division in the Public Services Department to the Public Lands Department and increased the pay grade to 34 for the existing Planning Manager merit position. The Department is requesting approval for the remaining part of the proposal to create a new division called the Planning and Design Division and convert the Planning Manager position to be an appointed division director position at pay grade 35. Vacancy savings would be used to cover the increased compensation for the new division director for the remainder of FY2024. The next annual budget would need to include $12,113 ongoing for the position. This item would also amend the Appointed Pay Plan to add the new division director. The new division would include the new appointed director, four landscape architects transferred in Budget Amendment #2 (one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27)), and two project managers currently in the Public Lands Department. The Attorney's Office is working on an amendment to City Code Chapter 2.08 Administrative Organization that is expected later this year. It would update the sections for Public Lands and Public Services to reflect the responsibilities being transferred along with the FTEs. It’s part of a larger update that the Attorney’s Office is already working on for the Chapter. A legal best practice is for divisions and associated responsibilities is to be listed by department in this section of City Code. D-2: Ongoing Landfill Projects Pass-through Revolving Fund for Module 8 ($1 Million One-time in the CIP Fund) 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: Parking Garage Loan Pass-through Funds for Debt Service Payment on State Infrastructure Bond ($1.1 Million One-time from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund) 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 $7 million State Infrastructure Bond for the construction of a parking garage. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: WITHDRAWN Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Bloomberg Philanthropies Wake the Great Salt Lake ($1,000,000 from Misc. Grants Fund) 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 ($216,439.66 from Misc. Grants Fund 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) two 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. Two-thirds of that funding will go directly to shelter providers. The City will retain $216,439.66, which is required to be put toward public safety. This money will be used for PD overtime in the Rio Grande area around the new Temporary Shelter Community. The original grant was approved as part of Budget Amendment No. 2 on 10/17/23. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Placeholder for Potential Funding to Buyback Single-family Homes with Right of First Refusal ($TBD) This is a placeholder item pending upcoming information about the potential to buyback properties in the City’s first-time homebuyer program and possibly adding them to the Community Land Trust. ATTACHMENTS 1. Potential New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments (Chart) ACRONYMS ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit APCO International – Provides Emergency Medical Dispatch BA – Budget Amendment CAD – Computer Aided Design CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund E-Bike – Electric Bike EMD – Emergency Medical Dispatch FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year FOF – Funding Our Future GF – General Fund HDPE – High Density Polyethylene HVAC – Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous RMS – Records Management System RDA – Redevelopment Agency RFP – Request For Proposal SAA – Special Assessment Area TBD – To Be Determined VECC – Valley Emergency Communications Center ATTACHMENT 1 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of potential 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 costs 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 $12,113 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. Returned as item D-1 in Budget Amendment #4 #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; this assumes the Fire Department requests two new entry level firefighters to replace the two that were converted into civilian paramedics #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 Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget $200,000 #3 A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements $271,985 Would be paid annually over six fiscal years from FY2025 – FY2030. The Council left Budget Amendment #3 open to consider this item later #4 A-2: Short-term Rental $49,000 Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes Identification Software #4 A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouses $62,500 #4 A-7: Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity $312,585 3 New Mechanics 3 new FTE mechanics, education/training, software/hardware, maintenance from outside vendor. Request to finish this fiscal year is $399,909. #4 A-8: Police Officer Overtime $1,829,000 This item would double the annual line item for police officer overtime TOTALS $7,452,172 32 FTEs of which 19 are New 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 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 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 PLANNING & DESIGN 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, removed  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. 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 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/14/2024 13:04 Terry Pantuso Administrative office I was a golf pro for 40 years and have seen a lot of bad and good administration in the golf industry. I have never seen as much nepotism as there is in salt lake city golf's administrative office. And don't understand why is has not been looked into. It is obvious to the people that support golf in SLC but apparently not to the mayor or city council. There have some very suspect hiring in the last couple of years that should be looked into. It's hard to support something or someone who plays such favoritism. There should be competent people running an operation that so many people in Salt Lake enjoy and depend on for a way of life. Sign me: more than concerned, as well as 1000's of other golfers. 2/14/2024 14:19 Caeley Lewis U Baseball Stadium I recently heard about the proposal for the U’s new baseball stadium, and it is my understanding that the city council will be hearing it on Tuesday. I am concerned about the proposal specifically about leasing out land from Sunnyside Park. I help coach a sober softball team for New Roads Treatment Center. We have been playing in the Wasatch Recovery Foundation Sober Softball league for a long time and have been using three fields at Sunnyside Park every Friday night from March to October for the past couple years. Our league provide important support for recovering individuals. For many of us, the league is one the things we look forward to most every week, and we have come to love the park just as it is now: the number of fields, the location, and the beautiful sunsets every night. As you can imagine, I oppose the building of the new stadium entirely. I don’t want a 35 ft wall blocking the sunsets if the city doesn’t lease the land. As much as I don’t like that, I definitely don’t like the proposed design of the park if the city does lease the land because it removes two of the playing fields we use making it impossible for us to play there. Caeley Lewis (She, Her, Hers) Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/16/2024 9:43 Brad R Christensen 1/2 Permanent Homeless Pod Site and West Side Disconnection Hi Ale, I've written up a few paragraphs describing my concerns related to the site the state has identified for the pod camp. I'd love it if you'd read them and pass them on to whoever you think prudent. I live and work within about half a mile of the site on either side, and have worked as a social worker with the homeless population for about a decade now, so I have a certain amount of familiarity with the physical environment and the group of people who will soon be living there. I'd appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns to decision makers who can help address them and I value making the site work for everyone. Thanks for your time. As you’re probably aware, State officials have identified a site at about 700 W and 500 S to locate a permanent “sanctioned camp” or pod style shelter to serve at least 100 people experiencing homelessness. (https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/12/28/state-has-its-eyes-permanent-camp/) As a resident of Poplar Grove I’m sure I’m not the only neighbor with concerns about the site. The concerns I write about today are related to how ill-suited the infrastructure in the area is to support and serve 100 new neighbors, most of whom will rely on pedestrian infrastructure to get around. I would encourage Wayne Neiderhauser and anyone else involved in selection to attempt to walk from the nearby (on the map!) Salt Lake Central station to the site and back. Or walk to and from the Weigand Center. Navigating that area on foot or on a bike is a confusing, dehumanizing and dangerous experience. It is not ready to support 100 new neighbors coming and going. Were a 100 unit apartment building to be built there, there would be impact fees to support developing the infrastructure surrounding the building. I suggest the State appropriately consider the impact and commit to developing suitable pedestrian options that would also bring benefit to the people and businesses most impacted by the site. Solving the infrastructure problem won’t be especially simple given the challenges presented by choices made in the past, but the impact of the site won’t be simple or easy for the neighborhood to manage either. Without improvements I think we can count on more pedestrians wandering on the vanishing southern shoulder of 400 S or playing frogger across the 6 lanes of traffic trying to get to the tiny sidewalk on the northern side of the overpass. It also seems entirely likely that some camp residents will decide that the logical move is to navigate the trainyard to the east, sliding between seemingly stationary train cars. Using this site highlights the problems faced by west side residents and the disconnection from economic opportunity and resources downtown and on the eastern side of the city. Residents of the camp will be trapped by the design decisions of the city, stat, UDOT, and UTA. How will they get to and from the places that will allow them to improve their situation? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/16/2024 9:43 Brad R Christensen 2/2 CONTINUED!! Permanent Homeless Pod Site and West Side Disconnection I have a couple suggestions for improving the 400 S problem. One, the easiest, would be removing one eastbound lane from the overpass and making it an option for non-car travel similar to the eastbound side of the north temple overpass. Longer term I have what I think is a better idea: the Utah Transit Authority’s new headquarters are on the west side of the tracks. Transit employees at the headquarters really ought to have attractive transit options for getting to work, as it stands they face the indignity of being dropped off by the train a stone’s throw from the front door and are then required to walk approximately 1 city block out of their way, potentially face waiting for a freight train to pass and then walking all the way back. Residents of Poplar Grove and future residents of the sanctioned camp deserve reasonable and safe access to the transit hub. A pedestrian bridge from the transit hub to UTA headquarters at about 300 S is a no-brainer. A public access sidewalk to the bridge on the edge of the new UTA bus yard would connect a neighborhood impacted by the sanctioned camp site, and residents of the camp site to the transit hub and vastly decrease conflict between commuters in vehicles coming off the freeway at 400 s and residents of the camp attempting to get to resources and opportunities across the tracks. Prioritizing infrastructure like this should be a requirement of siting this camp. The very selection emphasizes the alienation and isolation of the west side of Salt Lake City. This out of the way site exists because of the barriers presented by I-15 and the train tracks. Allocating resources to connect the camp’s residents to transit and opportunity also connects thousands of other nearby residents and dozens of businesses. It is the least the state can do. -Brad Christensen 2/16/2024 14:05 Fiefia Tukuafu-Tonga University of Utah Baseball Stadium and Sunnyside Park Thank you in advance from your time and attention to this enhancement. We look forward to its successful completion. 2/16/2024 14:25 Ambreen Khan Thank you and petition results **Attachments 1 - 3 Hello Dan and team, Thank you again for meeting with us and having an open conversation. Attached are the 61 people from your district who signed the petition. Here is also the pie chart breakdown of signatures from each district, with total responses of 1166 people. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Ambreen 2/16/2024 16:28 Claudia Nakano Sunnyside Park - UofU Baseball Hello Salt Lake City Council A resident of District 6 I wholeheartedly am in support of the lease of land enabling the U of U to properly build a baseball stadium. Leasing the land to the University results in the land being used. Currently the property minimally maintained, is not safe and is not being utilized. The stadium would bring life to this part of our community, would support the U’s participation in collegiate competition, and would benefit youth sports for future generations. The park remaining idle and the building of an unsightly concrete wall would potentially invite unwanted and or criminal activity. I view the U of U plan as nothing less than a move toward the continuation of building a vibrant campus, community and city. In support, Claudia Nakano Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/16/2024 16:30 Fiefia Tukuafutonga Sharing support for Sunnyside Park Improvements Dear Salt Lake City Council Members and Mayor Erin Mendenhall, It is a privilege to offer our congratulations on the work you are doing in our communities. I sat so proudly observing District two be represented by Councilman Alejandro Puy who facilitated this past council meeting and proudly supported the University of Utah Baseball Stadium and Sunnyside Park Improvements proposal. I/We are profoundly grateful for your consideration to review the benefits to lease a portion of Sunnyside Park in exchange for the University of Utah to enhance the amenities in Sunnyside Park. Your commitment to enhance Sunnyside Park benefits the community but also various programs that are near and dear to my heart: • East Youth Football • East Youth Lacrosse • East Youth Rugby • East High School athletic pipeline • Ute Conference Football Organization Are just a few programs that utilize Sunnyside Park that is a home away from home for our youth and volunteers. Neighboring University of Utah is a historical landmark that inspires the youth to dream big about furthering their education through their passion for their various sport programs. Sunnyside Park has a long history with diverse community groups/families that benefit from all amenities: open green space, the trailway that connects and educates, the playgrounds, the various sport courts, and various multi-use that the enhancement will continue its historical site will be home for so many. As representatives of Salt Lake City, I am asking for your continued consideration of improvements and support of the University of Utah to enhance Sunnyside Park. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. This project deserves your full support. We look forward to its successful completion. If you have questions or need further input, please contact me REDACTED. Sincerely, Fiefia Tukuafu-Tukuafu 2/16/2024 16:56 Peter Corroon Tenant Displacement Amendments These amendments are fairly innocuous. However, as an affordable housing developer, I feel there is a lot more the city could do inside its own goverment to prove the affordability of housing. Salt Lake City Public Utilities fees and requirements are very costly. Shortening the lengthy plan review process would also be a better way to lower the cost of building housing. There is plenty of housing being built. The city efforts to allow higher density in single family zones should be an effective way to help lower housing costs. The proposed ordinance mostly sends a message that Salt Lake City is not welcome for housing development. Plus it will add to the cost of building housing. 2/16/2024 18:11 Brandon Patterson baseball field Sunnyside My son is a student at Rowland Hall and we live nearby Sunnyside Park and visit it often. We ask that if the Baseball Facility gets expanded that it can connect Rowland Hall to the park through the baseball grounds. Kindergarten classes visit Sunnyside Park for assignments, I also commute by bicycle with my son through the park, so a pedestrian path leading to/from the park through the baseball grounds would provide more safety to kids traveling to and from school. 2/16/2024 23:20 Brian Baker University of Utah Baseball Stadium and Sunnyside Park Improvements I wanted to share my feedback on the potential improvements to Sunnyside park if this deal is sone with the University. my kids have played field sports (lacrosse) for years and living in this area we are very limited to field access. It would be nice to improve the current grass fields with artificial turf for the east area youth sports to continue playing lacrosse, soccer and football. There really isnt any other location for the kids to play, taking them away or converting them into pickle ball courts or parks would only make it worse. 2/17/2024 10:22 Brian Cole sunny side park upgrade dear sir, i'm writing to ask you to approve the propsal to lease a portion of sunnyside park to the university of utah for the use of a new baseball stadium. i believe the new baseball will benefit the comunity as a whole. the trade off for the city is that the funding could be used for improving sunnyside and the upgrade of trails nearby. thank you,sincerly, brian cole Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/18/2024 7:46 David Leta Proposed deal between SLC and the UofU for an sale / lease of a portion of Sunnyside Park to enable the UofU to build a baseball stadium I strongly urge the Council to table this proposal and request more information from the UofU before voting on it. The public needs to see the actual plan for the stadium, with appropriate elevations from street level in all compass directions, including what portions of Sunnyside Park will be eliminated, not general "concept" designs, so that the public can effectively consider and express comments on this proposal. These plans should include both proposed stadiums -- one the UofU is "threatening" to build on its existing property, without any land exchange of Park property, and the larger stadium that is being proposed for the land exchange. The City's construction and engineering department then needs to evaluate the feasibility of these construction proposals, especially in light of NCAA baseball requirements. Personally, I do not believe that it is feasible for the UofU to build a NCAA compliant stadium on only its existing land; it will be too small and the proposed "wall" in left field cannot withstand the stresses of high winds that often blow down Emigration Canyon. Thus, I believe that the UofU's "threat" to build a stadium on only their existing land is a red herring. Moreover, the public needs to first know what SLC proposes to do with the $4.2M "pledge" that is being offered by the UofU. Where is that money going? Will all of it be used at Sunnyside Park? If not, how and where are these funds being allocated? In short, this proposal is premature. Much more detailed information is needed by the Council and the public before an intelligent vote can be taken. I urge you to table this proposal and seek that information. The UofU and the City have the ability to provide the same quickly. In closing I leave you with these words written by Joni Mitchell many years ago, which are even more true today: "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got til it's gone? They paved paradise, put up a parking lot." 2/18/2024 11:32 Lynda Coleman Sunnyside Park I don't support the U of U "leasing" the land to build a baseball diamond. The park is always in use especially during the summer months. It's ridiculous when the SL Bee's diamond is available and built. They have a current diamond they can tweak to work and room to put up more seating if they choose to. They should work with the land they have rather than take it from those of us who enjoy the park daily. 2/18/2024 14:25 Josh Sandfoss deny UofU $1/99years lease!!! Tier B baseball field rental rates have gone from $2 per hour in 2015 to $17 in 2024. These fees are creating a burden on all Salt Lake City Recreational Baseball organizations. Field rental fees are creating conditions where we must raise our fees thus putting youth baseball out of reach for a lot of families in our communities Reason The current fees of $17 per hour is going to cause fee increases within our organizations that will put the cost of recreational baseball out of reach for a lot of families. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/19/2024 14:37 Alicia Ramirez housing the homeless i would like to file a grievence for the violation of my civil rights and for discrimination for my disability and the reason is that I feel it is unfair that those of us like me who are domestic violence victims that now suffer from ptsd and anxiety cannot stay in facilitiies like homeless shelters due to our disabilities and mental health due to the trauma from domestic violence that we now suffer from that prevents us from being in public places with large crowds where there is alot of yelling and loud noises where it is at these places that use the tracking systems that housing agencies use to provide housing to those who are chronically homeless like me but we do have other ways to provide proof such as i do from my therapist who i have been seeing for the past two years and knows of my situation and being homeless for this long. The funding the government gives each state is to help all homeless individuals and not just those who are in shelters and i am one of those homeless individuals that is disabled and vulnerable and need housing and feel that i should be entitled to get a voucher for housing just like anyone else staying in shelters even though i choose not to stay in a shelter because of my disabilities. I also feel that housing should be offered to individuals such as my son who was a victim of a honey pot scheme on a gaming app when he downloaded a file that had a zip file containing explicit photos of children that he then got in trouble for and now has to register as a sex offender and not able to recieve housing and this has ruined his life and made him almost take his life and had a suicide attempt and in the hospital now because coping with this has been too much for him and the way the media lied and portraid him are lies. He should not have to go thru this as a victim and neither should i struggling to get housing . the last time i joined a meeting like this i was muted when i started to give my opinion but this time i am filing a grievence against the city and against the state 2/19/2024 15:40 Lance Pratt Utah Baseball Stadium I'm all for the new baseball stadium. It's been nice being able to play downtown but to help recruit and for additional student/school support of the program I think they need a stadium close to campus. I've heard complaints about game crowds like when we have football games. There are not that many fans that go to the baseball games, so I don't see a problem with parking and crowds that would negatively effect the neighborhood. Additional funds for the neighborhood park is a positive as well. I'm all for the new stadium. 2/19/2024 18:50 Tina Stott University Baseball Filed This would be a great opportinity for families, co-workers to get involved and bring Uatah their first NCAA team. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 10:55 Steven Hunt Feedback on a Possible Ordinance To Whom It May Concern: I am the vice chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and I have a concern about the possible ordinance being considered to prevent the loss of existing affordable housing. Would this ordinance prohibit the destruction of any and all such housing? I hope there is a part of this that would allow certain exceptions, such as the size of the housing that would be replaced. We have an LDS ward (Belvedere) on the corner of Downington Avenue and 600 East that has a very small parking lot—12 spaces. When the building was built nearly a hundred years ago, the boundaries of that ward were small enough that everyone within its boundaries could easily walk to the meetings. Over the years the number of Church members living in that area has decreased considerably. The boundaries for that building now extend from State Street on the west to 700 East on the east and from 1700 South on the north to 2100 South on the south. That’s a total of 16 blocks and much too far for some members to walk, especially during inclement weather. In addition, a fair number of those members are senior citizens. Just to the north of the current parking lot is a small duplex. The Church is interested in purchasing that lot so they could expand the parking lot to accommodate more cars. Another factor to consider is the feeling of the neighbors surrounding the Church building. Since the current parking lot is inadequate for the Church members who need to drive to the Church, members are forced to park along the street near to the Church. We have received feedback that many of them do not appreciate the additional parking along their street. I guess my question is, will this proposed ordinance allow for some exceptions such as I have mentioned here? I will not be able to attend the public hearing, but would appreciate this situation being brought to the attention of the Council for their consideration. Steven Hunt 2/20/2024 10:56 Michelle Moshea No park land lease Please do not lease public parks/land to the University. This space is used by so many tax paying citizens. I thought the bond that passed was supposed to be used for public spaces. Michelle Feolo, RN Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 10:58 James Webster 1/3 UofU Baseball land taking My name is James Webster, a graduate of Harvard/MIT’s Graduate School of Design) and former faculty member of USU’s Dept. of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning. I’ve been an adjunct instructor at the U’s School of Architecture, having taught site grading design. I have been living in District Six, within one city block of Sunnyside Park since 1976. My professional resume includes site grading/drainage design of baseball facilities throughout the country and I regularly provide expert witness testimony regarding adverse impacts of storm water discharge and noise pollution. Perhaps a brief history lesson will provide the Council with an appropriate context of the Yalecrest community’s efforts to collaborate with the university on this important issue: 1. The community, NOT the U initiated conversations with the U.S. Forest Service upon hearing that an office building was planned for the Interagency Fire property on Guardsman Way. Documentation from Mayor Corridini in the mid 1990’s clearly indicates a mutual effort by the city to orchestrate a land trade to enable the USFS to relocate its facilities to the Knudsen’s Corner area. The clear intent of this, as documented on SLC letterheads was to ensure open spare uses on the Guardsman property for the community and provide expansion land for the future development of the 1980’s Steiner recreation center master plan. The exclusive use of this land for UofU baseball was NEVER initiated in any public meeting by the university. Notwithstanding promises by the athletic department committed to that the practice field would be available for public use, upon completion of construction a bright red “No Trespassing” sign appeared, ostensibly related to NCAA rules. 2. At a Forum meeting a few years later, the Us athletic department admitted they had lied about public use of the field. 3. Property damage from foul balls ensued, requiring netting that was never anticipated by U planners or the AD and coach. 4. A buffer of trees was planted by TreeUtah and the local community, NOT the university. 5. Since completion of the practice field, the university appropriated land for stockpiling dirt for Supercross and other commercial events at Rice-Eccles. This industrial warehouse use was never disclosed to the community and SLC has ignored ensuing environmental and social impacts, including violations of the clean-wheel ordinance. 6. A 1980’s era East Bench Master Plan (EBMP) was approved by the City Council with input from the U. The primary impetus of this plan was to provide additional open space to the East Bench and to enable the development of the Steiner Aquatic Center’s master plan for a gymnasium, meeting rooms, courts and other amenities found at comparable facilities throughout the city. The city and count have failed to accomplish this. 7. Prior to that planning initiative, the Yalecrest community alone has LOST 10 acres of open space at Miller Bird Refuge. Subsequent to the 1980’s EBMP, the City Council violated a reversionary clause defined by the federal War Department by re-zoning Mt Olivet Cemetery’s perpetual open space to institutional use. Yalecrest lost an additional 13 acres of open space on Sunnyside Ave. The current land lease would INCLUDE a public lecrosse field and more additional land for parking and site grading/drainage ( see below) to the already appropriated 5.5 acres of the practice field. In total, the Yalecrest community has list over 30 acres of public open space. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 10:58 James Webster 2/3 CONTINUED!! UofU Baseball land taking When will this end? 8. Tge parking component of the “lease” was NEVER disclosed. To the contrary, the U’s AD and real estate people had stated NO land would be needed for parking; they had this covered on existing ownership. 9. A more recent update of the East Bench Master Plan absolutely involved the university’s planners in all aspects of an alleged mutual cooperation to ensure protection of public open space. The U formally participated and adopted a critical agreement to sell the 5.5 acres on Guardsman to the city. Unless the City Council has subsequently determined to discredit community master planning and has decided such community involvement and transparency is a mere frivolous gesture to be ignored, the current East Bench Master plan is a valid and enforceable document. 10. In an open meeting of the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Robin Burr, AIA the university’s campus architect explicitly advised the community that the U would NOT build a stadium on Guardsman. 11. Throughout the history of the community having become aware of any effort to build a stadium, YNC residents met with John Nixon (CFO of the U), Rep. Brian King, House Soeaker Hughes, the SLC City Council, Robin Burr, and a wide range of public and U officials to present more viable alternative sites ON campus. The Guardsman site is not part of the campus by any stretch and at best is a “hole on the donut” within Sunnyside Park. 12. The U has illegally appropriated a large area of the above referenced lecrosse field for stockpiling large galvanized light poles, boulders and concrete retention blocks. Did the Council approve, or ever become aware of this trespass and blockage of an emergency access corridor? Perhaps the Council should consider a retroactive land lease. An honest consideration of existing topography, heritage trees, other physical limitations of the proposed site, and social impacts of the U’s inept proposal includes the following: 1. The existing concrete retention wall in left field of the practice field does NOT conform to NCAA standards. It is 10’ high and already encroaches about 12’ into Sunnyside Park. This encroachment was NEVER disclosed by the university during the Anderson administration. If there are any documents or compensation to the city supporting this land taking the YNC and greater East Bench community would like to review them. The complete lack of transparency is unethical and illegal. 2. If the Council agrees to enable the university to take any additional land, an objective analysis of the existing topograpic slope condition reveals that an ADDITIONAL 10-12’ or total of 29-22’ of concrete retention wall will be required. The U’s fallacious proposal to eliminate the “red monster” is readily apparent. Has the Council consulted NCAA rules and design guidelines in this regard? Sure, build it a they will come! 3. The ONLY way to confirm to height limitations of the left field retention wall would REQUIRE an additional land taking of Sunnyside Park and massive excavation/removal of the existing lecrosse and softball fields. If the resulting slope were a minimum of 3:1 to enable city crews to maintain the grass, an ADDITIONAL 60-70’ of land must be included in the “lease”. Such residual park land will be unsuitable for any recreational use. This same impact will be attributable to center and right fields, although the extent of land taking and cross-sections of the proposed retention walls have not been disclosed by the U’s architect. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 10:58 James Webster 3/3 CONTINUED!! UofU Baseball land taking This site was not adaptable for a practice field and is, by a quantum leap, unsuitable for an NCAA stadium. 4, Storm water discharge management has not been adequately addressed. No one at SLC public Utilities has been involved in the final verification of the water quantity or quality impacts. Additional land taking, to be determined by qualified hydrologists will be required. 5. In addition to the significant coefficient of runoff from artificial turf, the carcinogen content of the runoff will be a public health impact. 6. It would be absolutely impossible to replace the existing grove of unique heritage evergreen trees, along with all other trees bordering the soccer fields. I k ow of no other stand of pseudo-Sequoias on the East Bench, including at whatever remains of Walter Cottom’s Grove. 7. The existing storm collection infrastructure was NOT designed to accommodate the runoff from artificial turf, additional parking and the hardscape of buildings and seating. The city and U promoters have simply failed to to their due diligence. 8. We experienced this failure with Rowland- Hall’s FieldTurf soccer field runoff, as property taxpayers were forced to spend public funds to repair flood damage at East High and erect a flood wall barrier. 9. “Walk-up music” as demanded by the U’s baseball program exceeds 95 dB, or the equivalence of a rock concert’s ruckus. This is illegal according to existing statutes and constitutes a significant public health impact. In summary, university officials have misrepresented their intentions to the YNC community for years. They have plastered their logo all over the Steiner Aquatic Center and Salt Lake City Recreation Center, as if they owned these public facilities. They intend to tack on a hockey addition to the Olympic ice. By allowing the U to take over tge East parking area for tailgater use, the ONLY available city land that was designated in the 1980’s Steiner master plan for expansion of public recreation is in jeopardy and likely to be lost by this unfortunate “lease” proposal and percident. It’s NOT a lease, it’s a land taking that can never be reversed or mitigated. I was one of seven local residents who raised PRIVATE funding for construction of the Steiner Aquatic Center and I’m aware of no other comparable city facility that was developed without city funding. I’ve served on Mayor Wilson’s Budget Advisory Cimmittee, Block Grant and other committees, have written successful CIP funded projects and co-wrote the city’s Riparian Overlay Ordinance (that Public Lands violated at Miller Bird Refuge). I would appreciate your consideration of the above concerns. Respectfully. James Webster, RLA 2/20/2024 11:00 Betty Iverson Oppose Baseball Field at Sunnyside I live near Sunnyside Park and we are at the park several times a week for youth sports games and personal family enjoyment. I absolutely oppose the University taking over more than an acre to build a baseball stadium. We have limited park space in the city already and to take this space away from all SLC so there can be a baseball field for a very few is not supporting the needs of all SLC residents. There are only 25 home baseball games a year so a majority of time this field would go unused. Please vote NO and don’t let this proposal go through. Betty Iverson 84108 2/20/2024 11:04 James Webster Trespass **Attachments 4-7 Dear Council members, as illustrated by these photos the UofU has consistently violated property rights at Sunnyside Park for at least 25 years. These poles were dumped on a playing field along with concrete retention blocks and boulders. This violation blocks access to the city’s salt stockpile, in addition to the U having appropriated the Steiner interim parking and expansion area for tailgaters. The U has a long history of trespassing onto city land with large tents damaging Steiner irrigation systems without a permit for football events. And they never clean up. Consider with whom you’re dealing. Jim Webster Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 11:07 Julia Mathews Thriving in Place Thriving in Place is a program that would allow Salt Lake City to grow as an ‘inclusive’ city. It counters the growth of homelessness for individuals and families living day to day on little to no money; due to low family income, job loss, medical disaster, loss of primary income earner, etc. Homelessness is fertile ground for illness, physical abuse, drug involvement and addiction, and criminal activity. It breeds despair and entrenched emotional and physical poverty. Instead, we want a city that offers safety to more of its people, and a ground from which to build and maintain productivity. Thriving in Place is the city’s chance to give a meaningful support, that keeps our city moving towards the healthy well-being of most of it’s people; rather than the increased wealth of only a few property investors. Salt Lake City was founded on a hope for a safe and healthy community. Supporting Thriving in Place is designed toward maintaining that hope. Dr. Julia Mathews 2/20/2024 11:11 Jordan Oseguera City Baseball Fees Hi, this is Jordan Oseguera. I am the head baseball coach at West High. It has been brought to my attention that the city is currently raising fees for youth baseball here in the city as well as proposing to replace softball fields with Lacross and soccer? Can I get some information on why this is price increase is occurring? A price increase does not seem to be a rational move given the economy, inflation, and the general needs of the Salt Lake City community. Who can I get on the phone and talk with about this to get more information as I want to ensure I am getting both sides of the story. This move, if it is truly happening, seems like something that could wipe out youth baseball participation in the Salt Lake valley altogether. -Jordan Oseguera 2/20/2024 11:27 Peggy Moore Sunnyside Park/U ball diamond i use the Sunnyside Park area under scrutiny, every day. i am just sick about the plans to take away the major park fields, to say nothing of the chopping down of so many great, mature, and beautiful trees. i completed the ‘survey’ the U asked for when they wanted neighborhood input, but i certainly felt like it was a meaningless effort. aside from the park issues which i think are foremost, there seems to not be much discussion about the traffic issue…traffic in the area is horrendous, now. with the multiple U athletic buildings, Rowland Hall (and of course their expansion planned), Steiner clientele, VA employees accessing their property via Guardsman’s Way, U students…i can only imagine how much worse it might become. the decision to move forward is wrong. our Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair, Jan Hemming, has presented articulate alternatives and more long-range planning. please listen to her. peggy moore District 6 resident 2/20/2024 11:28 Charlie Freedman In favor of five multi-use fields I am in favor of 5 multi use fields at Sunnyside for all sports to enjoy. This would be a significant improvement and windfall for youth sports, families, and the greater SLC community. I am also in favor of lights on the fields. Thanks, Charlie Freedman Youth Director East Lacrosse 2/20/2024 11:30 Julie Lewis Sunnyside Park field project To whom it may concern: Please add my sincerest endorsement to the proposal for making the multi use fields with lights at Sunnyside Park. It would be such a boon to the community, to the neighborhood,to every child that will be positively impacted from this increased availability of off-line, positive, outdoor sports and team activities. Thank you for your support and concern for our youth and this wonderful idea for this project Sincerely, Julie Lewis 2/20/2024 11:31 John Evans Email of support for Sunnyside Park redevelopment - 5 multi-use fields with lights Dan and Council members, I am emailing to express my usport for the Sunnyside Park redevelopment and the associated 5 multi-use fields with lights. This would be a huge asset to our community! Thanks, John Evans 2/20/2024 11:32 Augusta Comey Support 5 fields at sunnyside Please support the 5 field plan with lights at sunny side. We have so many youth programs that would benefit. I have been a volunteer girls lacrosse coach for the last 5 years and have grown our program to 77 girls and they would definitely benefit from these fields. Thanks, Augusta Comey Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 11:33 Sara Wikstrom Email in support of multi-use fields with lights at Sunnyside Park Dear Councilperson Dugan and City Council, I am a resident of Salt Lake City, parent of two school aged children (ages 10 and 8) who play both soccer and lacrosse and recreation soccer coach. Sunnyside Park and our community would benefit greatly from the addition of multi-use fields with lights. Many of us routinely need to travel outside of city boundaries for soccer and lacrosse practices and games, contributing to traffic congestion on roadways and pollution. Never mind the timely commute affects participation in sports at the local level. Sunnyside Park is a gem of a park that would only benefit from better fields. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sara 2/20/2024 11:35 Raina Williams Sunnyside plans Dear Dan- I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports, especially my daughters! Thanks Raina 2/20/2024 11:36 Dalton Hoopes Sunnyside Park Redevelopment Dear Dan, I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible way to support and further improve lacrosse and all youth sports. As someone who grew up playing lacrosse from fourth grade to the end of my high school career at Sunnyside it would be amazing to see these changes carried out, especially for the future generations and the growth of Utah sports as a whole. Sincerely, Dalton Hoopes Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 11:37 Amber Duran 1/2 Sunnyside park renovations To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of 5 multi-use fields with lights at Sunnyside Park. This improvement would be a huge improvement for our youth sports. Given my experience, these are just a few of the reasons for my feelings. First, Lacrosse. Over the past decade, there has been so much growth in this sport. Personally, at East, the school that would use Sunnyside park, has seen major growth. This is in HUGE part, due to 1 person, Charlie Freedman. He has been coaching and growing the sport at the youth level for many years now and is the new Head Coach at East High School. Years ago, I was the president for East Little League Football. Charlie made his way onto to my football practices and started handing out lacrosse sticks and balls to the boys. He was trying to find kids who could switch over from football to lacrosse. Since the main season was different, there was no reason we couldn’t work together. That night, 2 of those sticks when to my boys. They went home, curious about this new sport. I had one that was picking it up fast, and another that did not. During the next few weeks, my youngest really began to enjoy it more and more. It was shortly after this, that Charlie told me….” Mom… Kendell is an AMAZING football player, but I’m telling you… Lacrosse is going to be his sport!” Around this same time, Charlie told me why he was so interested in getting Kendell to play. He said to me then, “You don’t play lacrosse because you are going to go pro and make millions of dollars. You play lacrosse, because of the schools you will end up going to. Your lacrosse players come out of collage working on wall street and owning their own businesses. And I want these kids from the west side who would normally not have these opportunities to be able to do so. After this, upon seeing Kendell’s potential, he continued to pay for club opportunities, private coaching, he would replace broken sticks, get new equipment, whatever Kendell needed, to help him grow in the sport. He even took him and a few other boys to Southern Virginia University, to meet with the school and admissions. While there, they took an extra day and were able to tour the White House with Senator Lee’s office, see the Lincoln Monument, and many other sites. All things that they would not have been able to do without Charlie. Kendell is now going to Eearlham Collage in the fall to play lacrosse. He is one of MANY boys who have or are going to continue their education thanks to this man introducing them to a new sport and seeing their potential. In the past few years we have had as many as 9 out of 11 seniors go to college thanks to this sport. Those are numbers you will NOT find in any other high school sport. Now that he is the high school head coach he is even MORE dedicated (if possible) to getting these kids into college. If these kids has more access to fields, lights, and, maybe a wall for wall ball, I can only imagine what they could do! 2/20/2024 11:37 Amber Duran 2/2 CONTINUED!! Sunnyside park renovations Second, as mentioned above, I spent MANY years working with the youth football league in many positions, including a few years as president. When it comes to East High School, the demographics there vary in a massive way. You have some of the wealthiest families on the east side and by the capital, and some families from the west side, living WELL beneath the poverty level. So often, these kids have nothing in common. They segregate and keep to themselves in the school, and often you see physical conflict due to this. Sports is the one place where you do not see this. You see kids coming together and bonding and being there for each other rather then fighting. The parks on the west side do not have lights, and most of the practices are held at Sunnyside. Anything that can be done to better this park can only hep these kids even more. Given the world we live in, the phrase "It takes a village" has never been so true. It is up to ALL OF US, to help these children reach their full potential and improving this park would held many! Thank you, Amber Duran Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 11:38 Jim Burdette Sunnyside Park lease I am FOR the City cooperating with the University and leasing the land for the new baseball stadium. Over the weekend we took a walk around the full perimeter of the park just to understand what's in there. I was surprised to see the 4 or 5 neglected ballfields and 2 aging tennis courts. The total acreage is some 5 acres and the 1 acre sliver to lease to the University of 1.2 acres seems a small impact to me. The construction is going to happen regardless, and the quality would be much greater without the embarrassing high wall. Also, the U of U providing significant funds will can completely revitalize the park. Jim Burdette, Sugarhouse 2/20/2024 11:40 Bart Robison Sunnyside Park - 5 multiuse fields!!! I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park - with lights!! If we could get ONE of those with turf - even better! Rowland Hall's field is always in demand! This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports. (Is a small field house with 1/2 sized turf field too much to ask for? Newer High Schools are getting them... Brighton High, among others.) Bart Robison Parent, coach, supporters for youth sports 2/20/2024 11:41 Mandy Henderson Request for SLC youth Council members, I am a salt lake homeowner and have recently become of aware of a deal between the University of Utah and the city to allow the U's baseball to utilize acres of sunnyside while they build new facilities on their campus. This is disheartening to say the least as our league has depended on the fields at sunnyside for years and years and players at the U likely depended on little leagues like ours to give them their start in the sport. The registration costs for little league baseball has increased significantly over the past 5 years that we have had our 4 kids in sports. Our league, foothill baseball is a nonprofit. $170 is the registration cost for some this (and only this) season! I have seen the overhead and what we pay for our kids is still not covering all the costs, so the league is dependent on donations to keep it running. I know that some in the community cannot afford to register their kids, heartbreaking! Doubly so, when learning the U's getting a sweet deal. What I cannot make sense of is why government-owned land, which is probably the least susceptible to the pains of inflation we are all experiencing at every turn, can increase it's rates 750% in less than 10 years. The majority of that being over the last 5 all the while, the fields have deteriorated and little maintenance, if any, has been done. I hope that by being made aware of what seems to be this oversight, your council can make changes to provide equity to our youth of salt lake. Something to be more comparable to the counties around us who charge about 10$/player/season for the fields. Being afforded experiences in youth programs can change the direction of a child's future so we are hopeful that you all can keep that in mind. Thank you for your time and efforts. Sincerely and with hope, Mandy Henderson 2/20/2024 11:47 Brittney Nystrom Sunnyside park- in support of upgrades Hello, I would like to register my support for the proposed upgrades to Sunnyside Park. As a resident of the neighborhood (my family and I live at REDACTED), I am strongly supportive of improving the grounds at Sunnyside. My daughters are both students at Uintah Elementary and have participated in youth sports that have practiced and played games at Sunnyside in the past. The athletic fields are in urgent need of improvement. In fact, both their lacrosse and soccer teams chose last season to practice elsewhere given the uneven and dangerously worn terrain on the fields. We are very much hoping for and looking forward to playing and practicing on the upgraded athletic fields at Sunnyside. Additionally we are hoping for more dedicated athletic space. Between soccer, lacrosse and football, there is heavy use of the existing fields. An expansion to at least 5 multi use fields would be a fantastic addition to the park, the neighborhood and the community. Thank you for considering Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 11:49 Wendy Sicard Sunnyside park To whom it may concern: We live in the Sunnyside neighborhood and quite frankly the University of Utah’s expansion and development over the past decade has ruined our neighborhood!!!🤬🤬🤬 The additional traffic on foothill is literally a nightmare every day and evening. I very much BELIEVE in sports but this neighborhood does NOT need a baseball stadium! I was on the very first University of Utah woman’s soccer team in 1978. We used to practice at sunnyside park. We NEED to keep the green space of sunnyside park and build a baseball stadium away from the sunnyside neighbor hood! It is already ruined from all of the U’s development! There needs to be NO more development. Build the stadium in another area but not the sunnyside area. I am exhausted of the U infringing on our neighborhood. They need to be told enough is enough and NO! Respectfully, Wendy and Roland Sicard 2/20/2024 11:51 Carrie Gunderson Sunnyside park I am writing to encourage you to please have 5 multiuse parks with lights at Sunnyside park. It would be a huge benefit for our kids in the community Carrie 2/20/2024 11:52 Alex LOWE Sunnyside Park Dan, My name is Alex Lowe and I am member of your district. I live in the Yalecrest neighborhood and am passionate about our community. I have three children attending Uintah elementary school and grew up playing sports at Sunnyside Park. I came to the City Council meeting a few weeks ago to speak on the U’s baseball field and potential improvements to Sunnyside Park but wasn’t able to speak. Please include this message when communicating your district’s feelings about this issue. For the past two years, I have volunteered as an East High youth football coach. This means that between the months of August and November, I spend a large amount of time at the park with young kids in our community. Unfortunately, the park is in dire need of investment. I’m not sure if you’ve had the chance to attend other parks or facilities outside of SLC but we spend most of our weekends traveling to these areas to play other teams. The facilities outside SLC are incredible with either turf fields or grass that is well manicured. Our fields, however, are in complete disrepair. When I try to schedule scrimmages with other teams, the coaches of other teams often decline because they don’t want their players playing on our fields for fear of injury. I have spent time reviewing the U’s potential baseball field and as I understand, the council is considering an option between the U building a baseball field with an enormous wall overshadowing the park or a stadium that actually makes sense with the park. I recognize the 2nd option includes a long-term land lease of green space to the University in return for a $4.2 million investment into the park. This seems like a win/win. The park gets a much needed capital infusion and the University can erect stadium that makes sense. I urge you to vote in favor of the University’s proposal and accept the investment the park needs. Bottom line, we care deeply about this community and we want families to stay here. I believe an upgraded Sunnyside park would help retain and attract families to our neighborhood. I appreciate your service and am happy to discuss this in more detail at your convenience. Thanks, Alex 2/20/2024 12:06 Greg Killilea Sunnyside Park I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports. Thanks, Greg Killilea 2/20/2024 12:08 Maria Keegan Sunnyside Park Dear Council Members, As local residents and parents to three very active children, we find ourselves at Sunnyside Park quite often for games, clinics, scrimmages and practices. We are writing in support of the proposed multi-use sport fields with lights. Our community is in desperate need of more safe and well kept indoor and outdoor spaces for our children to be coached, get physical activity and have experiences that help them to grow/mature in a healthy and productive manner. We look forward to the improvements. Sincerely, Ben and Maria Keegan 2/20/2024 12:11 David Grayson Sunnyside Park redevelopment Please prioritize MULTI-USE FIELDS as part of the plan. Thank you! David Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:13 Jack Hindley Sunnyside Park Redevelopment SLC City Council, Hi my name is Jack Hindley, I am writing to voice my support of five multi-use fields with lights at Sunnyside park. This would help many youth sports that I am involved with, such as lacrosse. Thanks, Jack Hindley 2/20/2024 12:14 Stephen Chen Sunnyside Park Redevelopment Dear Councilman Dugan, I am writing to communicate my support for the Sunnyside Park redevelopment project with 5 multi-use fields with lights. I am a longtime youth and high school lacrosse coach and Intermountain Lacrosse board of directors member. I have spent many hours coaching youth lacrosse at Sunnyside Park. Improvements to Sunnyside Park, with its ideal location for downtown SLC residents, would benefit youth athletics tremendously in our community. I strongly urge the Salt Lake City City Council to ratify this plan. Thank you for your time and consideration! Stephen Chen 2/20/2024 12:15 Kadee Leishman Sunnyside Park Re-development Councilman Dugan, I urge you to support the upgrades of Sunnyside park to include five multi-use fields with lighting for evening play of sports. Our youth, teens and students need access to these fields for sports and outdoor activities for their mental and physical health. We live within four minutes of Sunnyside Park and it is such a wonderful use of our public land and is also desperately needed for youth sports in our area. As a parents of two young girls in sports, I urge you to support these upgrades so that my girls may continue to have access to play the sports they love close to home. Thank you, Kadee Wolfgram Salt Lake Resident 2/20/2024 12:17 Addam COMEY Sunnyside Voicing my support for the university / SLC partnership to invest in five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights and turf. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports. Thanks Adam comey 2/20/2024 12:18 Jennifer Schreiter Sunnyside I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports. These fields are a great asset to the community and investing in them means investing in our future. Thanks, Jennifer Schreiter 2/20/2024 12:19 Needs name Needs Name Sunnyside I am writing in support of five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse and all youth sports. Thanks Marty deLannoy 2/20/2024 12:21 Jenna Temp Adopt resolution for ceasefire in Gaza Please adopt this resolution. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:29 Robert Kingsford Support for the revamped Sunnyside Park Salt Lake City Council, My name is Robert Kingsford and I am a member of District 6. I have lived in the 84108 zip code my entire life. I went to Highland High School and graduated from the University of Utah. For the last 12 years, I have been the head rugby coach of the East High school rugby program. This past year we were crowned state champions. In 2019 we finished with a national ranking of 4th in the country. Each year we try to improve our program bit by bit. We have had over 200 kids come through our program over the last 12 years. Some of these kids have started their rugby careers as young as first grade and we hope to see them on our varsity team in the coming years. It is important to understand that we are not a school sanctioned sport. In fact, we get very little access to East High's facilities and when we do use the school fields, we have to pay for usage. Because of this, we use city parks for practice. Twelve years ago, we started using 1700 south park in Glendale because it had little use. We knew there was little to no chance that we would be able to use the fields at Sunnyside because of soccer, lacrosse, and all of the other programs that are “grandfathered in” and have primary control of the fields. I know that the East Rugby community would be huge advocates of a revamped Sunnyside park. A couple of things that would be of great benefit would be access to a turf field if there is going to be one. It’s my understanding that there will be a multi-use field at Sunnyside and it will have all of the different sport lines on it. McCarthy field is set up this way up at the U of U and it works for a variety of different sports. We started practicing for the 2024 season on January 17th. We are headed to our first tournament this weekend in St. George. We have to try and find gyms and other places to train to prepare for the season. Currently, we have been paying about $400.00 per night at the U of U indoor facility for a 2 hour session to practice on a field that is ready when the weather is bad outside. We can only afford 5 practice sessions. A majority of our team can barely afford their registration fees. If we had access to a turf field that can be run on in the winter, that would be a great boost to us. I know that we aren't the only spring sport that would benefit from this addition as well. I hope you will consider this email as a sign of support for the revamped Sunnyside park, that can be used by all of the youth in our community. This seems like a great benefit to our community. I can understand there is always opposition to change, but this should be a strategic priority to take advantage of the windfall from the University of Utah and make Sunnyside park and awesome amenity for the east bench for everyone to benefit. Thanks again for your consideration. Robert Kingsford 2/20/2024 12:30 David Eggers Sunny side Park Redevelopment Hello. Even if this is late, I feel strongly enough to try to add my voice to others to those in support of five multi- use fields at Sunnyside Park that includes lighting. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for all youth sports, including one my son is passionate about and hopes to ride into a college scholarship - lacrosse. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David Eggers SLC Resident Assistant Professor U of U 2/20/2024 12:31 Kortney Hinckley Support for Sunnyside Park Improvements Dear Mr. Dugan and the Salt Lake City Council - I write this email in support of the proposed Sunnyside Park improvements currently under consideration by the Council. I wholeheartedly endorse the Council’s support of development of the park to include new playfields and lighting. I appreciate your consideration of this proposal, and I thank you for your time. Kortney Hinckley 2/20/2024 12:32 Laurie Darnell Please support Sunny Side Park improvements Council Members, Please vote yes to support the Sunnyside Park improvements for our community. Our family enjoys Sunnyside Park because our daughter Zoey plays lacrosse at the fields in the fall and spring. My husband, Joe has coached and played lacrosse on those fields as well. It is a great resource to our community and a great use of space. Our family will also use and appreciate improvement and expansion of the parking. Please vote yes. Thank you for your time and service to our community. Sincerely, Laurie Darnell Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:33 Joe Darnell Please support Sunny Side Park improvements Please vote yes to support the Sunnyside Park improvements for our community. Our family enjoys Sunnyside Park because our daughter Zoey plays lacrosse at the fields in the fall and spring. It is a great resource to our community and a great use of space. Our family will also use and appreciate improvement and expansion of the parking. Please vote yes. Thank you for your time and service to our community. -- Regards, Joe Darnell 2/20/2024 12:34 Lauren McBrier Sunnyside Park - 5 multi-use fields with lights please Hello Council Member Dugan and the SLC Council, As a Salt Lake City parent of young multi-sport athletes, and frequent Sunnyside Park user, I write to encourage you to approve a plan for 5 multi-use fields with lights at Sunnyside Park during its redevelopment in conjunction with the new plans for the University of Utah baseball stadium and adjacent city lands and fields. The children and citizens of SLC deserve beautiful and functional fields for lacrosse, soccer, football, etc. Thank you, Lauren McBrier 2/20/2024 12:35 Kaitlyn Mahoney Resolution for Peace City Council, My name is Kaitlyn Mahoney. I live in District 4 and own a business in District 2. As you know, more than 35,000 Palestinians have been murdered by Israel since October 7, 2023. 13,000 of those are children. Israel is now starving Gaza to ensure the genocide continues. I should be able to end this email now, knowing that my city council sees those numbers and is horrified and bound to action. But I cannot end this email now, because you have done nothing in the past five months to show your constituents that you care. Israel's ongoing war crime of genocide is being funded by our tax dollars. Salt Lake City needs to stand against genocide, and that starts with you. Not voting is a clear moral signal to your constituents, to the world, to our future generations. Staying silent aligns you with cruelty, barbarism, and human regression. How can we trust your leadership? We have shown up, we have shown you what is important to us, we have participated in the political process that you have laid out for us. Does that not matter to you? If you will not listen to us, what are we to do? You will have shown us that you are not for community but against it. We cannot work with leaders who do not have moral clarity and care about the voice of community. There is still time. We call on you to bring a resolution to the council that calls for a ceasefire and for strong anti-genocide language. We cannot stand in fear of the legislature, and you cannot continue to demonize your constituents who demand better. -- Kaitlyn Mahoney they/she 2/20/2024 12:37 Andrea Salazar VOTE "YES" Sunny Side Park Improvements Please vote yes to support the Sunnyside Park improvements. We enjoy this park for games and practices. Thank you for your public service. -Andrea Salazar Salt Lake City, 84106 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:38 Margaux Miller Call for a Ceasefire in Gaza Hello City Council, Over 35,000 Palestinians, thousands more as your silence continues, have been murdered by Isreal since October 7th, 2023. 13,000 of those are children and many more face death as Isreal continues to block aid into Gaza to ensure the genocide continues. The IJC has determined it is likely that Isreal is committing a genocide against Palestinians. Isreal's ongoing war crime of genocide is being funded by our tax dollars. Salt Lake City need to stand against genocide. What more can we say to convince you of this? No voting is a clear moral signal. A vote for a ceasefire would help stop the genocide of Palestinians and continue to pressure President Biden for a permanent ceasefire. A ceasefire has a clear definition and has not been politicized. We also must be staunchly anti-genocide. Staying silent politically aligns us with cruelty, barbarism, and human rights regression. How can we trust your leadership if you stay silent on the horrors we have witnessed and continue to have a direct hand in funding? This has been the strongest, most consistent growing movement city counsil has sen in the past few years. What does it say about our system? What will you be telling people if a vote does not happen or does not pass? You will have contributed to our national apathy. You will have showed us it does not matter if we show up. You will have showed us that you are not for the community, but against it. We want to partner with you on local issues, however, we cannot align with leaders who do not demonstrate moral clarity and care about the local and global community. We call you to bring a resolution to the council that calls for a permanent ceasefire and for strong anti-genocide language. Thank you. Margaux Miller MD 2/20/2024 12:39 Shannon Freedman Sunnyside park Councilman Dugan, I am writing to express my support for five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for lights. This improvement would be an incredible improvement for all youth sports and for our community. Thank you, Shannon Freedman 2/20/2024 12:40 Andrea Elaine Williams Sunnyside Park Please consider a multi sport use field with lights for the redesigned Sunnyside Park. Thanks kindly! Andrea Williams Andrea Williams, LCSW Salt City Psychology 2/20/2024 12:41 Elizabeth Florence Sunnyside Park Dear Council, I am writing to you in support of the five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for the addition of lights on the fields. This is a great opportunity for our area and would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse, soccer and all youth sports in our neighborhood. Thank you for your support. Elizabeth Florence 2/20/2024 12:42 Andrew Florence Sunnyside Park Dear council, I have kids at Indian hills and East ,. We love the youth sports at sunnyside park. I am writing to you in support of the five multi-use fields at Sunnyside park and also for the addition of lights on the fields. This is a great opportunity for our area and would be an incredible improvement for lacrosse, soccer and all youth sports in our neighborhood. Thank you for your support. Andrew Florence 2/20/2024 12:42 Preston Evans Sunnyside Park I support the changes being made at Sunnyside park Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:47 Lynn Pershing 1/2 UU baseball stadium land lease from Sunnyside Park Dear City Council members Petros, Puy, Wharton, Lopez-Chavez, Darin Mano, Dugan and Young The agreement to lease land from City-owned Open Public Land in Sunnyside Park to the University of Utah for a baseball stadium is a cautionary tale to all residents, in each neighborhood, in every district of our city. The current agreement between the City and UU has sent the message to citizens that any public open space land protected by city and district Master Plans as well as city code 2.90.070 to be purchased with use of a single line “exception” if the “price is right” to the detriment of all city residents who are losing more and more open space each year. Our open space is sacred, once its lost, it’s gone forever. Public open space is critical to the healthy well-being of all City residents. Sunnyside Park is used by 25 different zip codes for a variety of recreational and organized sports and recreational activities of all aged persons. I myself and my family have used this Park for the past 40 years to play soccer, baseball, softball, walk and play with my dog (and yes, I bag his feces). It’s like an African water hole with different activities throughout the day; a place of solitude and quiet nature in the early morning, a place of thoughtful, nature discovery for surrounding schools during the day, vigorous sports activities in the afternoon and bustling sporting venues on the weekend. It’s within walkable distance to many surrounding schools and neighborhoods. I am left wondering how all these healthy activities for people of all ages can be sustained with the proposed UU baseball stadium that will circumvent and interfere with that concurrent use of the Park? I urge the City Council to table this issue until more information is obtained. That information includes Elevations of the propose baseball stadium (not just aerial views with unverified land surveyed markings) including heights of all walls, lighting, speakers, scoreboard in every direction. To date the public has never seen actual plans. Not even at the UU open house last fall. Fulfillment of city and UU submitted GRAMA requests Uncertainty of 3 levels of baseball viability in our city; MLB, 2nd tier farm leagues and Institutional (UU) leagues. Are ALL those facilities sustainable? Until those issues are resolved, building the proposed UU baseball stadium is premature. If and/or after those issues have been resolved, I strongly encourage inclusions in the final formal contract to include a. lease agreement limited to 25 years b. guarantee UU $4.2 million “donation” will be used in Sunnyside Park “in toto” and not used elsewhere in the city or on other University of Utah-owned or UU-leased land. c. That the $4.2 million funds will NOT be used by city for infrastructure upgrades required for UU stadium facility including: 1) a new required 4” (or 6 “) water lines and shut off valve, 2) relocation of the water capture basin on the East side of proposed stadium, 3) establishing a parking lot on current LaCross field located NE of the current UU baseball practice field, Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 12:47 Lynn Pershing 2/2 CONTINUED!! UU baseball stadium land lease from Sunnyside Park 4) costs associated with regrading the 1.175 acres of park land leased from city for stadium expansion, 5) listed use of various activities in proposed baseball stadium allowed by UU (list of NCAA regulations) that limit audio and light pollution to surrounding communities, 6) Guarantee to minimize audio, light and scoreboard pollution to neighboring residents, 7) Good faith negotiation agreement between UU baseball, City, youth sport organizations to minimize interference of UU baseball and/or other listed activities in stadium with recreational and youth sports as well citizen recreation use of Sunnyside Park 8) replacement of mature trees (that provide protection from summer sun) removed for the stadium expansion 9) UU agreement to negotiate use of stadium activity to allow and not prevent current (and concurrent) youth sport use of Sunnyside Park. 10) No use of Sunnyside Park for UU sport tailgating, concerts or other noise producing activities that detrimentally impact surrounding neighborhoods, While we await the above information, I strongly support Mayor Mendenhall’s vision from her State of the City speech to create a ‘Sport Zone” in the downtown that captures all sporting facilities. This vision of locating professional, semi-professional and institutional (UU) sporting facilities to a central district allows maximal access to both walkable persons living downtown and attending conventions as well as those using mass transit to sporting events. The concept maximizes economic development in an efficient and equitable manner to all citizens of our City across multiple counties and throughout our state. Respectfully Lynn K. Pershing 84108 2/20/2024 14:12 Ron Reece U Baseball No See below The U doesn't need a cheap deal When the dirt is gone the dirt is gone, enhancements don't offset They have already scheduled the ground breaking, just a rubber Stamp? Dan, You should stop by, we could chat about mechanical engineering programs I am always curious how they compare Ron Reece PE ME 2/20/2024 14:20 Charlie Freedman Sunnyside Park I am writing in support of 5 multi-use playing fields at Sunnyside Park. These are fields that lacrosse, football, rugby, soccer, ultimate frisbee, etc can all use. Five fields would be a huge benefit and gathering place for kids and families, as well as provide safe surfaces. Thanks and please contact me with any questions. Charlie Freedman 2/20/2024 14:21 Molly Pearce Sunnyside Park Hi Dan, I am a mother of 7 children in your district. We have used sunnyside park through the years for tennis, baseball, lacrosse, soccer and just family enjoyment. It's very disappointing to have watched the city barely take care of it through the years. Playground is often broken down, tennis courts in dire need of upgrades, grass consistently too long, gross bathrooms and not have it be a safe place for kids bc of homeless near the creek. I was encouraged to see the U wanting to make the deal to improve infrastructure in return for a great baseball stadium for their use. That being said, we hope the city can retain some grass fields for recreation sports and new tennis and pickle ball courts. I also hope the city will take these improvements as a chance to start new and start taking better care of their parks. Thx Molly P Pearce 2/20/2024 14:39 Julie Lewis Sunny side fields . Dear Mr Dugan, Please add my sincerest endorsement to the proposal for making the multi use fields with lights at Sunnyside Park. It would be such a boon to the community, to the neighborhood,to every child that will be positively impacted from this increased availability of off-line, positive, outdoor sports and team activities. Thank you for your support and concern for our youth and this wonderful idea for this project Sincerely, Julie Lewis 2/20/2024 14:46 Steve Schneider Sunnyside/Baseball Support Dan, I expressed my support via NextDoor for the agreement between SLC and the UofU for the baseball stadium and Sunnyside Park. There are many reasons after I reviewed all the materials, including finding a solution for a left field “high wall” which neither the U or the city desired. The $4.2 million in improvements to Sunnyside are welcome such as pickleball courts. Steve Schneider Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 14:49 Claudia Nakano Sunnyside Park - Home of UofU Baseball Hello Councilman Dugan A resident of District 6 (and a neighbor on Wasatch) I wholeheartedly am in support of the lease of land enabling the U of U to properly build a baseball stadium. Leasing the land to the University results in the land being used. Currently the property minimally maintained, is not safe and is not being utilized. The stadium would bring life to this part of our community, would support the U’s participation in collegiate competition, and would benefit youth sports for future generations. The park remaining idle and the building of an unsightly concrete wall would potentially invite unwanted and or criminal activity. I view the U of U plan as nothing less than a move toward the continuation of building a vibrant campus, community and city. In support, Claudia Nakano 2/20/2024 14:55 Jake Crockett Re: CORRECTION Feb. 20 Public Hearing: U of U Baseball Stadium & Sunnyside Park Improvement Dan: Thank you for sending this along. The Crocketts join our neighbors in opposing this lease or any other arrangement shrinking (or effectively shrinking) Sunnyside Park. Thank you for your service, Jake 2/20/2024 15:36 Mary White Leasing part of Sunnyside Park to the U I am in favor of leasing part of the park to the university for use as part of the baseball stadium. I use the park mainly for meeting friends at the picnic pavillions and taking kids to the playground. The proposed leasing arrangement would seem to have a minimal effect on most park activities, and the promised amenities would enhance the park. 2/20/2024 16:37 Elliot L. Cheney General Comment A genocide is being conducted in Gaza and I am horrified by my government's complicity. Innocent people are being murdered and they are being subjected to completely inhumaine conditions. I will not be satisfied until my government takes action to facilitate an immediate ceasefire. 2/20/2024 16:58 Elliott Livingston Cheney General Comment Because of the danger posed to the Great Salt Lake, it's of utmost importance that our local government invests more in conservation. The timeframe for action is rapidly closing before Utahns way of life is permanently threatened. 2/20/2024 17:01 Hannah Orr General Comment Salt Lake needs to take a stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians by the apartheid Israeli State. Gaza is being starved and slaughtered by the IDF. By showing solidarity with the Palestinian people, Salt Lake will stand with humanity and against genocide. We call for a resolution calling for a ceasefire. 2/20/2024 17:16 Ryeleigh Hewlett General Comment Salt Lake needs to take a stand and demand an immediate & permanent ceasefire from the genocidal apartheid state of Israel. No more tax dollars being used & sent to murder children. Many of my representatives have a 'copy & paste' response "Israel has the right to defend itself". Israel is not above international laws as they committ war crime after war crime. 2/20/2024 17:18 Grace Wason General Comment Please introduce & vote on a ceasefire resolution for our siblings in Palestine. If you cannot stand for justice in the face of genocide then I cannot trust you to stand for justice in our own communities. - from Glendale 2/20/2024 17:28 Rhonda Rapp General Comment Over 35,000 Palestinians, many more as your silence continues, have been murdered by Israel since October 7th, 2023. 13,000 of those were children and 87% innocent civilians. Israel is starving Gaza to ensure the genocide continues. The ICJ has determined that it is likely that Israel is commiting a genocide on Palestinians. Israel's ongoing war crime is being funded by our tax dollars. SLC needs to stand agasint genocides. Our petition demanding a ceasefire resolution has been signed over 1,000 Salt Lake residents. We need action. You are our voice. We call you to bring a resolution to this. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/20/2024 18:03 Tyler Defosse General Comment Hello City Council, My name is Tyler and I in District 4. Over 35,000 Palestinians, thousands more your silence continues, have been murdered since Oct. 7th, 2023, 13,000 of those children and 87% innocent civilians. The ICJ has determined it is likely that Israel is committing a genocide on Palestinians. Israel's ongoing war crime of genocide is being funded by our tax dollars. SLC needs to stand against genocide. Follow the recently passed resolutions out of various cities across the nation, and call for a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. Ceasefire now. 2/20/2024 18:16 Gregorio Barahona Ocawpo General Comment I urge the city council, in keeping with its stated commitments to justice and equality, to call for a resolution unequivocally demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, joining the International Court of Justice's demand that the state of Israel half all actions resulting in the harming of Palestinians. Such actions have, since October 7th of last year, included the indiscriminate bombing of residential area, hospitals, mosques, churches and universities; the targetting of journalists and aid workers; the use of white phosphorus; and the use of starvation and forced displacement as weapons of war that have caused deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians the displacement of millions, and constitute a clear case of ethnic cleansing and genocide. 2/20/2024 22:55 Tammy Putnam university of utah ballpark at Sunnyside park the university of utah ballpark will take away one of the 2 completely enclosed ballparks at Sunnyside Park. i am suggesting that at least one or two of the other existing ballparks be made completely enclosed with fencing and gates. i often take my nonverbal autistic grandson there to play and run around and it is so nice to have the enclosed softball fields so that he can freely run around without easily getting away from me and running out. thank you for considering this request. 2/21/2024 10:01 Celeste Tholen Rosenlof Support Ceasefire Resolution Mayor Mendenhall and Councilperson Petro, I’m a district 1 constituent and deeply concerned and broken- hearted about the situation in Gaza. I wanted to write you to, first, thank Counciloerson Petro for your willingness to work on a ceasefire resolution, and second, ask you, mayor, to support it. More than 29,000 people have been killed in Gaza, more than 2 million displaced, and 1 in 6 children there are acutely malnourished, according to the AP and UN. The ICJ has concluded this attack is likely genocide, a claim which many Palestinian journalists, activists, and people have been saying for months. Salt Lake City must stand against genocide and send a clear message to higher authority that our tax money will not fund genocide or be used to annihilate homes, infrastructure, and cultural institutions. Demand a ceasefire and that remaining Israeli and Palestinian hostages be returned. It is critical that city leadership shows up for oppressed and mortally threatened people and honor those who have died already. Thank you, Celeste Tholen Rosenlof CT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/21/2024 10:03 Anthony Wright Kensington repaving Good afternoon, I am writing about the 2024 planned repaving on Kensington from Wasatch Drive to Indian Hills Circle. As is documented on the city site with photos of some massive potholes, Kensington is in great need of repaving and I am happy to see this done. Has there been more discussion on the sidewalk additions to the Indian Hills catwalk? In addition, I wanted to bring to your attention the condition of Ute Drive. Kensington terminates into Ute Drive for about 6 houses. I have attached photos of the condition of the road. It is hard to find a section that has more than 6 inches of continuous asphalt. it is constantly breaking up and leaving potholes. I personally have taken responsibility to fix many of these in front of my house buying the product and putting in the labor to fix. You can actually see some of my patches which are stronger than the rest of the city road. Whenever it rains fine gravel and chunks flow to the gutters. My concern is that the city crews will be up here completing Kensington and Ute will be bypassed. There are not many houses on Ute, but many people drive it a day to get down to wasatch. If ute is not done while the crews, equipment, and machinery are already up here, I fear Ute will be put on the backburner and will continue to fall apart. I ask that when the city does Kensington, that it also rebuilds Ute drive which is in desperate need. Thank You for your time. If I have sent this to the wrong group, please let me know. Anthony Wright 2/21/2024 11:17 Suzanne Stensaas Landscaping and Landscape Buffers Text Amendment Please, please pass this. Should have been done years ago. In addition I wish there was a requirement for better setback of new apartments and businesses. We need trees and green as much as we can. With some apartments abutting sidewalks it is unconscionable. Suzanne S. Stensaas 2/21/2024 11:23 Jarod Hall Historic Preservation Overlays Alejandro I am a resident of the fairpark neighborhood. I am writing a quick note IN OPPOSITION to the proposed Yalecrest (and any future) historic overlays. SLC (and many other cities) has a tremendous problem with getting houses that are affordable to median income households. Historic overlay's significantly increase the price of repair and the base price of the homes in that area. They are very exclusionary. Our best neighborhoods are ones where there are a mix of living and building types and a mix of building ages. Historic overalls endeavour to freeze both the building type and age of the buildings. If anything we should as a city be looking to reduce the blanket overlays we have in place and not add more. While there are many individual structures in all of these neighborhoods that have significant historical value, doing a mass overlay instead of a building by building designation is too blunt of a tool given our other challenges around housing. I live in a house built in 1904 and if my house was in a local historic district the increased maintenance cost would have forced my family to move. When we were looking to replace our extremely drafty single pane windows the cost of windows that would have been acceptable in a historic district were $10,000 (or 3X) more that the energy efficient vinyl windows we choose. This example is multiplied by nearly every exterior maintenance decision that gets made on a home. Please don't encumber additional homeowners with these high costs by creating more historic overlays. Jarod Hall 2/21/2024 11:25 Kathryn Lindquist properties at 2260, 2270 and 2290 East 1300 South Dear Council Members, As you consider rezoning these properties, please also keep in mind how difficult traffic can be at that small piece of 1300 South just east of the stoplight on Foothill. People are coming and going from the gas station and Wendy's as well as going east on 1300 toward the St. Mary's area. This section might be able to accommodate cars for double occupancy of each address but not multiple numbers of people at each if they are commercial or high-rise buildings. Thank you for considering the people who already live on Laird Way who must also put up with traffic taking short-cuts through that street to avoid the traffic light at the intersection of 1300 South and Foothill. Thank you very much, Kathryn Lindquist, a resident of Laird Way Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/21/2024 11:26 Richard Layman Sunnyside Park- University of Utah agreement I am on the board of Sugar House Park and participate on the SHCC Parks, Open Space, and Trails Committee. Earlier this month CM Young presented to POST about the proposal, and my takeaway at the moment is that there appear to be a number of gaps in the proposal as currently presented. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal (SHP has similar issues with Highland High Scool that we need to work out. And the park and school have done land trades before.) 1. A lease of park land shouldn't be allowed to be approved pro forma by the Executive Branch. Transfer of land through a 99 year lease should especially require a more robust public process and Council approval. While the cite attached concerns eminent domain, I argue that the principles outlined by the authors are relevant to all types of municipal land transactions including sales, leases, and street and alley vacations. https://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/12/make_eminent_domain _fair_for_all/ 2. There aren't good renderings available making judicious evaluation of the project impossible. Design is key, as it was for Smith's Ballpark--the first "throwback" stadium in the minor leagues. 3. I am not a finance guy, but $4.2 million in "community benefits" seems low. And additional community benefits should be negotiated every 5-10 years throughout the lease. 4. There needs to be more opportunity for public engagement especially from residents on the East Bench, for which Sunnyside is a regional park. 5. Recently, Public Lands received a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the new Glendale Regional Park. Often LWCF funding comes with an easement on a community's entire parks portfolio, not just specific parcels (this is the case for Salt Lake County). I don't know if that could be relevant here. LWCF could well approve such a change because it may still be considered outdoor education, but it would require a review regardless. Please delay this action so that all of the open issues can be better addressed. Note that in some quarters of the parks community, this is being seen as an overly accelerated land grab by the University of Utah, and is not a good look for the city. As the city's "brand managers" City Council should help to reset the consideration process for this proposal at "more normal speed" so that people's concerns can be better addressed. Thank you. 2/21/2024 11:27 Jack Crockett 400 N Overpass Alejandro, I am a Fairpark Resident on Chicago St. After reading an article in the Tribune I just wanted to reach out and voice my support. I would like a overpass at 400 N connecting the Marmalade district to 400 N. It would make my bike trips to Ace Hardware and the library much faster. If that is not done, I believe UDOT should be held accountable for the decreased cost of their project. Those funds should be given back to the city in some way. That overpass is a massively expensive piece of infrastructure. Nothing would make UDOT happier than to take it off of their books. I'm sure they are quite pleased with the voices of opposition. Closing down that overpass would be a simple endeavor if the community did not want it right now. If it was a pedestrian tunnel, it could easily be gated shut or the entrances buried. If it was a cut and cover road, there would be enough traffic and road noise to dispel loitering. However, if it is not built during this splurge of state spending, there is no way it will ever be done. People might not want it now, but they may want in the future. Thanks for pushing this issue, Jack Crockett Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/21/2024 11:28 Jay Schulze Sunnyside Park Councilmembers Wharton and Dugan, I am writing to express support for the proposed redevelopment of Sunnyside Park with 5 multi-use fields with lights. I have been coaching youth lacrosse in the area for the past 5 years and the sport is growing rapidly. I started with a group of 10 kindergarten boys and now 40 signed up for our team this spring. On the girls side, I started a program affiliated with Judge just 3 years ago and we now have more than 80 girls playing this spring across 6 teams in 4 different age groups between K-8. Our biggest challenge has always been securing field space for practices and games, especially quality field space. A year ago we paid to reserve the West field at Sunnyside park for the season, only to find upon arrival for our first practice that the grass was all dead, and the field had many holes filled with what appeared to be kitty litter. SLC Parks department took no apparent action to improve the field condition during that season and refused to offer any refund. We have since moved all our practice back to Sugarhouse park where we have to compete for field space that cannot be reserved for you sports practices. New/Renovated fields at Sunnyside Park would provide needed space for the anticipated growth of lacrosse in Utah, as we aim to continue bringing more kids into this sport so they can benefit from all it has to offer. Additional fields would also allow our teams (mostly SLC residents) to host home games and reduce the need to drive so often to Lehi and Ogden. The potential benefits of the proposed Sunnyside Park Renovation go far beyond lacrosse, and I am excited about the prospect of having an improved mutli-sport, multi-purpose, outdoor recreation complex so close to our homes. I look forward to news about the way forward, and I thank you for your consideration. Regards, Jay Schulze 2/21/2024 11:29 Jessica Steed Baseball fees I am astonished at the exorbitant fees the city charges for these baseball fields. Please, please consider Mr. Wachter’s proposal. We have three sons in his league and it gets to be very expensive and it doesn’t seem to be standard across other cities or counties. Thank you, Jessica Steed 2/21/2024 11:33 Cole Sloan Sunnyside Park Redevelopment Comments Hello, I fully support 5 multi-use fields with lighting for the Sunnyside Park redevelopment proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Cole Sloan Lacrosse Parent, Referee & occasionally Player Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 2/21/2024 11:35 Jennifer Evans University of Utah Baseball Stadium Dear City Council Members, As a resident of District 6 and a frequent user of Sunnyside Park, I respectfully ask that you consider the following when making a decision that allows the University of Utah to lease a minimum of 1.2 acres of Sunnyside Park for 100 years. 1- This park is the only sizable area of green space in this neighborhood and is well used by many. It is used during all seasons by LaCrosse teams, little league baseball teams, little league football teams, and youth soccer teams. It is used by adult recreational softball leagues, flag football teams, families with children, neighbors walking dogs, people gathering together for parties and picnics, and many more activities. The park is accessible and free for anyone who needs a little time in nature to decompress. In this stressful world, we need more green space, not less. 2- The University of Utah promised that the plot of land that is home to their practice field would never be used for anything, except a practice field. When asked about that statement, they simply replied, " Things change." Surely with all of their resources, the University of Utah could find somewhere else to build their baseball stadium. It does not belong in a neighborhood and will bring with it a host of issues including, but not limited to traffic issues, light pollution, noise pollution and sports fans using neighborhood streets for parking. 3- In addition, the University assured the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council and the community that they had plenty of space to build their stadium on the existing site of the practice field. This didn't seem likely, and turned out not to be the case. Now they are requesting a big chunk of a city park to make their stadium a reality. What is stopping them from asking for even more? They have offered to update the park but what we really need in this city is more green space, not less. 4- To the east of Sunnyside Park the University is rebuilding their student family housing and adding more units. Those families will surely use the park. We need more green space in this growing city, not less. Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns. I am hopeful that you will consider these thoughts when making your decision. Sincerely, Jennifer Evans 2/21/2024 11:37 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council • We are your neighbors. • We are good neighbors and citizens. • We take pride in our areas. • We are not a parking lot for the University. • We are not traffic control for sports games. • We are not the sanitation crew or toxic waste recyclers and we shouldn’t need to deal with public urination. • The dust is terrible when events happen. The wind kicks up and makes it hard to breathe. • The Mayor, The State, The University and Council Members Dugan does not care how we fell. • Stop being shellfish and listen to your neighbors. • The University has done nothing to help the neighborhood. • No one responds to our needs. • Everyone is arrogant and does not listen. We waste our breath talking since everything is already a done deal. • Now the University wants to take more areas and cause more issues for all the neighbors. Public comment received 2.20.24_3 pages Public comment received 2.20.24_3 pages Public comment received 2.20.24_3 pages Public comment received 2.20.24 SLC District (find your district here) 1,166 responses e D4: Eva Lopez e D?: Sarah Young e D3: Chris Wharton e D5: Darin Mano e D 1 : Victoria Petro e D2: Alejandro Puy e D6: Dan Dugan e Millcreek •1113 T Attachment 1 Timestamp Name (first, last) SLC District (find your district here)Signing as:Please share the name of the organization/affiliation: 1/10/2024 13:22:10 Nuanua Collective SLC Org An organization/affliation Nuanua Collective- LGBTQ+ Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islanders 1/10/2024 14:02:43 Armed Queers Salt Lake CitySLC Org An organization/affliation Armed Queers Salt Lake City 1/10/2024 14:08:48 mohammad alsolaiman D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual mohammad alsolaiman 1/10/2024 14:14:28 Nasif Islam D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:19:47 Jazmine Dumas D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:27:29 Sonja Cox D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:35:42 Helen, Hull D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:38:50 sabrina kratzer D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:41:58 Imani, Green D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 15:43:54 Rose unga D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 16:23:43 Jackson nye D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 16:24:38 Bayley Goldsberry D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 16:25:53 Narayani Archunan D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 16:42:39 Amal Ramic D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 17:24:37 Elizebeth Fisher D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 17:32:08 Jaydy Gunnell D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 17:33:49 Sophia Anderson D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 18:24:33 Milika, Havili D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 19:43:47 Moench, Adrienne D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 19:57:47 Kathleen Williams D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 19:59:03 Ian, Ferguson D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 20:20:51 Taryn Guiness D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual Taryn Guiness 1/10/2024 20:50:40 Gracie James D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 22:08:11 Alexys, Lawlor D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 22:20:26 Drew Shapiro D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 23:03:55 Mia, Swagerty D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/10/2024 23:58:23 Layla, Guran D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 1:29:26 Mirna, Elgendy D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 5:39:01 Eli Kauffman D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 6:54:08 Isla esqueda D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual Isla esqueda 1/11/2024 8:21:07 Cooper Gangi D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 9:05:17 McKenzie Shaffer-Kay D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 10:00:00 Eleanor Stevens D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 10:43:57 Kendall Thiede D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 12:45:38 Kailey Ellis D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 13:01:10 Dee Taylor SLC Org An organization/affliation Green Party of Utah 1/11/2024 13:10:30 Kenna Vaziri D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 13:13:35 Loren Ruiz D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 13:15:51 Finn Epperson-Valum D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 14:13:41 Luz Corrales D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 14:26:49 Faith Diment D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 16:01:38 Chloe Richards D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 16:35:59 Joey, Beckstead D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 16:40:15 Annie Smart D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 17:29:14 Ava Anderton D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 21:46:14 Amir Foy D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 21:56:44 Robert Waugh D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/11/2024 23:43:12 Emerson Alvarez D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An organization/affliation EKA Collective LLC 1/12/2024 5:05:47 Christina, Valentine D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 5:46:05 Alia, Khatib D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 8:29:58 Alechia Brule D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 8:35:20 Madeleine Burningham D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 9:32:22 Olivia Akerlow D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 9:59:57 K D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 10:21:32 India Ortiz D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 11:37:38 Grace, peeler D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 12:06:52 Courtney Francois D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 13:37:14 Dylan Trimble D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 14:56:30 Savannah Brown D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/12/2024 22:56:21 Monika, Cinbis D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/13/2024 9:45:18 Taylor Pratt D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual 1/13/2024 10:16:12 Macy Thompson D6: Dan Dugan: Dan Dugan An individual N/A Attachment 2 Timestamp Name (first, last) SLC District (find your district here)Signing as:Please share the name of the organization/affiliation: 1/16/2024 17:12:58 Marissa Beckstrom D6: Dan Dugan An individual 1/16/2024 19:46:36 Maya Wheeler D6: Dan Dugan An individual 2/6/2024 19:05:18 T D6: Dan Dugan An individual Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 4LI'llb CVM VNERMS"P" "1201 j'-7- ow cl 'r to 1� m I 1� I� N fit. lop 4kL At 40P 10 ao we CIO Cob C%W ap Resolution in support of an immediate cease-fire in Palestine WHEREAS, Chapter i of the United Nations Charter states that the purpose of the United Nations is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" and WHEREAS, Chapter I of the United Nations Charter further states that the purpose of the United Nations is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;" and WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly shall act if the Security Council, "because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;" and WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly convened an emergency meeting in which 153 out of 186 member nations voted in favor of adopting a resolution demanding "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza, the "immediate and unconditional release of all hostages," and "ensuring humanitarian access"; and WHEREAS, more than 28,775 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in over 136 days since October 7, 2023, including over 12,300 children, and more than 68,552 Palestinians have been injured in the same period; and WHEREAS, more than 85% of the population in Gaza, nearly 1.9 million people, have been displaced since the Israeli bombardments began on early October 7, 2023; seeking refuge in Rafah with further threats of displacement; and WHEREAS, entire neighborhoods, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and places of worship have been destroyed contributing to the erasure of Palestinian comnnmities and culture; and WHEREAS, several American citizens were killed in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel including the most recent murder of Mohammed Alkhdour, 17 years old, from Florida; and WHEREAS, a poll released by Data for Progress on December 5, 2023 states that 6 1 % of all likely voters in the United States, and 76% of Democratic voters support a permanent ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza; and WHEREAS, cities across the United States, including San Francisco, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Seattle, Washington; St Louis, Missouri; Detroit, Michigan; Atlanta, Georgia; Akron, Ohio; Wilmington, Delaware; Chicago, Illinois; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Somerville, Massachusetts; Medford, Massachusetts; Madera, California; Oakland, California, Long Beach, California; Culahy, California; Albany, New York; Providence, Rhode Island; and Richmond, California, as well as the countries of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have passed resolutions calling for ceasefire; and WHEREAS, a lasting ceasefire is critical to the delivery of direly needed humanitarian aid, the release of all hostages, and building a foundation for a lasting peace; and WHEREAS, the impacts of violence are particularly felt by our Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Jewish communities and their allies and supporters in the Salt Lake City area; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recognizes its own troubled Utahn history of settler colonialism, manifest destiny, and genocide against native people and that we continue to occupy the stolen land of the Shoshone, Paiute, Goshute, and Ute Tribes; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City hosted the 2002 XIX Olympic Winter Games and has been selected as the preferred candidate, working towards securing another bid to host the 2034 Winter Olympics and Paralympics and that our community is a welcoming place of friendship and prosperity for all people and cultures of the world; therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the members of the Salt Lake City Council, support the United Nations implementation of "Uniting for Peace," which called an emergency session of the General Assembly which voted in favor of "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza; and BE 1T RESOLVED, that we, the Salt Lake City Council, do hereby call for a permanent ceasefire to end the ongoing violence in Gaza; call for humanitarian assistance including medicine, food, and water, to be promptly delivered into all parts of Gaza; and the immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages, both Palestinian and Israeli; and BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Salt Lake City Council, support the memorialization and vigils held in honor of over 24,620 uninvolved women and children who fell victim to the ongoing state of violence; and BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the members of the Salt Lake City Council, call for the creation of plans to effectively protect civilian populations in the region, in particular to support the needs of women, children, persons with disabilities, and the elderly; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that suitable copies of this resolution be sent to President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, and the Utah Congressional delegation. International Olympic Committee IOC FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - OLVMPICWINTER GAMES SALT LAKE CITY UTAH,USA NOVEMBER 2023 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games SUMMARY - SALT LAKE CITY-UTAH Salt Lake City - Utah • Salt Lake City/Utah officially entered Continuous Dialogue in 2020 and has declared a preference for the Olympic Winter Games 2034 in view of the proximity of an LA 28 Games, but would remain available for a 2030 Games if needed • As a result, the Interested Party has chosen to fully develop its project for both Games editions (2030 and 2034) including guarantees from the local, regional and national governments for 2030 and 2034 • The Games would build on the positive legacies of Salt Lake City 2002 and increase the existing Games Legacy Fund in order to extend the lifecycle of numerous venues and sports development programmes • The venue masterplan is based on using 100% existing world class venues and is very compact, with all competition venues within one hour from the main Olympic Village in Salt Lake City. It would offer a unique opportunity for an exceptional athlete experience • The project enjoys very strong support from the national, regional and local governments as evidenced by guarantees and financial commitments provided • It also benefits from very high public confidence, with 80% support in Utah and 75% across the US C4 co Co (D CD 0 CD 0 IOC Feasibility Assessment — Olympic Winter Games OM Salt Lake City - Utah 4 1. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT • Country Background • Political Context • Human Development Context • Environmental Context • Human Rights Context • Economic Context IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Gaines COUNTRY BACKGROUND KEY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA • US population: 334 million • Utah population: 3.3 million • Salt Lake City population: 1.2 million in the metropolitan area • --25% of population < 20 years old • -16.5% of population > 65 years old • Life expectancy at birth: 77.2 Source:..UN DF' i U ... o.p_u_lati_ � 'C7C.T Salt Lake City - Utah WASHINGTON, DC 5 IOC Feasibility Assessment — Olympic Winter Games POLITICAL CONTEXT Salt Lake City - Utah g Polarised political landscape: • Although political stability risks have eased since January 2021 under President Biden, the country remains heavily divided on many issues, and this will continue to drive political tensions until the next Presidential elections in November 2024. • The Biden Administration's room for manoeuvre should be limited in the second half of his term as control of the House of Representatives shifted to the Republicans following the November 2022 mid-terrn elections. As the political environr vent remains highly polarised, opportunities for bipartisan legislation will be limited. Stability at State level: • Utah is a traditional Republican state. Republican Governor Cox, a firm Games supporter and Honorary Chair of the Bid Committee, was elected in 2020 with 63% of the vote. • US Senator from Utah Mitt Romney (who will not run for re-election in 2024) was the President of the Salt Lake City 2002 Organising Committee and is a strong supporter of the current Olympic project I 14 Source: COFACE / Economist Intelligence Unit IOC Feasibility Assessment- Olympic Winter Games Rw Salt Lake Gty- Uisli UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDG) - PERFORMANCE Source: OECD HOW TO READ THE CHARTS lh • The outer black circle = end value for 2030. The closer the dots are to the outer black circle, the closer the country/region/city is to reaching the intended outcomes for this goal rye oil 10C Feasbility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games (61W Salt Lake City - Utah 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT /USA Overall ranking (out of 180 countries) Score (out of 100) GHG emissions per capita Biodiversity Waste management 43 51.1 (+3.3 over last 10 years) 167th In i 46th is a joint project of the :�Vv & and The Center for International Earth Science Information Network C: at Columbia University's Earth Institute. It provides a data -driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world. Using 32 performance indicators across 11 issue categories, the EPI ranks 180 countries on environmental health and ecosystem vitality. 4 a R Jg, q M S,_ M E '."L czHVITR_ M! P .0 Renewable share of total energy consumption (including 10.4% transport, heating, industry, ...) - SDG 7.2 (IEA) Share of renewables in electricity generation (IEA) Air Pollution Index 2022 (February monthly average): PM 2.5 wvv!%/Jqair.cqm. 19.8 % Salt Lake City: 7 (slightly above WHO target 0-5) IOC Feasibility Assessment -Olympic Winter Game, Salt Lake City - Utah HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT A,*.1tiT "141..4 Human Rights Treaties Ratification - OHCHR USA has ratified 5 out of 18 human rights treaties ILO Core Conventions Ratifications - ILO USA has ratified 2 out of 11 ILO Core Conventions United Nations Convention against Corruption USA ratified the Convention in 2006 and has completed the first cycle of implementation review i x Ow Em-0-040-1n>.sa IN K 'i' wA 4 M.N. m.`�.. Rule of Law Indicator - World Bank 88.7/100 - Rule of law is strong Corruption Perception Index - Transoarencv 69/100 - Risk of corruption is perceived to be low International {RM a q . _ . Freedom of Press - RSF Index 71.22 (ranked 45/180) - Satisfactory situation Freedom of Expression - Article 19 87/100 - Open freedom of expression Data Protection and Privacy - UNCTAD The US has legislation in place (Privacy Act of 1974 and Federal Trade Commission Act 15) to secure the protection of data and privacy Freedom on the Net Score - Freedom House 76/100 - Free internet with no key internet controls observed R k Global Workers' Rights Index (International Medium -high risk Trade Union Confederation, 2023) Global Slavery Index (Walk Free, 2023) Low risk Global Gender Gap (World Economic Forum, 0.748/1 -Gender gap is low 2023) ,UC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games qs�9 Salt Lake Ctty - Wall 10 HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT In line with Olympic Agenda 2020+5, the IOC commissioned a third -party independent not -for -profit organisation, Business for on ibiliz, 'RSA s), to conduct a report on the Human Rights situation in the United States of America (US) and to identify Games legacy opportunities .............. _... ............ ....... ..... ........... ................... Extracts o ,��.�w�r�tr, Report u#,�£�,a y The overall risk profile of the US is generally low • High-level human rights indicators and strong tradition of rule of law position the US as a global advocate and defender of human rights. Overall, civil and political liberties are enabled by strong federal legislation and enforcement of rights protection. • There are some legal mechanisms in place limiting the importation of goods made with forced labour. In addition, the US has several initiatives to limit human trafficking and sex trafficking in the country. • The human rights risk level has increased in the last several years as public trust in democratic institutions is eroding and there are increasingly high levels of political polarisation, gun violence, and social unrest throughout the country. Furthermore, racism and discrimination are still prevalent in some areas of society and migrant and undocumented workers are more likely to experience poor working conditions AREAS TO MONITOR • Gun violence and social unrest • Racial and sexual orientation discrimination 0 Rights protection for migrant and undocumented workers IOC Feasibility Assessment- Olympic Winter Games ECONOMIC CONTEXT USA Aaa - minimal risk Utah Aaa - minimal risk Salt Lake City Aaa - minimal risk GDP: USD 22,997 bn (Qofqge) GDP per capita of USD 69,227 (. GDP growth * 2.1% (!Q.-'QQ, 2,0,22) r� . ........ . .................. ..... .... I Inflation: (QEQ'D 2,0 2 2) 4 * 4.2% (. ')0 3 ..... ....... .... ....... ;.. . 2 . ....... Public debt(% GDP): 144% (., ECE.) Unemployment rate: • 3.6%(( ".)& • 3.7%(0ECD,or2023) --- ...... . . - ------ - ------ Ranked 2nd in i (-,-, n H idea "v^V 1 10 2;"_'2 2 (W Salt Lake City - Utah 11 INU111111110I11MV10II , OPPORTUNITIES • High levels of stability from a socio-economic perspective • Largest economy in the world - big commercial market • Country context provides good foundation to align the Games with Olympic Agenda 2020+5 • The overall Human Rights risk profile is generally low as there is a strong tradition of rule of law and protection of civil liberties US ranks 24 out of 180 in Environmental Performance Index I IOC Feasibility Assessment — Olympic Winter Games Sall Lake City - Utah Vision & Legacy, Alignment and Venue Masterplan • Vision & Legacy • Alignment with existing development plans • Venue Masterplan Support and Funding Strategy • Political Support • Private Sector and Civil Society Support • Public Support • Governance and Funding Strategy Games Delivery • Sports/Event Experience • Meteorological Data • Accommodation capacity • Transport (incl. airport) infrastructure • Energy & Telecom 0 Safety and Security 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games Salt Lake City - Utah FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SOURCES • IOC background research supported by IOC Olympic Games advisors • Independent third -party reports • Information gathered throughout Continuous Dialogue in the form of workshops and meetings • Salt Lake City joined Continuous Dialogue in October 2020 24 min 111 Salt Lake City Utah ,MIN PyeongChcng 23 fs'l SAW to, ......... TitAw IOC Feasibility Assessment— Olympic Winter Games RS6) Salt Lake City - Utah 16 VISION & LEGACY The vision presented by Salt Lake City -Utah is based on the theme of "elevate". The aim is to leverage hosting the Olympic Winter Games to elevate: - Communities: using the Games as a platform to achieve transformational and sustainable change, by fostering unity, forging stronger social bonds, and inspiring youth through the Olympic Values - Sport: by expanding youth sports participation, building on existing elite and sport -for -all programmes and establishing life-long active and healthy habits - Games experience: delivering exceptional Games for all stakeholders, especially the athletes and their families. Athletes would benefit from a compact concept for a unique Olympic Village offering opportunities to celebrate together. The legacy ambition is to foster a global winter sports community by further transforming Salt Lake City into an international athlete development hub, providing: • World -class facilities • Training facilities • Athlete housing • Mental health wellness • Coaching programmes • Competitions at all levels Source; Salt Lake City - Utah Documentation IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games (W Salt Lake City - Utah 17 ALIGNMENT WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLANS Hosting the Games will be a catalyst for key community priorities/development plans in Utah: • Renew funding for Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation • The existing Foundation was founded from a surplus from the Olympic Winter Games Salt Lake City 2002 and is responsible for managing and maintaining to world class standard the 2002 legacy facilities and providing opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to participate in winter sport • Use of 100% renewable energy by 2030 • Reduce CO2 emissions by 50% • Accelerate adoption of public transportation • Bring communities together: diversity, equality, inclusion and access Source: Salt Lake City - Utah Documentation CW Salt Lake CRY - Utah IOC Feast6illty AssesNsment MjRT-01ympic Winter Games V11TH OLyMPIC AGENDA 2 AL IG i00% of competition venues existing or temporary IBC / MPC Existing Salt Palace Convention Centre (63,00OM2) r jA EXISTING EXISTING (permanent works required) TEMPORARY NEW (PLANNED) OPENING AND CLOSING Existing Rice -Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City 3� 18 I OLYMPIC VILLAGE Olympic Village*. Existing - University of Utah • Additional athlete accommodation needed in Heber City for biathlon/cross country athletes 100% of beds in existing accommodation University of Utah student housing and existing apartments 1 existing hotels IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Gaines om VENUE MASTERPLAN 01EN *SNOWBASIN RESORT WEBER COUNTY SPORTS C L Elio Salt Lake City - Utah 3 OLYMPIC MEDALS PLAZA VIVINTARENA,IJ o+c SALT LAKE C IT2 Y i PRICE-ECCLES STADIUM ov . .... i:-oWTAOL0P1C M,wERIK-**4i EIR IBC PARR' CITY M UTAH OLYMPIC OVAL - � L-, •I'll DEER VALLEY RESORT\ MPC is I riFj "] " i , ff�kl 14, HEESER C': TY :R HOLLOW NORDIC CENTER PEAKS ICE ARENA PFtOv, 15 km IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games Rw Salt Lake City - Utah 20 VENUE MASTERPLAN: PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES is Venues only venues proposed) 15 km 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games VENUE MASTERPLAN Sports • -Proposed CompetitionVenues Downhill Alpine Skiing Super G (Speed and Giant Slalom Snowbasin Resort Existing Technical) Slalom Super Combined Biathlon / Biathlon Cross -Country / Soldier Hollow Nordic Centre Existing Nordic Combined Cross -Country Bobsleigh Bobsleigh Utah Olympic Park - Sliding Skeleton Centre Existing Luge Luge CurlingCurling g Weber County Sports Existing Complex Ice Hockey Ice Hockey 1 Maverik Center Existing Salt Lake City - Utah 19,000 15,000 15,000 11,000 10,000 Ice Hockey 2 Peaks Ice Arena Existing 10,000 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games W9 Salt Lake City - Utah VENUE MASTERPLAN Short Track Vivint Arena Existing 15,000 Skating Figure Skating Speed Skating Utah Olympic Oval Existing 7,000 Ski Jumping / Ski Jumping Utah Olympic Park - Ski Jump Existing 18,000 Nordic Combined NH/LH FS Aerials Deer Valley Resort Existing 10,000 FS Moguls FS / SB Cross Utah Olympic Park - FS / SB Existing (permanent the SB PGS Track works) Snowboard / Freestyle FS / SB Half -pipe Park City Mountain Existing 16,000 FS / SB Slopestyle FS / SB Big Air Olympic Medals Plaza Temporary 30,000 22 IOC Feasibility Assessment- Olympic Winter Gaines Salt Lake City - Utah 23 VENUE MASTERPLAN: SALT LAKE CITY CLUSTER 4 Competition venues Ceremonies IBC / MPC 1 Olympic Village 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic 'hinter Games `CRP Salt Lake City - Utah 24 n OLYMPIC MEDALS PLAZA an Big Air Freestyle Skiing / Snowboard x� 7 1 itc, pl i Status Temporary Construction n/a Future Works n/a Capacity 30,000 (temporary) Owner Private Operator n/a Experience Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Medals Plaza) VIVINT ARENA ROME Figure Skating / Short Track Status Existing Construction 1990 (renovated 2017) Future Works n/a Capacity 15,000 Owner Private Operator Private Experience Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Figure Skating / Short Track) • Home of Utah Jazz (NBA) IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games qW Salt Lake City- Utah 25 MAVERIK CENTER Ice Hockey I Status Existing Construction 1997 Future Works Upgrade of electronic and sound system, concession areas and locker rooms planned Capacity 10,000 Owner Public Operator Private Experience • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Ice Hockey) • Home of Utah Grizzlies (Regional Ice Hockey League) • Concerts and Shows UTAH OLYMPIC OVAL Speed Skating Status Construction Future Works Capacity Owner Operator Experience F14- Existing 2001 n/a 7,000 (4,000 permanent / 3,000 temporary) Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Speed Skating) • 2005, 2007, 2013, 2020 ISU World Championships • 2024 Four Continents Championships • Regular World Cup events 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games OM Salt Lake City- Utah 26 RICE-ECCLES STADIUM Ceremonies ¢y M �N i Status Existing -�� Construction 1927 (renovated in 1998) ' `Apt` Future Works Upgrades planned by 2026 Capacity 60,000: 51,000 (permanent), 9,000 (temporary) • To be used for both Opening and Closing Ceremonies Owner Public (University of Utah) Operator Public (University of Utah) Experience • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Opening and Closing Ceremonies) • Home of Utah Utes (NCAA) IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games 1:6W Salt Lake City- Utah 27 • To be used for both IBC and MPC SALT PALACE CONVENTION CENTER IBC /MPC Status Existing Construction 1995 Future Works n/a Total floor area 48,000m2 exhibition space 15,000m2 meeting space Site area 100,000m2 Owner Public Operator ASM Global 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games W9 Salt Lake City - Utah 28 VENUE MASTERPLAN: OGDEN CLUSTER 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games WEBER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX In Curling Status Existing Construction 1994 (Renovated in 1999) Future Works New stands, locker rooms, concession areas, ice system Capacity 11,000 (3,600 permanent, 7,400 temporary) Owner Public Operator Public Experience • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Curling) OM Salt Lake City - Utah SNOWBASIN RESORT Alpine Skiing Status Future Works Finish area(s) Capacity Owner Operator Experience Existing Technical course would need moderate widening 1 19,000 Private Private • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Alpine Skiing Speed events) • 2019, 2020, 2022 FIS Alpine Skiing Competition • 2017, 2018 University Alpine Skiing competition 29 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games QW Salt Lake City - Utah 30 VENUE MASTERPLAN: MOUNTAIN CLUSTER 6 Competition venues Distance (by road) Salt Lake City - Utah Olympic Park: 37km - Park City Mountain: 43km - Deer Valley Resort: 46km - Soldier Hollow: 71km IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games UTAH OLYMPIC PARK JUMPS BPI Ski Jumping (NH/LH) / Nordic Combined A • � I { t� Status Construction Future Works Capacity Owner Operator Experience f bf I J Existing 1997 Planned upgrade: replacement of the ski track by 2026 18,000 Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation • Olympic Winter Games 2002 • 2001, 2004 World Cup (Ski Jumping, Nordic Combined) • 2002, 2006 B World Cup (Nordic Combined) • Regular Continental Cups Salt Lake City- Utah UTAH OLYMPIC PARK TRACK Bob / Skeleton / Luge Status Existing Construction 1997 Future Works Planned upgrade: cover sections of the track by 2023 Capacity 15,000 Owner Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Operator Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Experience • Olympic Winter Games 2002 • 2005 FIL World Luge Championships • 2016 Para World Championships • Regular IBSF and FIL World Cup events • Regular Para World Cup Events 31 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Gaines PARK CITY MOUNTAIN Snowboard / Freestyle Skiing Status Existing Future Works n/a Finish area(s) 1 Capacity 16,000 Owner Private Operator Private Experience • Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Alpine Skiing (Giant Slalom), Snowboard) • 2011 FIS Freestyle World Championships • 2019 FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships (HP, SS) • Regular FIS World Cup events +�+0 Salt Lake City- Utah SOLDIER HOLLOW NORDIC CENTER ��N Biathlon / Cross -Country / Nordic Combined Status Existing Construction 2000 Future Works n/a Capacity 15,000 Owner Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Operator Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Experience Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Cross -Country / Biathlon) • 2019 IBU World Cup • Regular FIS Competitions (Cross -Country / Nordic Combined) 32 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games Ry Salt Lake City - Utah 33 UTAH OLYMPIC PARK SB / FS TRACK Snowboard / Freestyle Skiing Status Existing (permanent works required) Future Works Development started in summer 2022 Finish area(s) 1 Capacity the Owner Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Operator Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Experience n/a DEER VALLEY RESORT Snowboard / Freestyle Skiing 4 Status Future Works Finish area(s) Capacity Owner Operator Experience § J+ s Existing New development planned for 2023 1 10,000 Private Private • 2019 FIS Freestyle and Snowboard World Championships (Aerials, Moguls) IOC Feasibility Assessment— Olympic Winter Games (W Salt Lake City- Utah VENUE MASTERPLAN: STAND-ALONE VENUES © EFt +SNt VVESER COUNTY SPORT'S C Lis�K OLYMPIC MEDALS PLAZA i ! VMNTARENA, tr• SALT LAKE CITY�RcE-E.cc.I..ESSrAcIuM +UTA kOLYMPIC PARK` ~ h,1AVERIK C E PAA CITY Cv1OUNTAI� UTAH OLYMPIC OVAL / i [ DEER VALLEY RESORT , I ( _`4t . HEBER CITY n �SOj E}iE 2 HOLLOW NORDIC CENTER C !� t ti i � f t l KS ICE RENA 34 Is km 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games 999 Salt Lake City - Utah PEAKS ICE ARENA Ice Hockey II Status Existing Construction 1997 Future Works Planned upgrades: permanent stand and new locker rooms Capacity 10,000 (2,500 permanent / 7,500 temporary) Owner Public Operator Public Experience Olympic Winter Games 2002 (Ice Hockey) • Home of BYU Men's Ice Hockey (NCAA) 35 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games QW Salt Lake City - Utah VENUE MASTERPLAN: OLYMPIC VILLAGES - University of Utah is expanding its on -campus housing to more than double number of beds to 11.000 beds Village 1: University of Utah 5,000+ - World class facilities for athletes - Although not required, Venue Use Agreement already secured for 2030 and 2034 Additional optional athlete - Availability of numerous alternative optional housing locations in Heber City accommodation: Heber City TBC near to snow venues to complete the overall accommodation proposal for (15 min from Soldier Hollow, same Games athletes and officials altitude: 1,700m above sea level) TOTAL 5,000+ IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games OM Salt Lake City - Utah 37 VENUE MASTERPLAN: PROTECTED AREAS Mountain venues screened through buffer analysis* Soldier Hollow Utah Olympic Park - Park City Mountain Snowbasin Resort :...__.._.........._....._.._._._........................................................ Map lege d Venue kni buffer 5 #xn bu7e r Frctec!c-d Area *Source: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Biodiversity proximity analysis: Olympic Winter Games - potential venue locations **Protected area in direct proximity of Utah Olympic Park serves as dog walking park / No environmental impact foreseen from hosting the Games ***As required by the Olympic Host Contract OPPORTUNITIES • Games vision and legacy objectives fully aligned with existing sports development priorities: Games as an opportunity to elevate Utah as a premium sports tourism destination and host of major international winter sports events • Further fund state-of-the-art sports infrastructure in Utah • Extend sports legacy programmes for years to come • Venue Masterplan fully aligned with Olympic Agenda 2020 - 100% existing or temporary competition venues • Compact concept, with all competition venues within one hour of the main Olympic Village at University of Utah, which would enhance athlete experience • Existing venues for IBC / MPC and Ceremony stadium • All venues are well -maintained and have already benefited from capital investments or have investment plans in place for improvements that would enhance feasibility and readiness for the Games • Experienced venue operators and event delivery capacity (e.g. Olympic Legacy Foundation) 10C . ;r m cc [,,r:rq I jlrf IND 'UNDING., �iTII AT rf%ml �� �©>� §�� � .`> y��� y_,����� \ ............ .... ..... - ........... . �`\� }< )+ ow e4 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games OM Salt Lake City - Utah 40 POLITICAL SUPPORT Salt Lake City Full Support • Salt Lake City Mayor is an Honorary Chair of the bid committee and provided guarantees* including essential municipal services Utah Government Full Support • Governor of Utah is an Honorary Chair of the Bid Committee and has provided a set of guarantees* including the Games Delivery Guarantee for both 2030 and 2034 • This was backed by both chambers of Utah parliament (House and Senate) that passed two Olympic Games -related bills unanimously to enable the Governor to sign the Host Contract and provide the guarantees Not required / not planned Not required / not planned National Government Full Support Not required / not • Support letter from President Biden received planned • National government has provided relevant guarantees* for both 2030 and 2034 *Not required in Continuous Dialogue IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games Rw Salt Lake City - Utah 41 PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY SUPPORT Private Sector Utah's business community supports the Games in 2030 and 2034 • Several local business leaders sit on the Governing Board of the Salt Lake City -Utah Committee for the Games Civil Society Support received from: • Olympic and Paralympic athletes • National Sports Federations IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games Q11W Salt Lake City - Utah PUBLIC SUPPORT IOC OPINION POLL (SEPTEMBER 2023) 757o 807o 80,7 . tal L�Dsewhere 'in Utah Source: Publicis Sport & Entertainment Opinion Poll, September 2023 6'T Elsewh--re 42 In t<WOU' -cif hosting nor disagree ■ Noi in favour o,; hosting Don't know IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games W9 Salt Lake City - Utah GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING STRATEGY Games Operational — The Games Operational budget has been thoroughly and fully developed bottom -up by Budget* and approach to experts with past Games experience and would be 100% privately -funded Games Delivery Guarantee — For a 2030 Games, the balanced budget is estimated at USD 2.45bn (2030 values)** including a contingency reserve but excluding the NOC revenue share and a legacy endowment fund for sport development and to maintain venues post -Games. The budget includes approximately USD 765m from domestic sponsorship. — The State of Utah has passed legislation to enable provision of the Games Delivery Guarantee by the Governor of Utah, which has been provided — Almost all venue use agreements have been signed which provides some certainty on the expenditure side (for 2030 and 2034) — For a 2034 Games, work is well advanced on a 2034 Games budget, which can also benefit from the guarantees already provided (VUAs, Games Delivery Guarantee, etc.) Government Support — Security will be provided by the national government as the Olympic Winter Games would Services receive designation as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) (same as for LA 2028 and Salt Lake City 2002) as confirmed by Homeland Security — Other public support services have been committed to by the different levels of government but would need to be supported by an incremental contribution from the OCOG for which an initial provision in the OCOG budget has been made * In Continuous Dialogue, no Games Operational Budget requested **Source: Salt Lake City - Utah Documentation Sait fake COY m _tentEGV Doc nentatlon ur ouree: Salt Lave City Utah S a4 I 1 111 V 0 11 OPPORTUNITIES • Strong support from city, state and national governments Guarantees received from Salt Lake City Mayor State legislation passed to enable guarantees and signature of Host Contract for both 2030 and 2034 Guarantees received from Federal Government for both 2030 and 2034 • Strong public support (80% support in Utah) • The fully developed bottom -up operational budget (2030 and 2034) is foreseen to be privately -funded and would be underwritten by the State of Utah • Almost all (90%) venue use agreements, including for the Olympic Village, have been signed which provides some certainty on the expenditure side • No significant capital investment required - all venues are existing and regularly well -maintained • Security fully provided by national government as Olympic Winter Games would receive designation as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Cannes OM Salt Lake City - Utah 47 EVENT DELIVERY - SPORTS EXPERIENCE INTERNATIONAL WINTER SPORTS EVENTS IN OLYMPIC SPORTS IN THE SEASONS 2012/13 - 2022/23: rl 147 upsd7 Roampionships • The US has hosted 154 World Championships or World Cups in 14 out of 15 Olympic disciplines over the past 10 years • In addition, the US will host a further 3 World Championships by 2030 • 5 out of the 11 proposed competition venues have hosted major events in the respective sports between 2013/14 and 2022/23 • US ranked 4t" at Beijing 2022 with 25 medals (delegation of 224 athletes) • Very experienced venue operators and event organisers in the region IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Gaines QRP Salt Lake City - Utah 48 METEOROLOGY Mean daily min. temperature (°C) -3.0 -1.0 1.0 Mean daily max. temperature (°C) 4.0 6.0 12.0 Mean total monthly precipitation (mm) 55.0 47.0 49.0 Mean number of precipitation days 11.9 11.3 11.8 Mean daily min. temperature (°C) -7.0 -7.0 -4.0 Mean daily max. temperature ('C) -1.0 0.0 5.0 Mean total monthly precipitation (mm) 97.0 85.0 85.0 Mean number of precipitation days 14.5 13.5 15.4 Mean daily min. temperature (°C) -7.0 -6.0 -3.0 Mean daily max. temperature (°C) 1.0 1.0 7.0 Mean total monthly precipitation (mm) 72.0 66.0 60.0 Mean number of precipitation days 12.8 12.3 13.3 Source: Meteoblue (30-year period) OPPORTUNITIES • The US has excellent experience in organising and hosting major international events in most Olympic winter sports • Salt Lake City can rely on experienced venue operators and sports event workforce, in line with the IOC's event delivery approach • Good amount of natural snow and sufficiently low average temperatures for artificial snowmaking 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games ACCOMMODATION GAMES NEEDS: 24,000 ROOMS FOR GAMES STAKEHOLDERS f♦ AN Salt Lake City area 33,000 rooms 10,000 listings (-50km radius) Provo (-10km radius) Ogden (-10km radius) 2,000 rooms 1,000 rooms 500 listings 300 listings TOTAL 36,000 rooms 10,800 listings Source: Utah Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity Office of Tourism / Park City Chamber of Commerce / Convention & Visitors Bureau / tripadvisor.com /AirDNA Salt Lake City - Utah 50 IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games TRANSPORT ROOM] OG )EN 0 SNOWBASI N RESORT WEBER COUNTY SPORTS C L :OLYMPIC MEDALS PLAZA VIVINTARENA o+c SALT LAKE CITY 1 RICE-ECCLES STADium ov Salt Lake City - Utah UTAKOLYMPIC M MAVERIK C R lot - PARR CITY M UTAH OLY11APIC OVAL * L- j # I MPC DEER VALLL-v'RESORT . � 0010 -Af jHEBER CITY SO liEN HOLLOW NORDIC CENTER PEAKS ICE ARENA 15 km 51 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games TRANSPORT Salt Lake City - Utah ')2 Distances and travel times - All venues are within 60 minutes of the Olympic Village at the University of Utah. for athletes and officials - Athletes competing at some venues such as the Soldier Hollow Nordic Center (over 50 minutes from Olympic Village) would benefit from additional athlete accommodation due to difference in altitude. General strategy - All proposed Games venues are in operation today and the existing transportation network serves these venues well for hosting events: - Venues in Salt Lake City can be accessed by road and rail - Venues outside Salt Lake City in the mountains can be accessed by road (bus shuttle) - Services can be increased as required to ensure convenient transportation services for all stakeholder groups. Salt Lake City - Utah 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic tinter Games TRANSPORT • • •deliveredrequired. r Games could be feasibly would be regh the e and Paralympnt ic Winter capital investments _ A future Olympicor transport -related Infrastructure transportation network and no mad arting to 99 non-stop destinations every day, Salt Lake City _ With more than 370 flights dep rd busiest airport in North America and the 85tn busies Airport International Airport is currently the 23 us in the world. or upgrade/expansion. The airport is currently undergoing a maj per year, which adequately meets the Gam2030, passengers p Y pax per day by Current capacity is 26 million p ax er day will increase to 40,000 p Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 2002) needs (current capacity of 30,000 tired e the which is double the capacitycomp source: sicairport.com IOC Feasibility Assessment- Olympic Winter Games GAMES DELIVERY: SUMMARY CW Salt Lake City - Utah 54 AREAS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Mountain venues (Alpine venues, Snowboard / Freestyle venues and Nordic Centre) need to be served by dedicated bus solutions (road access only) Traffic management measures required for Salt Lake City February is high season for the mountain resorts which may impact availability and prices 10C Feasibility Assessment - Olympic W inter Games ENERGY & TELECOM RW Salt Lake City - Utah 55 - Energy network in the State of Utah and the neighbouring regions is well -developed to support Games demand. - PacifiCorp is an investor -owned electric utility, that has the size and experience to plan, finance and execute any necessary investments in the region's power grid. - Electricity generation mix in the State is gradually shifting to renewable energy. - Sustainability is well -integrated in the State's "Energy and Innovation Plan". Opportunities exist through the excellent solar potential of the region. - Investment in Games -related energy infrastructure to be managed alongside a very extensive overall investment plan, associated with the transition towards a high integration level of variable renewable generation. - Salt Lake City possesses the required telecommunications infrastructure to host the Olympic Winter Games. - There is strong evidence of advanced telecoms networks in Salt Lake City and the compact nature of the venue master plan can be expected to minimise the requirements and costs for additional telecoms infrastructure. - Availability of fibre and diverse fibre routes to mountain areas (Park City, Snowbasin Resort, Soldier Hollow, Utah Olympic Park) should be further explored. Source: IOC Energy and Telecom Advisors IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games GAMES SAFETY AND SECURITY QW Salt Lake City - Ucah 56 Security Forces - National Special Security Event (NSSE) designation ensures unified command of all security capabilities necessary to meet the safety and security requirements while also ensuring sufficient resources are available for integrated planning. Geopolitical - Tensions with China over its challenge to US global political and economic power, and with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, fuel enduring geopolitical risks in the US. Terrorism - There remains a persistent threat of terrorism from `lone actors', `single -issue' activists, `extremists', and from self -radicalised individuals. - The threat of sophisticated `mass -casualty' attacks by trans -national terrorists exists, although effective intelligence and security has substantially mitigated these threats. Infrastructure - - Geopolitical tensions between the US and China, and the US and Russia, elevate the risk of country - Water, backed cyber-attacks against SLC critical infrastructure. Cyber security protection measures in SLC Telecommunication, are strong. SLC IT infrastructure is well regarded and supports `big data' and a major US intelligence Technological and data centre. Cyber Risks - The risk of infrastructure failures adversely impacting Games in SLC is low. Natural - Natural disasters, including tectonic activity, drought and storms can affect SLC. However, the city's Catastrophes infrastructure has proven to be resilient to these environmental hazards. Specific contingency planning against earthquakes is advised for the Games. Source: IOC Security Advisor 111U911111111 ii31i► 92 • Salt Lake City possesses the required telecommunications infrastructure to host the Games • Potential for reuse of basic fiber infrastructure installed for the 2002 Games, subject to confirmation • Energy network in the State of Utah and the neighbouring regions well developed to support Games demand • There is a credible prospect of a safe, secure and peaceful celebration of the Games in the US • The National Special Security Event (NSSE) arrangements would offer a low -risk outcome for Olympic Security planning and delivery • While a persistent threat of terrorism and gun violence exists, the arrangements for prevention and response adequately mitigate this risk to low IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SOURCES RW Salt Lake City - Utah 58 • Salt Lake City - Utah feasibility documents • IOC Energy and Telecom Advisors • IOC Security Advisor • IOC Venue, Transports and Accommodation Advisor • AirDNA • Article 19 • Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) • Coface • Economist Intelligence Unit • Environmental Performance Index (EPI) • Freedom House • International Energy Agency (I EA) • International Labor Organization (ILO) • International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) • IQAir • Meteoblue • Moody's • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) • Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) • Publicis Sport & Entertainment (PSE) • Reporters without Borders (RSF) • Transparency International • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) • University of Innsbruck / University of Waterloo (Climate Reliability Study) • Tripadvisor • Walk Free • World Economic Forum (WEF) • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) • World Bank • Data from Salt Lake City Airport / Park City Chamber of Commerce / Utah Office of Economic Opportunity / Utah Office of Tourism IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Winter Games QW 59 CREDITS © International Olympic Committee International Olympic Committee Maison Olympique,1007 Lausanne, Switzerland olvmpics.com Published by the International Olympic Committee - November 2023 Original version: English All rights reserved Photo credits: © Getty Images © IOC © 2023 Google (maps)