The URL can be used to link to this page

06/04/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDA June 4, 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: 14:35:14 LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Board/Council Member Dan Dugan will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.LBA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution that would adopt the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The LBA’s Capital Projects Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-25 only includes the bond debt services for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries. (Other Capital projects throughout the City are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget; see the Capital Improvement Program Budget Book.) The LBA is a financing tool for cities and government entities, like libraries, to bond for capital projects at better interest rates. Capital projects are big construction projects like parks, public buildings, and street projects. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.LBA ADJOURNMENT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. D.RDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). E.RDA ADJOURNMENT: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. F.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 2.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of February 6, 2024; March 26, 2024; and May 7, 2024, as well as the formal meeting minutes of April 16, 2024. 3.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing Home Depot and its Dedicated Employees for their service to Salt Lake City. G.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Ordinance: Title 18 Text Amendments The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the text of Titles 2, 5, 18 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to update references to state adopted code, modify building code enforcement appeal process, add and increase building enforcement fines and penalties to match zoning enforcement and cost of operations. The changes are necessary to bring the City's building regulations into compliance with state law. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 30, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 11, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance: Planning and Historic Landmark Commission Membership and Appeals Hearing Officer Term Limit 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 the membership and term length of zoning decision-making bodies. The proposal is intended to reduce the minimum required number of commissioners for both the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission so that if there is a sudden exit of commissioners, both land use authorities would be able to conduct City business. The proposal would also remove the language stating that the appeals hearing officer can serve no more than two consecutive five-year terms. This amendment will affect Chapter 21A.06 Decision Making Bodies and Officials. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 30, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Ordinances listed below (G3 – G11) are associated with the implementation of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Salt Lake City, including the Library Fund, for the Fiscal Year 2024-25. All ordinances will be heard as one public hearing. 3.Ordinances relating to Fiscal Year 2024-25 City Budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for Salt Lake City, Utah, excluding the budget for the Library Fund, which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2024-25. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4.Ordinance: Adopting the Budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2024-25. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5.Ordinance: Adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2024-25. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6.Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance amending various fees and fee information set forth in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7.Ordinance: Compensation Plan for All Non-represented employees of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for all non-represented employees of Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 8.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of an MOU between Salt Lake City and AFSCME for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2024-25, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1004, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 9.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the International Association of Firefighters for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating the necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2024-25, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters Local 81, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 10.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Association for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2024-25, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 11.Ordinance: Compensation Adjustment for Elected and Statutory Officers The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation adjustment for elected and statutory officers of Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). H.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Resolution: Authorizing Assistance for Fairmont Heights Senior Housing Development at 2257 South 1100 East The Council will consider a resolution that would adopt the conclusions of the public benefit analysis for the proposed Fairmont Heights Project at 2257 South 1100 East. The project would provide approximately 110 units of new affordable senior housing on a 0.81-acre property. The Administration intends to use $5.6 million in “dormant” funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and seeks authorization from the Council to negotiate final terms with the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 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 a single remaining item for traffic safety improvements to the intersection of 2200 West and 2100 North. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024; Tuesday, May 7, 2024; and Tuesday, May 14, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). I.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) J.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. K.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Shades of Pale, Inc. The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $350,000 loan for Shades of Pale, Inc. at 1388 South 300 West from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Shades of Pale is a local microbrewer with a regional distribution. This loan will assist in the creation of 10 new jobs in the next year and the retention of 11 current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). L.CONSENT: 1.Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Karen Ferguson The Council will consider approving the appointment of Karen Ferguson to the City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee Board for a term ending July 17, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 2.Board Reappointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board – Talula Pontuti The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Talula Pontuti to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending June 4, 2027. 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, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 3.Board Reappointment: Art Design Board – Tiffini Porter The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Tiffini Porter to the Art Design Board for a term ending June 4, 2027. 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, June 4, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. M.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 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. Item B1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY25 TO:Board Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Resolution: Budget for the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2024-25 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Board close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Board continue the public hearing to a future date. Item D1 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/SLCFY25 TO:Board Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Board close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Board continue the public hearing to a future date. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, February 6, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Jorge Chamorro – Director of Public Services, Lex Traughber – Senior Planner - Community & Neighborhoods, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Kristin Riker – Public Lands Department Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Aaron Barlow – Principal Planner, Hannah Barton – Community Liaison, Greg Cleary – City Budget Director, Nannette Larsen – Senior Planner, Kimberly Chytraus – Senior City Attorney , Cassie Younger – Senior Planner - Community & Neighborhoods, Angela Price – Legislative Affairs Director, Tony Milner – Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development, Trevor Ovenden – Principal Planner, Amy Thompson – Planning Manager The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. 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 Hannah Barton gave the following updates from the Administration: •Planning Commission current projects •Sustainability and Climate Priorities Survey closing February 11, 2024 •Community Outreach Office Hours would be held every other month Andrew Johnston gave the following Homelessness Updates: •Shelters and winter beds were at full capacity •Encampment Impact Mitigation / Rapid Intervention updates •Resource Fair to be held on February 9, 2024 •Code Blue shelter volunteers needed •State Legislative funding requests ◦Public safety and emergency services ◦Prevention ◦Behavioral Health 2.Ordinance: Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District ~ 2:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal 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. 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3 Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Lex Traughber presented the following information: •Princeton Heights neighboring the proposed district •Local Historic District steps •Property owner public support survey – 85% voting turnout Becky Woods (Petitioner) thanked the Council for their time and discussed creating a historical district within their neighborhood to preserve the community. Council Member Wharton disclosed that their partner was involved with this historic district but has not received compensation for their work and stated no conflict of interest. Council Members and Staff discussed Local Historic Districts related to the recently passed Affordable Housing Incentives (AFI) and how that would affect new construction, concluding that new construction would not affect AFI, but would support it. 3.Ordinance: Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments at Approximately 2445 South 500 East (Woodland Commons)~ 2:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal 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. 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 19, 2024 Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Trevor Ovenden presented the following information: •Requesting rezoning from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential •The Sugar House Master Plan described low and medium-density The petitioner spoke about the desire to create for-sale developments and how the plans fit into the surrounding zoning. Council Members discussed how the request could be accommodated in the current ADI MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 4 program for for-sale units and how smaller units could be created. The Petitioner was not interested in redoing his plans to make the units smaller but would be willing to discuss the incentives of affordable housing developments. 4.Resolution: Authorizing the Salt Lake County Housing Authority to Operate within Salt Lake City for The Deeply Affordable Housing Development 44 North Apartments ~ 2:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal 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 19, 2024 Ben Luedtke introduced the item. Tony Milner presented the following information: •US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations applied to this project •Authorization given by the Housing Authority •Goal being a minimum of 2,000 units at deeply affordable rates built and available •Disabled individuals experiencing/experienced homelessness •High-Density zoning approved •Enterprise Green Certified •Managed by First-Step House •Completion projected for 2026 Council Members discussed the following: •First Step House and its ability to put service first and help individuals •Thanked the team for all their work •Madsen Park and the homelessness mitigation along North Temple 5.City’s Annual Financial Audit Report ~ 3:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5 20 min. The Council will be briefed about the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the previous fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Mary Beth Thompson introduced the item. Michael Michaelson (EideBailly Finance Partner) and Paul Skeen (EideBailly Finance Partner) presented the following information regarding the audit: •Risk-based approach to design and audit plan •High-level deliverables – time frames of audits ◦Airport audit – August-September ◦Department of Utilities audits – October-November ◦Library audit – October-November ◦RDA - audit already reported ◦Police Task Force audit ◦Overall financial audits – September-December ◦Compliance audit – November-December ◦WorkDay pushed back the audit and created a rush ◦Proposed an all-hands meeting with departments to avoid barriers •COVID-19 funds were still being used by local governments and departments •Federal funds and how those were audited Council Members discussed the following: •35% threshold for General Fund balance •Financial Institute for Bonds would be looking at the whole City for a 30% Fund Balance instead of individual departments 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:20 p.m. 10 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 6 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; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 9, 2024; Tuesday, January 16, 2024; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, and Greg Clearly presented the following information: •Downtown pay station requests •Responses to Council Members' requests were located in meeting materials •Vendor Zone possibility for food trucks to occupy open space downtown •The Council requested briefings before meetings happened in the future Council Members and Jorge Chamorro discussed: •Aging pay station products that cost the City to function •Full capability of the suggested product meeting the Council's policy changes •Additional costs would be ongoing to maintain software costs, with a working life of 10 years for the pay stations •Five-year contract with the vendor •The replacement of pay stations was determined through an RFP (Request for Proposal) to find the vendor that was in the best interest of the City Council Member Puy stated they were not ready to vote on this item and requested more information, guidance, and feedback on the ongoing costs and maintenance before considering approval. Jennifer Bruno asked for clarification regarding the separate motion sheets: •Separate motion needed for parking meters •Release of $500,000 in City funds allocated for sanctioned camping •Police overtime ◦Council Member Puy stated their questions were answered, and there was no need to review this specific item 7.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment Follow-up ~ 3:30 p.m. 25 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 7 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 tinyurl.com/SLCLandscapingAndBuffers. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 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 - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Jennifer Bruno briefly introduced this item, stating that Council Members had requested more clarification on the modifications made by Staff. Nannette Larsen and Amy Thompson discussed the following updates with the Council: •Updated turf definition •Restrictions and regulations •New and existing tree canopy regulations ◦Maintaining canopy and healthy roots •Parking lot accessibility •Rock/mulch limitations •Increasing park strip vegetation height allowance •Clarification of interior parking lot landscaping •Water conservation •Education on non-retroactive landscaping ordinance •Enforcement of turf installation and removal Nick Norris approached the table and discussed the need for the tree canopy and detailed what 100% tree canopy meant. Council Members requested more information and clarification in the amendment on park strips for one parcel being treated as a whole and not individually. 8.Tentative Break ~ 3:55 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 8 Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Resolution: University of Utah Baseball Stadium Public Benefits Analysis ~ 4:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize a 99-year below-market ground lease to the University of Utah of 1.175 acres of City-owned property at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue. This lease would facilitate the expansion of the University’s baseball field to meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requirements for a competition field, but also result in the removal of one existing City-owned softball field and one multi-purpose field located at Sunnyside Park. In exchange for this lease, the University would commit $4.2 million to the City for improvements and new amenities at Sunnyside Park, as well as, possibly, other public benefits. The types of improvements and amenities would be determined through a community engagement process. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/UofUBaseballSunnysidePark. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9 Mayor Mendenhall introduced the item and stated that no executed contract existed but that it would be detrimental not to be involved in the negotiation process. Council Members, Kimberly Chytraus, Jennifer Bruno, and Kristin Riker discussed the following: •$4.2M agreement for Sunnyside Park ◦Originally a funding baseline concept, then went into the community for review and comments •Total value of land •How to ensure fund use in Sunnyside Park ◦Accomplished through the agreement/contract with the University of Utah •Impact fees for new services/amenities •Adding language to the resolution to incorporate public benefit •Resolution from using certain funds •Restricted and unrestricted funds •Sunnyside was chosen for GO Bond (General Obligation Bond) •Council Staff put together a website for questions and information regarding the analysis •Finance would track the costs and reports 10.Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment for Daycare Facilities ~ 4:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal 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. 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 19, 2024 Cassie Younger and Aaron Barlow presented the following information: •Goals of eliminating zoning barriers in city code for childcare •Childcare crisis around Utah and the country •23,000 children who did not have childcare •COVID-19 era funding had expired MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10 •Additional needs of 454 licensed home daycares and 99 daycare centers throughout the City (most likely having already increased in need) •Conditional use standards causing issues with current and new daycares ◦20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement ◦Location and orientation ◦Location of playground equipment ◦Landscape buffer •Eliminating conditional use standards to allow more home daycares 11.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 5:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 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, February 6, 2024 11 Kate Bradshaw (Holland & Hart legislative representative) and Angela Price gave the following Legislative Briefing: •Tracking current bills and preparing amendments •State Budget – February 15, 2024 •Ongoing funding vs. one-time funding •Homeownership bills •Free exercising of religion bills that would affect City employees •Utah League of Cities and Towns issued an action alert on SB172 – targeting counties and mining operations Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report from the Chair or Vice Chair. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Jennifer Bruno asked the Council if they supported travel to the ULI (Urban Land Institute) Spring Conference in New York City for Council Members Puy and Mano. All Council Members supported travel for Council Members Puy and Mano to attend the conference. 14.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; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12 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. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property; strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property and attorney-client matters that are privileged. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Mano to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Closed Session Started at 5:35 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Petro, Wharton, Lopez Chavez, Dugan, Puy, Young, and Mano City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Megan Yuli, Katherine Lewis, Kimberly Chytraus, Jonathan Pappasideras, Mark Kittrell, Cindy Gust- Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Ben Luedtke, Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, Mary Beth Thompson, Danny Walz, Tony Milner, Tammy Hunsaker, Heather Royall, Blake Thomas, Noah Baskett, Nathan Thomas, Christian Vanderhooft, Laura Briefer, Holly Lopez, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 6:55 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 13 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 6, 2024 14 Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Victoria Petro _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, February 6, 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, February 6, 2024 15 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Jill Love – Chief Administrator, Officer Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Kelsey Lindquist – Senior Planner, Daniel Echeverria – Senior Planner, Joshua Rebollo – Community Liaison, Angela Price – Legislative Affairs Director, Lex Traughber – Senior Planner - Community & Neighborhoods, David Salazar – Compensation Manager, Lorena Riffo Jenson – Director of Economic Development, Katie Matheson – Economic Development Manager - Marketing & Research, Felica Baca – Arts Division Director, Jacob Maxwell – Deputy Director Economic Development, Jon Larsen – Director of Transportation (Engineer), David Quealy – Senior City Attorney , Ross Chambless – Board Member The meeting was called to order at 2:02 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Josh Rebollo and Andrew Johnston gave the following updates: •Administrative Updates •Ways to engage with the City: www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Planning Department events/projects •Public Lands Department events/projects •Mayor’s Community Office Hours locations, dates, and times for April 2024 •Homelessness updates •Code Blue •Shelter Capacity •Homeless Resource Center utilization data •Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) •Resource Fair to be held April 12, 2024 at Pioneer Park, 9:30-12:30pm •Winter overflow shelter details 2.Informational: 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan ~ 2:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan which covers the blocks adjacent to 300 West between approximately 1000 South and 2100 South. The update of the plan will provide guidance on anticipated development in the area. The City was awarded funding from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) for the development of the small area plan. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2 Nick Tarbet introduced the item. Daniel Echeverria introduced the project and handed the time over to Jessica Garrow (Community Development Director, Design Workshop) and Marianne Stuck (Urban Designer and Planner, Design Workshop), who presented the following information: •Study area located at 300 West Corridor •Linear Park Public Realm •Process and community engagement •Walkable district goals •Mixed-use redevelopment •Public/private green spaces •Housing option varieties •Maximum heights and density criteria •300 West mixed use and commercial •Trail along TRAX line •Low scale residential •Open space 3.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 2:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session. Angela Price, David Quealy, and Kate Bradshaw ( Holland & Hart LLP) gave the following presentation regarding the 2024 Legislative Session: •Bill Statistics ◦1,487 bills filed ◦934 bills introduced ◦591 bills passed ◦SLC tracked 282 bills ◦Over 50 bills amended ◦44 high-priority bills ◦1,520 comment solicitations ◦Governor Cox vetoed seven bills •HB 548 Alcohol Amendments •HB 491 Data Privacy Amendments •HB 562 Utah Fairpark Area Investment Homelessness Appropriations •SB 272 Capital City Reinvestment Zone Amendments •Gratitude for the Legislative Tracking tool from the Recorders Office and to Cindy Lou Trishman 4.Ordinance: Window Requirements for New Construction in The City’s Local Historic Districts ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3 The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and amend the adopted design standards for residential and multifamily structures pertaining to the regulation of windows in the H Historic Preservation Overlay which includes properties within local historic districts and landmark sites. The proposed amendments add clarity to existing processes in terms of appropriate window materials, window location, and window installation in new construction projects. The City currently has 14 local historic districts and approximately 150 Landmark Sites. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4 Brian Fullmer, Lex Traughber, and Kelsey Lindquist presented information regarding: •Wood windows vs. vinyl windows •Affordability of new construction with the requirements •Current processes for new construction in historic districts 5.Informational: Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee 2024 Annual Report ~ 3:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed by the Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee to review the 2024 Annual Report. The report includes information and recommendations about market comparisons of City employee salaries, compensation strategies, and is presented for consideration each year prior to the City's budget review process. Brandon Dew and David Salazar presented the following information: •Economic factors and budget requests •Labor shortage •Cost of labor •Inflation •Budget forecasts 6.Tentative Break ~ 3:55 p.m. 20 min. 7.Informational: Sister Cities Annual Report 2023 ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Sister Cities Annual Report. The report includes a summary of the accomplishments achieved in 2023 and an outline of potential objectives and priorities for the future. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 5 Lorena Riffo Jenson, Katie Matheson, and Ross Chambless presented the following information: •Established by President Eisenhower in 1956 •SLC having six active Sister Cities •Goal to promote peace through mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation •Sister Cities collectively holding tremendous potential and being vital assets for our City on the world stage •Enhancement of SLC growth •Sister Cities included: ◦Torino, Italy ◦Matsumoto, Japan ◦Trujillo, Peru ◦Chervivtsi, Ukraine Council Member Mano proposed the Council consider inviting international investors to come to Salt Lake City to further invest in Japan Town. Council Member Wharton requested more information to give to citizens about starting the process of applying for a sister city and how to set expectations throughout the City. Lorena Riffio Jenson stated that the Government of Peru announced the opening of an official Consulate of Peru in Salt Lake City. Council Member Puy requested that the International Peace Gardens be considered a possible connection between the Sister Cities and the community. 8.Informational: Cultural Core and THE BLOCKS Update ~ 4:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update on the Cultural Core initiative, now known as “THE BLOCKS.” The update will include an executive summary of year seven and the budget plan for year eight. The annual update is a requirement of the interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to develop, improve and market arts and cultural activities in downtown Salt Lake City. The goal of the Cultural Core initiative is to enhance downtown as a key cultural center for the city, region, and nation. Felicia Baca, Jake Maxwell, and Britney Helmers (The Blocks Program Director) presented the following information: •The Green Loop •Steppin’ On Main – Eccles lobby and front steps •Providing resources to bolster the community with new ideas •Building new programs and creating events •San Diego trip to see the “courtyard” •Growing the downtown arts district •Look into Fiscal Year 2025 – Year 8 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 6 •Locally Made – Locally Played – SLC Film Society partnership starting on April 26, 2024 •Farmers market collaboration to highlight local musicians •$600,000 total budget 9.Ordinance: Temporary Closure of 7200 West Between Interstate 80 and California Avenue ~ 4:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about temporarily closing a segment of 7200 West between I-80 and California Ave to mitigate unsafe conditions. State law allows temporarily closing certain streets until the unsafe conditions are mitigated or up to two years, whichever is less. Recurring illegal dumping activity on and adjacent to the road has worsened the risk of fire and caused mitigation expenses to the City. Ben Luedtke, Jorge Chamorro, and Jon Larsen presented the following information: •Temporary closure •Proposed to be closed from April 2024 – March 2026 •Possible traffic impacts addressed •Property owners being notified •Public safety to retain access for emergencies •Three primary property owners surrounding the closure ◦Union Pacific Railroad ◦Kennecott (Rio Tinto) ◦Waste Management of Utah •Impacts of illegal dumping Council Member Puy requested the department look into more signage around the area to inform and deter dumping. 10.Informational: Council Retreat Follow-up ~ 5:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will review the list of projects that were raised at the Council’s annual retreat on Tuesday, January 23, 2024, and discuss priorities and next steps. Lehua Weaver presented the following information: •Recap of the Council Retreat •Goals and priorities of the Council •How to efficiently and effectively implement the processes •Communication throughout Departments and Council •Liaison coordination •Scoping document Council Member Young requested a way to indicate a category or range for budget, staff involvement, and time in the scoping document. Council Member Wharton stated a need to rank what was most important for the City to accomplish. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 7 11.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Kristen Lavelett ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Kristen Lavelett prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 8 Interview held. Council Member Petro stated that Kristen Laveletts’ name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. There were no reports from the Chair or Vice Chair. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Jennifer Bruno asked if the Council supported the travel and payment for the Council Chair to travel to Los Angeles with the Mayor. All Council Members present supported the payment and travel of Council Member Petro to attend. 14.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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9 (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. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and attorney-client matters. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Lopez Chavez, seconded by Council Member Mano to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Closed Session started at 6:00 pm, ending at 6:45 pm. Minutes and Recording not created pursuant to UCA 52-4-206(6)(b). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10 Meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Victoria Petro _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, March 26, 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, March 26, 2024 11 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 7, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer 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, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Tammy Hunsaker – Deputy Director of Community Services, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Tony Milner – Housing & Neighborhood Development Director, Michelle Hoon – Housing Stability Policy & Program Manager, Sam Owen – Public Policy Analyst, Weston Clark – Senior Advisor Mayors Office, Brian Butler – Director Airport Finance & Accounting, Bill Wyatt – Executive Director of Airports, Mark Kittrell – Deputy City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 1:02 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 1:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Weston Clark and Michelle Hoon gave the following updates: •Community Engagement Updates: ◦Public Lands ◾Glendale Regional Park ◾Liberty Park Playground ◾Cottonwood Park and Peace Labyrinth ◦Arts Council ◾Site selected for iconic work of art on the Westside of the City- the winner was chosen later that week •Sustainability ◦Salt Lake Cities first landscaping equipment program open through May 12, 2024 ◦Public Utilities ◾Street lighting master plan implementation open to community feedback ◦Pothole Palooza ◾6,759 potholes repaired ◾61 resident requests from online submissions ◾slvgov.com/mystreet ◦May 2024 events at parks throughout the City •Homelessness Update ◦Resource Centers were at 86% capacity ◦Encampment Impact Mitigation / Rapid intervention update ◦Resource Fair was held at Library Square ◦Kayak Court events ◦Micoshelter Community – The State Office of Homeless Services (OHS) working with Swtichpoint on moving to selected site location at 700 West 500 South by the end of July 2024. 2.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget: Salt Lake City Public Library System ~ 1:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will be briefed about the Library Board’s recommended Operations and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2 Council Member Mano joined the meeting during this item. Ben Luedtke introduced the item. Noah Baskett (Library Executive Director), Tyler Bahr (Library Finance Director), and Adam Weinacker (Library Board President) presented the following: •Multi-year, long-term financial strategy •Alignment with City Council and Mayor’s goals •Proposed property tax increase of $5.3 million ◦$2.2 million for immediate needs and $3.1 million for 5-year funding strategy •The library had approximately 1m million visitors in the past 12 months •Operation requests ◦Staff compensation – $5.5 wage increase ◦Medical premiums – requesting 10% increase ◦Tuition assistance ◦10 back filled/new positions ◦15 reclassification, optimizing capacity in existing positions ◦Increase in electronic materials to reduce wait times on high demand items •Capital request ◦Safety and security infrastructure; IT hardware, emergency exit door alarm upgrades ◦Additional mobile patrol and social services positions ◦Finish and maintain existing projects and infrastructures ◦Smoke evacuation system, crash bar, and power box cover replacement in public areas ◦Library Facility Plan (LFP) ◦New development director •Other priorities for funding needs ◦Increase in legal expenses, anticipating additional work for unionization consideration ($200k) ◦Ballpark exterior updates ◦Marmalade exterior tiles ◦Emergency exit crash bars ◦Fire system repairs ◦Crescent wall updates ◦Full-sized toilets in children's restrooms ◦Creative lab door replacement Council Member Lopez Chavez stated the public benefit and connection gained from the Library and the need to maintain funding for City libraries. 3.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget: Department of Airports ~ 2:00 p.m. 45 min. The Council will be briefed about the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to the Department of Airports for Fiscal Year 2024-25. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 3 Sam Owen, Bill Wyatt, and Brian Butler presented the following information: •Leadership structure and department overview •Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 25) Budget drivers ◦Forecasting revenues and expenses on information known today with reasonable assumptions for the future ◦Assumption and actual results reviewed in a timely manner, then appropriate actions taken ◦Controlling costs and looking for ways to continue to strengthen non- aeronautical revenue growth ◦Funding major capital improvement projects with funding provided under the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Grants ◦Securing interim credit facility to bridge gap for long term funding expected in FY26 to continue financing new Airport •Financial health of the Airport from FY24 •Passenger traffic forecasted, budgeted, and actual number of passengers •Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law Grants •Increase in terminal rent refunds for passenger incentives •Parking garage fee increase to incentives (drop offs and public transit) •Central tunnel opening Fall of 2024 •Labor and operating expense highlights ◦$3.2 million for 25 new Airport employees ◦$2.8 million for six new police officers ◦$2.5 million for Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for all Airport employees ◦$3.1 million for janitorial increased scope and supplies ◦$1.8 million in one-time costs to upgrade and purchase radios ◦$1.6 for updates on VXS records installed in 2020 – the records have a 5- year life span ◦$1 million in chemicals and salt for the winter ◦$920 thousand increase to City Data Processing Services •Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and other grants would be main source of funding •Capital projects for FY25 ◦Airfield projects – $134,548,400 ◦auxiliary Airports – $1,760,00 ◦Landslide – $6,968,000 ◦Other projects – $5,201,000 •The New SLC phases and timing ◦68 current gates open Council Member Dugan asked for clarification on the scheduled operations of TRAX and public transportation for employees and patrons coming to and from the Airport throughout the night. Brian Butler stated their team would verify the schedule and return that information to the Council. Council Member Puy acknowledged the hard work done by staff to prepare the budget and requested information regarding the lead in the gas provided to the planes, with the goal of providing lead-free gas to the client. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 4 4.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Metropolitan Water District ~ 2:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed budget for the Metropolitan Water District for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The Council does not formally decide on this budget but appoints a majority of the District's Board and receives public input on the budget. Sam Owen introduced the item. Annalee Munsey (Metro Water General Manager) and Tom Godfrey (Metro Water Board Chair) presented the following information: •Service areas of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Water Service Area (MWDSLS) ◦Salt Lake City ◦Sandy City ◦Surplus customers ◾Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District ◾Irrigation users ◾Others •Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant ◦Source water from the Salt Lake Aqueduct and Little Cottonwood Creek •Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant ◦Source water from the Provo River Aqueduct and the Jordan Aqueduct •Cottonwood Connection Pipeline construction to connect Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant with Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant •Water Storage ◦Point of the mountain finished water reservoir •Jordan Aqueduct System ◦Metro water owned 2/7 of the aqueduct ◦SLC shared in the capital and Operations & Management (O&M) costs •Sources of funds ◦$8,487,256 proposed tax increase for capital projects ◦$740.599 increase from water sales ◦$13,282,673 assessment increase ◦$24,299,083 Bond funding •Water sales and rates ◦3% increase to member cities ◦3% increase to non-member entities ◦Fixed water rate support conjunctive water use •Property Tax ◦$3.96 increase per month to property owner ◦Re-establishing the certified rate to 0.00035 ◦District’s last property tax increase occurred in 2008 ◦Rate has decreased while property values have increased ◦SLC current year tax rate of 0.000200 ◦FY25 tentative budget proposes to re-establish rate to generate $8.5 million MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5 Council Member Young asked what the consequences would be of not funding the development and maintenance of the Metro Water District. Annalee Munsey responded that the updates were needed to prepare for future disasters that could render the treatment plants inoperable, like other cities around the Country. 5.Informational: Great Salt Lake State Park Request for Water Service ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the request made by the Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), Division of State Parks to the Department of Public Utilities to provide water to the Great Salt Lake State Park. The park is situated outside of Salt Lake City’s municipal boundaries and water service area. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 6 Sam Owen introduced the item. Laura Breifer and Mark Kittrell presented the following information: •Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) provided more than 365,000 people within a 141-square-mile water service area •Designated Water Service Area was established by SLC Code 17.16.005 •Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR) and Division of State Parks tasked with managing and protecting the State’s natural resources •Longstanding collaborative relationship between SLCDPU and UDNR •Division of State Parks manages the Great Salt Lake State Park and Marina •Great Salt Lake (GSL) marina water supply request from SLCDPU ◦GSL State Park is located outside of the SLCDPU-designated water service area •Feasibility and policy issues ◦Construction and operation of an 8-10 mile water line ◦Additional water treatment was needed ◦Water storage needed to meet fire flow needs ◦Water demands and SLC water supply ◦State constitution – Article XI, Section 6 ◦SLC Code 17.16.005 designated water service area ◦Responsibilities pursuant to State and Federal Safe Water Drinking Acts •Potential responses to requests ◦Accommodate requests via contractual agreement, with possible conditions ◦Deny request – SLC did not have any obligations to serve water outside the service area Council Member Puy asked for clarification on how water dispersed outside SLC was monitored during a drought. Laura Briefer stated that there would be contingencies and limits to determine how much water, if any is given out during a drought. Council Member Young requested a follow-up on the likelihood of exchanging a water right or water share and the next steps in the proposal/plan. 6.Tentative Break ~ 3:35 p.m. 20 min. 7.Capital City Revitalization Zone Follow-up ~ 3:55 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Senate Bill 272, including next steps toward creating a Capital City Revitalization Zone, which could potentially facilitate redevelopment around the Delta Center. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 7 Council Member Petro made a statement regarding City growth, hope for future development and community investments. Mayor Erin Mendenhall introduced the item and expressed excitement for the great opportunity for growth in SLC to have the National Hockey League teams come to Utah. Mayor Jenny Wilson (Salt Lake County Mayor) read a statement regarding Salt Lake City, the future of Abravanel Hall, and Salt Lake County's desire to invest in its development (see meeting materials for the full statement). Mike Maughan (Smith Entertainment Group) presented the following information: •Economic impact of Delta Center, Utah Jazz, and National Hockey League (NHL) ◦Utah Jazz and Delta Center had a $326 million annual total economic impact on SLC ◦Utah NHL Hockey estimated to bring $288 million annual economic impact to SLC ◦All-Star Weekend had a $294 million annual total economic impact on SLC •Abravanel Hall located within the sports entertainment district •Site plan had not been finalized and was still in the draft stages •Gateway Shopping Center created a wall of retail separating the Gateway and the Delta Center •Commitment from Smith Entertainment to work with all parties on the re- imagination of downtown SLC •Goal to bring concerts, housing, conventions, community involvement, local vendors and artists to downtown SLC Council Member Petro informed the public that the current Work Session items did not allow for public comment, the public hearing for this item would be held on May 21, 2024, and encouraged the community to return to comment. Mayor Wilson, Mayor Mendenhall, Mike Maughan, and the Council discussed the following: •Olympic infrastructure investments •Rebuilding or renovation of Abravanel Hall •Honoring community, culture, and religious groups •The walkability of the district and how to connect downtown •Transparency from investors and developers on plans for the sports district •Potential funds generated from tax increase – at least $1.2 billion dollars over a 30- year period ◦Most funds generated will be going back into the district with the $90 million limit on income for the developers •Japantown opportunities and benefits from the district ◦Mayor Mendenhall stated that representation from the current City Council would be the most significant benefit and asset for the community •SB272 – need for transportation plan 8.~ 4:35 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 8 Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.5 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 an infrastructure loan pilot program to upgrade utilities while 2100 South is being reconstructed between 700 East and 1300 East, a State appropriation for Avenues City Cemetery road reconstruction and irrigation system upgrades, and additional funding for one-time police officer new hire bonuses among other items. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. Ben Luedtke introduced the budget items. Council Members discussed policies for redconstructing significant streets and the requirement to look across departments and combine needed updates on common areas. •Straw Poll #1: Support for item A-3: 2100 South utilities upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East, as detailed in the staff report. All Council Members present were in favor. Council Members discussed the Jordan River's cleanup and the area's jurisdiction. •Andrew Johnston stated that the City needed to front the money to start quick intervention work on fencing and the bridge work, but this did not preclude the City from requesting reimbursement •Straw Poll #2: Support for item A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridge Riverbank Deterrnet Rock Replacement and Fencing and ask for the opportunity to pressure reimbursement if appropriate. All Council Members present were in favor. Council Members discussed a holding account, the approval of projects, and the approval of releasing funds to those projects. •Straw Poll #3: Support for Item A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to Capitol Investment Projects CIP ($15 million one-time from the General Fund balance to a holding account for upcoming projects). All Council Members present were in favor. Council Members discussed the budget-neutral item D-5 and the facilitation of affordable rental assistance. •Straw Poll #4: Support for item D-5: City Housing Authority Payment In Lieu of Taxes or PILOT Check. All Council Members present were in favor. Council Members discussed item I-1 and used the funds to pay back the State and City MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 9 and support ongoing costs, allowing the City to respond to unexpected costs or situations. •Straw Poll #5: Support for item I-1: Moving $394,000 from the holding account to the Micro-shelter Community Site Preparation Costs and Electricity through June. All Council Members present were in favor. 9.Resolution: Authorizing Assistance for Fairmont Heights Senior Housing Development at 2257 South 1100 East ~ 5:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s plans for the proposed Fairmont Heights Project at 2257 South 1100 East. The project would provide approximately 110 units of new affordable senior housing on a 0.81-acre property. The Administration intends to use $5.6 million in “dormant” funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and seeks authorization from the Council to negotiate final terms with the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10 Allison Rowland introduced the item. Tammy Hunsaker and Tony Milner presented the following information: •Property located at 2257 South and 1100 East •0.81 acres total •Estimated $7 million acquisition price •Estimating 110 units •80% affordable units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) and below •50% affordable units at 50% AMI and below •Senior housing •Phased development •Budget approved at $5,600,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding •Terms of assistance ◦Informal public benefits analysis (PBA) ◦The resolution would either ◾Facilitate a loan to the developer to acquire property ◾City acquires property and issues below-market ground lease •Environmental review •Tax credit deadline – 9% low-income housing tax credit Council Members discussed the terms, developers, and options for property acquisitions. Straw Poll: Support authorizing assistance for senior housing, authorizing either option with the preference for the acquisition of a ground lease. All Council Members present were in favor. 10.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Open Legislative Intents Responses from 2024 ~ 5:25 p.m. 30 min. In preparation for the coming budget discussions, the Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s responses to the Fiscal Year 2024 adopted legislative intents, as well as responses from the prior fiscal year’s open legislative intents. Allison Rowland introduced the item. The Council asked about FY21 - decriminalization review of the City Code. Katie Lewis spoke about the collaboration between the prosecution team and the status of the review. Council Members had no adjustments and agreed with the legislative intents. 11.Written Briefing MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 11 Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to reduce Athletic Facility Reservation and Twilight Golf Green Fees in advance of the FY25 budget. Written briefing only. No discussion was held. 12.Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes required annual true-ups of property tax increments that go to the Utah Inland Port Authority, Convention Center Hotel, and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. Written briefing only. No discussion was held. Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Council Member Petro thanked fellow Council Members and City Staff for working together while handling difficult situations within the City to benefit the community. 14.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: •Legislative Action; and •Scheduling Items. Jennifer Bruno discussed the following legislative actions with the Council before formal consideration: •Consider allowing outdoor events in the General Commercial Zone •Amending City Ordinance for the amount of time a reconstructed historic building was protected ◦Increasing from 25-years to 50-years of protection MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12 15. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 13 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. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Young to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining and attorney-client matters. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Lopez Chavez, seconded by Council Member Dugan to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Closed Session Started at 6:00 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 14 Council Members in Attendance: Council Member Petro, Puy, Wharton, Lopez Chavez, Mano, Dugan, and Young. City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love, Katherine Lewis, Jonathan Pappasidderis, Jaysen Oldroyd, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Ben Luedtke, Lindsey Nikola, Megan Yulli, Deb Alexander, David Salazar, Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Lisa Hunt, Chief Karl Lieb, Mike Fox, Matthew Brown, Steven Schuback, and Cindy Lou Trishman Closed Session ended at 6:45 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 7, 2024 15 Meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 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, May 7, 2024 16 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet – Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez 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 February 13, 2024. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the Work Session Minutes of February 13, 2024. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1-B3 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: Environmental Protection Agency Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program (CRPG) – Clean Electricity The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Sustainability to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If awarded, the grant would fund the launch of the clean electricity “Utah Renewable Communities” (URC) program. The funds will subsidize the URC program by covering the first five years of estimated administration and resource costs and participant support costs, lowering the program rate paid by participating customers. Sub-award funding will go to Utah Community Action, Weber State University, and Moab City to assist Low- Income and Disadvantaged Communities in accessing energy bill assistance and navigating the URC program. 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, April 16, 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, April 16, 2024 2 See item B-3 for minutes and action. 2. Grant Application: 2024 Climate Pollution Reduction Grant - Salt Lake City Combined Heat and Power Project The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Utilities to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If awarded, the grant would fund the design and installation of a biodigester, which would help manage waste at the City’s Water Reclamation Plant. This project will also include the design and construction of a new combined heat and power facility including the installation of two high-efficiency gas engine units and electrical improvements to support the new power generation system. 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, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. See item B-3 for minutes and action. 3. Grant Application: Environmental Protection Agency Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program (CPRG) - Fleet Electrification and Trees The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Services to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If awarded, the grant would fund one grant and project manager position, one full-time workforce development program manager position, and two part-time seasonal tree stewards. Additionally, grant monies would be used to fund Fleet Electrification and Green Workforce Development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support the Fleet Division’s Accelerator Program, and support tree planting to improve the City’s existing urban forest and forest management. This application also includes sub-awards to Utah Neighborhood Partners (UNP) and Utah Clean Energy (UCE). 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, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3 Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Sylvia Richards introduced the item. Stewart Robinson supported the grants and expressed concerns regarding City fund use and climate issues. 4. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2760, 2800, and 2828 North 2200 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2760, 2800, and 2828 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). The proposal includes properties of approximately 14.33 acres. Plans for future development were not submitted with these applications. Consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 1. Petitioner: Will Channell with OCC Industrial, who is under contract for the properties. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 and PLNPCM2022-00701. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4 Nick Tarbet introduced the item. Helene Cuomo expressed concern regarding the air quality, losing the buffer between the air pollution and the residents' lungs; urged the Council to reconsider the ordinance. James Longstaff expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing and ownership opportunities and requested that affordable options remain in the City. Katie Pappas spoke about the proximity to the threatened Great Salt Lake and wetlands and urged the Council to reconsider the ordinance. Denise Payne spoke about the developers bringing dirt and other construction equipment into the area and stated residents were being forced out of their houses. Liesa Manuel spoke against the ordinance and urged the Council to evaluate the development's impact as a cumulative report. Cindy Cromer spoke against the proposed ordinance and stated the Council needed to review the impacts. Terry Marasco (Member of the Northwest Quadrant Community Council) spoke about the issues on the West Side and the need to reconsider the ordinance. Megan O’Brien (OCC Industrial) spoke about the pending development and clarified that another development OCC owned had been approved in the area, and the pending development had not moved forward. Gary Banford spoke in support of the ordinance and the opportunity received from OCC Industrial which allowed them to sell their property to move into their family's dream home. Lauren Griffeth opposed the rezone and the possible “death zone” that could occur, creating empty warehouses with long-term costs. Dave Iltis spoke against the rezoning, stating the area needed to remain open with more bike lanes and not destroy the last semi-rural area in SLC. Monica Hilding asked the Council not to approve the rezone and why more warehouses were needed when development drove people out of their homes and destroyed farmland. Chris Jenkins supported the rezone and the need for the area to be developed, stating that the development was not driving people out of their homes and that the location was not near or affecting the Great Salt Lake. Council Member Dugan expressed concerns about the ordinance and thanked the community for attending the meeting to speak. 5. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5 Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1791 South and 1815 South State Street and 118 East and 120 East Coatsville Avenue The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 1791 and 1815 South State Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use), as well as amending the zoning of properties at approximately 118 and 120 East Coatsville Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use). The proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00998 & PLNPCM2022-00999. For more information visit tinyurl.com/MavenStateRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Darin Mano Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano recused themselves from this agenda item. Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Elena Cook opposed the rezone, expressed concern regarding its long-term effects, and wanted to see reasonable development that did not impede the surrounding single-family homes and community. Lucy Gelb supported the rezone to create more density and housing opportunities for residents. Arianne Grimes spoke in opposition to the rezone and expressed concern for the MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6 existing narrow parking in the area and the creation of the massive building that would invade their privacy. Stewart Robinson insisted that the developers commit to low-income housing and asked the Council to require new construction to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tim Redmond spoke regarding the diminished building being in disrepair, the need to fix the giant hole, the burden of traffic on the side street, and requested requirements in the rezone for traffic solutions. Ally Armstrong expressed concern for parking solutions and building heights and opposed the rezone, requesting other means to allow the developer to build on the property. Carol Hopper stated concerns about the current lack of parking, asked the Council to reconsider the type of rezoning, and suggested other types that would benefit the community more. Chris Broyer opposed the height limit, wanting to keep the current height regulations, and requested the Council reconsider the ordinance. Craig Coett expressed concern regarding the rezone and the loose requirements of the zoning type. 6. Ordinance: Window Requirements for New Construction in The City’s Local Historic Districts 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 and amend the adopted design standards for residential and multifamily structures pertaining to the regulation of windows in the H Historic Preservation Overlay which includes properties within local historic districts and landmark sites. The proposed amendments add clarity to existing processes in terms of appropriate window materials, window location, and window installation in new construction projects. The City currently has 14 local historic districts and approximately 150 Landmark Sites. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00444. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7 Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano re-joined the meeting during this agenda item. Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Cindy Cromer stated that the hybrid approach was not ideal but spoke in support of the proposal, hoping that the ordinance clarified the regulations and allowed new development in historic districts to proceed more efficiently. 7. Ordinance: Citywide Transportation Plan: Connect SLC The Council will accept public comment and consider approving the 2023 Citywide Transportation Plan titled Connect SLC. It will replace the existing Transportation Master Plan that was adopted in 1996. The Plan identifies five high-level goals, eight long-term policies called “key moves” and over 60 implementation actions to guide transportation decisions citywide over the coming decades. For more information visit tinyurl.com/TransportationSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Ben Luedtke introduced the item. Jen Colby expressed concern for the plan and requested the Council review the plan for better implementation and safety. Jennifer Madrigal supported the plan and suggested revisions, such as using posted signs in advance for feedback from residents and including guidelines for reaching out to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8 surrounding impacted residents. Robbie Stutchbury supported the plan but wanted to see it include more large and bold moves to build for the future; they urged the Council to include and consider the Rio Grande Plan to ensure its success. Nathan Strain stated the need to review the plan to address the train tracks and crossing issues and urged the Council to use this opportunity to engage with state and federal stakeholders to solve issues. Stewart Robinson supported the plan and suggested an incentive for free fares on public transit and working on the UTA application to fix the bugs. Christian Lenhart supported the plan and expressed excitement about the “Train Box,” which would eliminate barriers through transportation improvement. Alex Konrok supported the plan but stated it needed to include more future needs and prioritize people over cars. Andrew Katsohirakis supported the Rio Grand plan to remove the train track barrier, which would support population growth and transportation needs, freeing up 76 acres of housing, retail, and much more development in the community. They urged the Council to review the plans. Kristina Robb spoke about implementing more substance and enforcement into the plan and thanked the Council for all their hard work. Matt Givens spoke on the east-west divide, population growth, and the need to use the depot area to create development and urged the Council to reconsider. Monica Hilding spoke to the need to create a non-car-dependent society. David Itlis urged the Council to review and revise the plan, clarify and implement the goals before passage, and keep the public comment open. Council Member Wharton said he wanted to keep the public comment open for another briefing and more time to review. Council Member Puy thanked Council Member Wharton for their statement and stated the desire to fund free fares, but the Council did not have the authority to grant that due at the time of the meeting. 8. Ordinance: Enforcement on Work Without A Certificate of Appropriateness Zoning 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 for work done without a certificate of appropriateness. The proposal would address unlawful construction and demolition activities in the H Historic Preservation Zoning District Overlay. The proposed amendments are intended to protect historic resources, including designated MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9 local historic districts and local landmark sites. The changes are aimed at adding enforcement tools to prevent and counter potential code violations and at establishing a clear process to remedy alterations or demolition that occur without approval. The proposed changes will affect Chapter 21A.34.020 and related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00336. For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 22 of 2024, requiring the demolition notice to be posted at the location. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Cindy Cromer spoke about the need for the City to review developments and enforce compliance. Carlton Getz encouraged the Council to extend the building violation fee to any empty lot surrounding the historic boarded building. Oscar Arvizu spoke of the need to create viable plans to develop and preserve history and urged the Council to do proactive work to preserve the historic buildings instead of demolishing them. Stewart Robinson spoke about the need to preserve the history of Salt Lake City and asked the Council to review funding being sent to outside organizations. Council Member Wharton stated the desire for the added language to post notice of demolition permit on the property was to ensure the notice had been obtained. C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10 Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funding Allocations for One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants The Council will 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). For more information visit tinyurl.com/AnnualHUDGrants. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 and Tuesday, March 19, 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, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to adopt Resolution 12 of 2024 attached to the motion sheet as Exhibit A for the following grant programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, HOPWA, HOME-ARPA, and CDBG-CV. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. 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 Council previously adopted all items in the budget amendment except funding to replacement downtown parking pay stations to allow additional time to review that proposal. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 9, 2024; Tuesday, January 16, 2024; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 16, 2024; Tuesday, February 6, 2024; and Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 28 of 2024, Authorizing the Full Single Upfront Payment of $1.612 million from the General Fund Balance for item A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Council Member Wharton read a statement regarding previous Mayor Ted Wilson and thanked the Mayor's Office for the memorial display in the City and County Building. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) Rigo Ramirez spoke on tax fraud and lack of support in the construction industry for carpenter's well-being. Andrew Rodriguez spoke on construction industry tax fraud and the difficulties of finding trustworthy work in the labor force. Steve Altman discussed the smog caused by gas-powered lawn equipment in the community and the need to remove these tools and replace them with cleaner, more sustainable options. Brandon Crum spoke on homelessness and addiction in the community and the need to look at the root cause of why residents were becoming homeless and to find solutions. Terry Marasco spoke on the KOA (Kampgrounds of America) and Jordan River Trail crime issues and urged the Council to find solutions to crime in the area. Kseniya Kniazerva spoke about the success of the “pods” and the sanctioned campgrounds for the unsheltered and requested more area for the pods. Whinter Trebucher spoke on the issue of homelessness and the need for a safe place to sleep, shower, and have a warm meal. David Itlis requested that the two-minute timer for general comments be moved to a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12 more visible spot so speakers could watch the clock and spoke about the need for a free recreational vehicle (RV) dump in Salt Lake City to help keep the City clean. Bradley Shields stated the need for funding programs to help people get housing and get back on their feet. Brandon Jeanpierre discussed the need for more public restrooms and more frequent cleaning of the existing park and public bathrooms. Taylor Burke urged the Council to help the Nomad Alliance Program so they could continue to support the community, use facilities instead of the street, and feel dignified. Carlos Jaugervi requested more public restrooms be built and made available to the community, citing the success of the Nomad Alliance Program Tony Lambert stated the need for more bathrooms, trashcans, and amenities for the public to use. Daniel Brown spoke about the need to support all residents and provide equal opportunities to create success in the community. E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center The Council will consider adopting an ordinance enacting a temporary zoning regulation authorizing the Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center at approximately 888 South 400 West to increase the maximum capacity up to fifty individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards for up to 180 days. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Council Member Puy made a compound motion for items E1 through E5Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 23 of 2024. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 13 AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation authorizing the Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center at approximately 131 East 700 South to increase the maximum capacity up to 250 individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards. The ordinance will take effect on May 1, 2024, for up to 180 days. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 24 of 2024. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Puy made a compound motion for items E1 through E5 3. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Gail Miller Resource Center The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation authorizing the Gail Miller Resource Center at 242 West Paramount Avenue to increase the maximum capacity up to 250 individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards. The ordinance will take effect on May 1, 2024, for up to 180 days. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 14 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 25 of 2024. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Puy made a compound motion for items E1 through E5 4. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - St. Vincent de Paul Center The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation authorizing the St. Vincent de Paul Center located at 437 West 200 South, to provide overnight homeless shelter accommodations beyond April 15th, and at the current level of occupancy, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards,. The ordinance will take effect on May 1, 2024, for up to 180 days. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 27 of 2024. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Puy made a compound motion for items E1 through E5 5. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - MicroShelter Community Program The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation authorizing a temporary shelter community use at approximately 255 South 600 West Street to continue operations at the current location beginning June 1, 2024 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 15 and ending July 31, 2024. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 26 of 2024. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Puy made a compound motion for items E1 through E5 F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Attached Garages Zoning Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 7, 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 attached structures, including garages. In 2021, Utah State code was amended, changing standards required for these structures. The changes to the state code imposed limitations on what municipalities can require in terms of design elements. As a result, City code needs to be updated to match these regulations. The Planning Division is proposing a text amendment to update standards related to these structures, which include garages, entrance landings, and building foundations. The amendment focuses on aligning the standards with City goals and addressing state law. The proposed text amendments apply Citywide. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00952. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 16 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 536 South 200 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 536 South 200 West, 216 West Orchard Place, 224 West Orchard Place, 226 West Orchard Place, and 230 West Orchard Place from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The proposal would align with a recently approved D-2 to D-1 amendment for a neighboring property to the north. 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 4. Petitioner: Jason Boal, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00730. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1050 West 1300 South The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of City-owned property at approximately 1050 West 1300 South from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The proposed amendment would support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00609. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 17 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes an infrastructure loan pilot program to upgrade utilities while 2100 South is being reconstructed between 700 East and 1300 East, a State appropriation for Avenues City Cemetery road reconstruction and irrigation system upgrades, and additional funding for one-time police officer new hire bonuses, 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, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Metropolitan Water District Preview, Property Tax Proposal The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving the proposed property tax increase by the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The Council may take action on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 18 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 6. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Isaac Atencio The Council will consider approving the appointment of Isaac Atencio to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 19 Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt the Consent Agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2024 20 Meeting adjourned at 9:14 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, April 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, April 16, 2024 21 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE HOME DEPOT AND ITS DEDICATED EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR SERVICE TO SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Salt Lake recognizes the importance of community service and values the contributions of individuals and organizations that go above and beyond to make our city a better place to live; and WHEREAS, The Home Depot, a national leader in home improvement and construction supplies, has been a steadfast partner in supporting Salt Lake City through service throughout the city demonstrating an unwavering commitment to the betterment of our communities; and WHEREAS, The Home Depot has collaborated with the Salt Lake City Housing Authority to enhance the lives of our residents by providing their time, resources, and expertise to assist with various service projects on Salt Lake City Housing Authority properties; and WHEREAS,The Home Depot's dedication to serving those who have served our nation is commendable, as they have actively participated in projects benefitting veterans in our community, offering a helping hand to those who have sacrificed so much for our country; and WHEREAS,The Home Depot, in partnership with the Salt Lake City, has played a significant role in the maintenance and beautification of the Japanese section of the International Peace Garden, Jordan Park, Poplar Grove Park, Taufer Park, and other parks throughout the city, fostering an environment of tranquility, cultural appreciation, and community enjoyment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City express our deepest gratitude and appreciation to The Home Depot and its associates and employees for their outstanding commitment to our community and their unwavering support for projects that enrich the lives of our residents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Salt Lake extends its heartfelt thanks and recognition to the exemplary employees of The Home Depot, for their tireless efforts and dedication to service projects within our city. Adopted this 4th day of June 2024 __________________________ ______________________ Erin Mendenhall Victoria Petro, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District One __________________________ ________________________ Chris Wharton, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two ______________________________ ____________________________ Eva Lopez Chavez Darin Mano Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five __________________________ __________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Item G1 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: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Title 18 Text Amendment: Building Code, Boarded Buildings Administration and Fee Updates MOTION 1 I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: June 4, 2024 RE:Title 18 Text Amendment: Building Code, Boarded Buildings Administration and Fee Updates. PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: May 30, 2024 Set Date: May 21, 2024 Public Hearing: June 4, 2024 Potential Action: Jun 11, 2024 NEW INFORMATION During the May 30 briefing the Council asked the administration to come back with more information at a future Council meeting with recommendations that could be included in the final ordinance regarding the following concepts: •Increase the fines for building code violations •Increase the annual fee for boarded buildings •Create a separate fee for commercial vs. residential buildings and charge commercial buildings a higher fee •Consider an escalating fee for the annual fee o Charging the maximum amount allowed after a certain year (3 or 5 years were both mentioned) •Establish a better definition of compliance after a building code has been violated. o Consider requiring any damage that occurred to adjacent properties to be made whole before the work permit is reissued. •Clarify that the timeclock on a boarded building does not restart due to a transfer of ownership. The administration committed to coming back with updated recommendations. The Public hearing is scheduled for June 4. It is likely the Council may wish to continue the public hearing until after the updated information is brought to the Council for review. Page | 2 The following information was provided for the May 30 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on a proposed ordinance that would amend the text of Titles 2, 5, 18 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, regarding Boarded Building Fees and enforcement of building code violations. If adopted, the Code would be amended in the following ways: •This proposal increases fees associated with the boarded building program to reflect the City’s actual cost of regulation. •Eliminate code that is duplicative or irreconcilable with state-wide adopted building codes •Creates an administrative enforcement mechanism for building code violations. •Updates existing residential housing standards based on precedent from the Housing Advisory Appeals Board and creates one standard appeal process to a streamlined Board of Appeals and Examiners for any violation of Title 18. •Updates portions of Title 21A related to zoning enforcement to reflect existing City Administrative practices and increases daily fines associated with uncorrected zoning violations. The changes were requested during previous Council conversations. In 2022, the City Council requested that the Administration review and propose a change in boarded building fees to capture the full City cost of both monitoring/boarding and emergency services of dangerous/boarded buildings. The majority of these recommended changes in this petition resulted from that request. Additionally, when the Council adopted the Housing Incentives in December of 2023, the Council officially requested the Administration forward a transmittal that would make recommendations for code changes to safeguard that construction work may not damage adjacent properties, establish a process to help remedy situations when damage has occurred, and include penalties that will discourage damage from being done. Changes pertaining to this request are included in Section 2 Building Code Enforcement Process, of the information below (pages 2- 3). Please note, the majority of the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) will be discussed by the Council on June 4, 2024. If the Council is supportive of adopting both of these items, staff will prepare motions to ensure there are not conflicts between the two ordinances. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. Boarded Building Amendments •Proposed Fee o The City’s Finance Department conducted a cost analysis and found that each boarded building permit costs the City $15,551 annually. ▪This was updated in March 2024 based on additional review by the Finance Department. The original estimate noted in the Planning Commission staff report was $22,537. ▪The cost to the City includes zoning enforcement for weeds and other maintenance issues, public safety calls & responses (due to trespassing or fires), permit review for boarding, and monitoring for building requirements, etc. Page | 3 o The Fee Study recommended a maximum proposed fee increase to be $14,000 due to small claims collections requirements. o The current renewal fee is $1,546. o Building services is recommending potential boarding registration fee increases up to $14,000 per year. ($14,850 for a contributing structure or landmark site) o This fee will be listed in the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (CFS) •Program Changes o Changing the program from an annual boarding permit to an annual registration. ▪A registry more accurately reflects the nature of the City’s monitoring and regulation, since boarding does not necessarily occur every year (as a permit suggests). o Recording notices against the title for properties on the registry to let any interested buyer know that (1) the property is subject to the registry with annual registration fees, and (2) that boarding costs actually incurred by the City may be outstanding (which fees could be a lien against the title once sent to the Salt Lake County Treasurer). o Incorporates a standard citation and appeal process if the registration is not current, which will be the same for any Title 18 violation (found in Chapters 18.24 and 18.12). 2. Building Code Enforcement Process (Chapters 18.12, 18.24, and 2.21, and Section 5.14.125) •Based on several factors ranging from updated state building code, process streamlining and improvements as well as staffing needs, significant updates to this section of the City code were needed. The proposed changes include the following: o The Board of Appeals and Examiners has been streamlined to require only one appeal hearing officer, along with the building official as an ex-officio member (this building official status on the board is consistent with state-adopted building code). o The Housing Advisory Appeals Board is being eliminated in favor of one appeal body – the Board of Appeals and Examiners (which the City must have according to state-adopted building code) – to reduce administrative burden and keep appeal processes consistent. o A standard appeal process for any violation of Title 18 has been added to Chapter 18.12. This process is nearly identical to an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Title 21A. o A fines-only appeal process for any violation of Title 18 has been added to Chapter 18.12. This process is identical to the fines-only appeal process for a zoning code violation. The following changes address the council’s request to “safeguard that construction work may not damage adjacent properties” o Significant changes to Chapter 18.24 were made to describe the City’s remedies in the event of a violation of Title 18, which will now include a civil citation and civil fines process. This process is nearly identical to the process for citing and fining individuals and businesses for zoning violations. o New fines are being adopted now that a civil citation process has been created within Title 18. General violations will be $100 per day; violation of a stop work order will be $250 per day; housing code (Chapter 18.50) violations will be between $50 and $200 per day depending on the severity of the violation. Page | 4 o Currently Title 18 only permits enforcement by stop work order and criminal proceedings. o With these new standardized enforcement and appeal processes, in addition to the criminal proceedings, the City will have a more effective tool to get properties and construction projects into compliance. ▪The current cost for criminal violations of the building code is a $1,000 fine, double permit fees, a stop work order, or a re-inspection fee of $75.00. ▪Implementation of the assessment of daily fines for civil violations will make the fines high enough that they will not be ignored by the property owner or contractor. This will give us a better enforcement tool for future construction violations and decrease the number of violations not rectified. 3. Housing Code Updates (Chapters 18.50 and 18.96) •These proposed changes will update code references in Chapter 18.50 to conform with the Utah adopted International Construction Codes (ICC). •They also incorporate the standard citation appeal process for Title 18 violations. •Residential rental housing owners will receive a warning notice before a citation is issued. 4. Removal of Duplicative or Overlapping Code •Since it’s been decades since Title 18 was comprehensively updated, old and outdated sections have been removed. 5. Zoning Code Enforcement • Parts of the zoning enforcement chapter (Chapter 21A.20) are necessary to reflect Building Services updated civil citation and fine process for Title 18. o Building Services’ current citation process is now reflected, including when a notice and order can be issued, what it needs to include, how it needs to be sent, and a recipient’s ability to appeal the notice and order. o Zoning violations fines are being increased from $25 to $50 per day for residential properties and from $100 to $200 per day for commercial properties. o A new fine amount for failing to have a certificate of appropriateness for work on the exterior of historic district properties is proposed at $50 per day, but if the work that was done is a full or partial demolition of a contributing or landmark structure, then the fine would be $250 per day. ▪(The enforcement process and fines for work done without a certificate of appropriateness was recently updated and approved by the Council when they adopted the amendments related to enforcement of work done without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The fine is $250 per day for full or partial demolition of a contributing structure without a certificate of appropriateness and $500 per day for full or partial demolition of a landmark site without a certificate of appropriateness. CAN Staff will send an updated ordinance that matches the recent changes made by the Council) o Clarifying that citation notices can be sent by any reputable mail tracking service that confirms delivery, as opposed to just by “certified mail” or “commercial courier service.” POLICY QUESTIONS Page | 5 1. Amendments proposed based on the Council’s request to “safeguard that construction work may not damage adjacent properties” include creating civil citations and fine process. (section 2 above) •Do these changes address the concerns raised by the Council? •What additional remedies could be available if there is a property line dispute between adjacent property owners? Could a provision be added that would require immediate repairs if any damage is done? 2. The Administration had proposed a preferred fee for the boarded building registration. Page 4 of the transmittal letter says notes Building Services is recommending potential boarding registration fee increases in the range of $3,000, $6,000, or $14,000 per year. The table at the end of the draft ordinance has the fee listed as $14,000. This fee will be listed in the CFS. •The Council may wish to ask the Administration what their recommended fee is. 3. In previous discussions the potential of having a different fee for residential vs. commercial boarded/dangerous buildings was raised. The intent of the higher fee is to discourage property owners from keeping buildings that attract nuisance issues. Staff time that goes into enforcement for residential and commercial basically is the same. •The Council may wish to ask the administration to explain if one fee is recommended or if it makes sense to have a different fee for commercial vs. residential. •If a building is not boarded for a full year, is there a discount or pro-rated refund of fees paid? 4. Building Services is recommending a potential boarding registration fee of $14,850 for a contributing structure or landmark site. $850 more than a typical building. •The Council may want to ask the Administration why the fee for a contributing structure or landmark site has a higher proposed fee. __________________ ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Jill Love 05/09/2024 Jill Love (May 9, 2024 09:14 MDT)Date Received: Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/09/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 05/07/24 Victoria Petro-Eschler, Chair FROM:Blake Thomas, Director of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT:Proposed Text Amendments to Title 18 STAFF CONTACTS: Troy Anderson t.anderson@slcgov.com; Craig Weinheimer craig.weingheimer@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Consider and adopt the attached ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council is being asked to adopt a text amendment to an existing ordinance. This city-initiated petition is proposing changes to Title 18 Buildings and Construction. Title 18 has not received a comprehensive update to keep pace with state law and administrative practices in decades. The changes are necessary to bring the city's building regulations into compliance with state law by adopting certain uniform building codes as well as modernizing administrative procedures. This proposal increases fees associated with the boarded building program to reflect the city’s actual cost of regulation, eliminates code that is duplicative or irreconcilable with state-wide adopted building codes, creates an administrative enforcement mechanism for building code violations, updates existing residential housing standards based on precedent from the housing advisory appeals board, and creates one standard appeal process to a streamlined board of appeals and examiners for any violation of Title 18. The proposal also updates portions of Title 21A related to zoning enforcement to reflect existing city administrative practices and increases daily fines associated with uncorrected zoning violations. 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 PUBLIC PROCESS: October 26, 2023 - The Early Notice Letter was sent to recognized community organizations and all boarded building property owners of record. October 27, 2023 – The city website for the proposal was posted to the Planning webpage. January 11, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda was posted on the Planning webpage. January 24, 2024 – Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the proposal. EXHIBITS: 1.Memorandum Updates 2.Planning Commission Staff report 3.Proposed Ordinance 1. Memorandum Updates To: City Council Members From: Craig Weinheimer Date: March 14, 2024 Re: Title 18 changes proposal DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS A Planning Commission meeting was held on January 24, 2024 in which Building Services provided a presentation outlining proposed changes to Title 18. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the City Council. Since this time, Staff have identified a few changes to the proposal: 1.Boarded Buildings Fee Study The Finance Department conducted a cost analysis and found that each boarded building permit cost the City a total of $22,537 annually between Civil Enforcement and emergency services (i.e., Police and Fire). Upon further investigation the Finance Department has corrected the fee study reporting a total of $15,551 for each boarded building annually. 2.Boarding Registration Late Fee and Interest. The Title 18 proposal provided to the Planning Commission identified in section 18.48.125 a late penalty and interest provision that was not in accordance with Finance Department procedures as found in Title 3.16.040. This has been corrected in the most recent proposal. 3.Boarded Building Registration Fee Amount The Fee Study cited in the proposal has identified an operating cost of $15,551 and a maximum proposed fee increase to be $14,000 due to small claims collections requirements. The current renewal fee is $1,546. Building services is recommending potential boarding registration fee increases in the range of $3,000, $6,000, or $14,000 per year. MEMORANDUM BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION 2. Planning Commission Staff Report ATTACHMENTS: To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From:Craig Weinheimer, Civil Enforcement Legal Investigator, craig.weinheimer@slcgov.com , 801-535-6682 Date:January 24,2023 Re:PLNPCM2023-00868, Building Code Administration and Enforcement Building Code Administration & Enforcement REQUEST: This city-initiated petition is proposing changes to Title 18 Buildings and Construction. Title 18 has not received a comprehensive update to keep pace with state law and administrative practices in decades. The changes are necessary to bring the city's building regulations into compliance with state law adopting certain uniform building codes as well as modernizing administrative procedures. This proposal increases fees associated with the boarded building program to reflect the city’s actual cost of regulation, eliminates code that is duplicative or irreconcilable with state- adopted building codes, creates an administrative enforcement mechanism for building code violations, updates existing residential housing standards based on precedent from the housing advisory appeals board, and creates one standard appeal process to a streamlined board of appeals and examiners for any violation of Title 18. The proposal also updates portions of Title 21A related to zoning enforcement to reflect existing city administrative practices and increases daily fines associated with uncorrected zoning violations. RECOMMENDATION: That the planning commission recommends that the city council adopt the proposal. ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 18 ATTACHMENT B: Public Process & Comments This proposal is a comprehensive update to Title 18, with related updates to enforcement and appeal mechanisms for zoning violations (which are found in Title 21A and that are enforced by building services). The four substantive changes fall into the following categories: Boarded and Vacant Building Program; Building Code Enforcement Process; Housing Code Updates; Removal of Duplicative or Overlapping Codes; and Zoning Code Enforcement Updates. Boarded and Vacant Building Program (Sections 18.48.200-260) Staff Report BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 2022, the city council requested that the administration propose a change in boarded building fees to capture the full city cost of both monitoring/boarding and emergency services at those properties. The intent was to increase boarding permit fees to recuperate the city costs related to administering the inspection and monitoring of dangerous/boarded buildings. The finance department conducted a cost analysis, and the findings were that each boarded building permit costs the city a total of $22,537 annually between building services and emergency services (police and fire). The city currently charges $902 for the initial year permit fee and $1,546 for subsequent years. Updates to this program reflected in this proposal are as follows: •Changing the program from an annual boarding permit to an annual registration. This type of boarded or vacant building registry was instituted in other cities during the Great Recession. A registry more accurately reflects the nature of the city’s monitoring and regulation, since boarding does not necessarily occur every year (as a permit suggests). •Recording notices against the title on properties on the registry to let any interested buyer know that (1) the property is subject to the registry with annual registration fees, and (2) that boarding costs actually incurred by the city may be outstanding (which fees could be a lien against the title once sent to the Salt Lake County Treasurer). •Incorporates a standard citation and appeal process, which will be the same for any Title 18 violation (found in Chapters 18.24 and 18.12). •Increase the annual fee to $14,000 or less. This would result in the recuperation of 62% of the actual city costs. The current fee structure has an initial year fee and an annual fee for subsequent years. The proposal is to amend the initial year fee and make it the same amount as the subsequent yearly fee. The main reason is to simplify the process of tracking and collecting unpaid fees. •Increase the administrative cost fee and the late penalty fee. The administrative cost fee is only charged when a city contractor performs boarding on private property, and it’s an excellent way to penalize those property owners who are not involved in the boarding and maintenance of their property. The current fee is $129. This proposal would increase the fee to $2,000 for each instance of boarding. The late penalty fee is currently $25 for every thirty days in which the annual fees are not paid. We propose an increase to $100 for this fee. Building Code Enforcement Process (Chapters 18.12, 18.24, and 2.21, and Section 5.14.125) Building services has experienced a number of recent impediments to an effective enforcement and citation appeal process. First, state-adopted building code requires that the city have a board of appeals and examiners, but this five-member board was difficult to keep staffed by qualified persons. Second, the Housing Advisory Appeals Board is a separate ten member board that required additional staff to administer and sometimes reached conclusions that were difficult to justify. Third, Title 18 did not have a general civil citation and appeal process (except that a stop work order could be issued pursuant to state adopted building codes). Fourth, subject-specific portions of Title 18 had specific citation and appeal processes, which were not consistent with one another, making any enforcement process unduly difficult. And finally, recent construction problems have resulted in building services revisiting the current tools and fines available in the event contractors and owners refuse to correct violations. The current general Title 18 enforcement process relied on criminal proceedings and only a couple of discrete violations (such as building without a permit) could be enforced through Title 21A, which is the zoning ordinance. In order to address these issues Titles 18, 2, and 5 have been revised as follows: •The board of appeals and examiners has been streamlined to require only one appeal hearing officer, along with the building official as an ex-officio member (this building official status on the board is consistent with state-adopted building code). •The Housing Advisory Appeals Board is being eliminated in favor of one appeal body – the board of appeals and examiners (which the city must have according to state-adopted building code) – to reduce administrative burden and keep appeal processes consistent. •A standard appeal process for any violation of Title 18 has been added to Chapter 18.12. This process is nearly identical to an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Title 21A. •A fines-only appeal process for any violation of Title 18 has been added to Chapter 18.12. This process is identical to the fines-only appeal process for a zoning code violation. •Significant changes to Chapter 18.24 were made to describe the city’s remedies in the event of a violation of Title 18, which will now include a civil citation and civil fines process. This process is nearly identical to the process for citing and fining individuals and businesses for zoning violations. •New fines are being adopted now that a civil citation process has been created within Title 18. General violations will be $100 per day; violation of a stop work order will be $250 per day; housing code (Chapter 18.50) violations will be between $50 and $200 per day depending on the severity of the violation. Currently Title 18 only permits enforcement by stop work order and criminal proceedings. With these new standardized enforcement and appeal processes, in addition to the criminal proceedings, we will have a more effective tool to get properties and construction projects into compliance. The current cost for criminal violations of the building code is a $1,000 fine, double permit fees, a stop work order, or a re-inspection fee of $75.00. This process works well in the majority of the enforcement cases we have. However, like most cities, pursuing criminal citations for these type of municipal ordinance violations are rare. The other remedies and fines are low enough to be completely ignored by some property owners and builders. If we can implement the assessment of daily fines for civil violations it will make the fines high enough that they will not be ignored by the property owner or contractor. This will give us a better enforcement tool for future construction violations and decrease the number of violations not rectified. Housing Code Updates (Chapters 18.50 and 18.96) The Existing Residential Housing Code in Chapter 18.50, originally enacted in 1995, made reference to building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes that were adopted at the time under the umbrella of the Uniform Building Codes. These UBC codes have since been replaced in Utah with the International Construction Codes. This proposal will update code references in Chapter 18.50 to conform with the Utah adopted ICC codes. The Fit Premises codes in Chapter 18.96 set forth certain rental housing standards. Some of these codes have been preempted by state law, and therefore needed to be removed. These chapters were also revised to incorporate APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY the standard citation and appeal process for any Title 18 violation, though residential rental housing owners will have the right to a warning notice before a citation is issued. In addition to removing old references to the UBC and replacing them with current state-adopted building codes, some standards have also been revised to incorporate standards unofficially implemented for many years in Salt Lake City by the HAAB board. Removal of Duplicative or Overlapping Codes Since Title 18 has not been comprehensively updated in decades there are many chapters that are no longer being used because the subject matter is already comprehensively covered in the state- adopted building codes, or in Title 21A. In order to streamline the code and eliminate such duplication or overlap, Section 18.28.050 and Chapters 18.32, 18.36, 18.48 article 1, 18.56, and 18.92 are being removed. Zoning Code Enforcement Updates (Chapter 21A.20) As part of implementing a civil citation and fine process within Title 18, certain amendments to the zoning enforcement chapter (Chapter 21A.20) are necessary to reflect building services’ current enforcement procedures. These amendments reflect the following changes: •Consistent with other revisions to Title 21A, definitions are being moved to the general zoning definitions chapter (21A.62). •Building services current citation process is now reflected, including when a notice and order can be issued, what it needs to include, how it needs to be sent, and a recipient’s ability to appeal the notice and order. •Zoning violations fines are being increased from $25 to $50 per day for residential properties and from $100 to $200 per day for commercial properties. Zoning fines have not been increased since approximately 1999 (and some zoning violations pre-1999 were subject to fine amounts that are identical to the amounts being proposed in the current amendments). •A new fine amount for failing to have a certificate of appropriateness for work on the exterior of historic district properties is proposed at $50 per day, but if the work that was done is a full or partial demolition of a contributing or landmark structure, then the fine would be $250 per day. •Clarifying that citation notices can be sent by any reputable mail tracking service that confirms delivery, as opposed to just by “certified mail” or “commercial courier service.” The planning commission is a recommending body for code amendments pertaining to land use regulation. Because some of the amendments impact land use, the building services division is bringing all of the amendments to the planning commission for review and recommendation. The planning commission can consider forwarding the proposal to the city council for adoption as is, with modification as to any land use related aspect of the proposal provided the modification complies with applicable state and federal laws or recommend that the proposal not be adopted. If considering KEY CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION modifications, the commission can provide clear direction to building services staff regarding the changes and ask that the changes be made prior to sending the proposal to the council for consideration, provide staff with exact wording (or deletions) that are desired, or table the matter with clear direction to staff to make specific changes that will be reviewed by the commission at a later date. The commission should note that this item is time-sensitive because the council has directed that the building code enforcement updates reflected in the proposed ordinance be sent to the council before the affordable housing incentives ordinance is set to take effect on April 30, 2024. Tabling the matter may create a risk in complying with the council’s request. If a commissioner has an issue with any aspect of the code, it is recommended to contact staff as soon as possible so we are prepared for the public hearing. The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: 1.How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies. 2.Compliance with Utah Code. 3.Impact on zoning code. Consideration 1: How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies This proposal accomplishes city goals by pursuing administrative efficiency, administrative transparency, and charging fees commensurate with the city’s actual regulation costs. Consideration 2: Compliance with Utah Code This proposal is necessary to bring the city’s building and construction code title into conformance with state- adopted building codes. Consideration 3: Impact on the zoning code This proposal does not negatively impact the zoning code. Definitions in Title 18 were reconciled with existing definitions in Title 21A. Overlapping regulations were also eliminated (to maintain such regulations within Title 21A that are not appropriate for construction regulation under Title 18). No substantive zoning standards are being amended in Title 21A through this proposal. Rather, the enforcement portions of Title 21A are being updated to reflect building services’ existing zoning enforcement processes, as well as increase or create fines for violations that previously had no fine attached. The planning commission should recommend that the city council adopt the proposed changes to Title 18 and the relevant portions of Title 2, 5, and 21A based on the information presented in this staff report This proposal will be presented to the City Council regardless of the recommendation of the commission because it is a code amendment, and the city council has final approval authority for all city code amendments. To eliminate inconsistencies with state-adopted building codes and reflect the city’s current zoning enforcement procedures Title 18 should be updated. The division of building services expects the city council to adopt this proposal. However, there may be aspects of the proposal that are modified by the city council. The council can modify any aspect of the proposal because the entire title of code is under consideration. NEXT STEPS 3. Proposed Ordinance 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (An ordinance amending the text of Titles 2, 5, 18 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to modernize the administration, enforcement, and appeals procedures applicable to the state construction codes) An ordinance amending the text of Titles 2, 5, 18, and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to modernize the administration, enforcement, and appeals procedures applicable to the state construction codes pursuant to Petition No. PLNPM2023-00868. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on January 24, 2024 to consider a petition by the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) to amend various provisions of Titles 2, 5, 18 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPM2023-00868; and WHEREAS, at its January 24, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the 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 Chapter 18.04. That Chapter 18.04 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Administration and General Provisions) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.04 ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 18.04.010: DIVISION OF BUILDING SERVICES: This title establishes the duties of the division of building services. 2 18.04.020: DEFINITIONS: A. Where undefined terms are used in this title, the definitions of "Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" shall apply. B. All words and phrases defined in this section shall be given such defined meanings wherever used in this title, including the following: BUILDING OFFICIAL: Means and refers to the director of the division of building services, or his/her designee. DEVELOPMENT: any building activity or clearing of land as an adjunct of construction. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: shall have the same meaning as defined in Utah Code §10-9a- 103 or its successor provisions. DIVISION: Means and refers to the division of building services of the city. ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: any person employed by and authorized by the city to enforce violations of state law or this title, including, but not limited to, building inspectors, the building official, fire marshals, and civil enforcement officers. NONCOMPLIANT PROPERTY: property where one or more violations of this title have occurred or are currently occurring. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE: a document, in any form, giving notice to interested parties that one or more violations of city code exist on the noncompliant property. PERSON: any individual, receiver, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate firm, co- partnership, joint venture, club, company, joint stock company, business trust, limited liability company, corporation, association, legal entity, society or other group of individuals acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or otherwise. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: means the person(s) determined by the city who is responsible for causing, maintaining, or allowing the continuation of a violation of this title. This may include, but is not limited to, a property owner, agent, tenant, lessee, occupant, architect, builder, contractor, business owner, or other person who individually or together with another person is responsible for causing, maintaining, or allowing the continuation or a violation of any provision of the code. 18.04.030: RESERVED 18.04.040: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES ADOPTED: The following codes, as adopted by the State of Utah, along with any adopted appendices are hereby adopted as part of the code of Salt Lake City: 3 The International Building Code, as promulgated by Title 15A of the Utah State Code; The International Residential Code, as promulgated by Title 15A of the Utah State Code; The International Fire Code; International Existing Building Code; International Energy Conservation Code; International Fuel Gas Code; National Electrical Code; The International Mechanical Code; The International Plumbing Code; The International Swimming Pool and Spa Code; Rule R156-56 of the Utah Administrative Code; ICC/MBI 1205-2021 Standard for Off-Site Construction: Inspection and Regulatory Compliance, or its successor, and 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings 18.04.050: RESERVED 18.04.060: RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: Wherever conflicting provisions or requirements of the codes adopted in Section 18.04.040 or the provision of this title occur, the most restrictive provisions or requirements shall govern. In the event a provision of this title conflicts with an is more restrictive than the codes adopted in Utah Code Title 15A, the provisions of Title 15A shall govern. 18.04.070: LIABILITY LIMITATIONS: Nothing in this title shall be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any contractor, owner, or any other persons involved, for apparatus, construction or equipment installed by or for them, for damages to anyone injured or damaged either in person or property by any defect therein, nor shall the city or any employee thereof be held to assume any liability by reason of the inspections authorized herein, or the certificate of occupancy issued by the building official. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.08. That Chapter 18.08 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Organization) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.08 ORGANIZATION 18.08.010: DIVISION ESTABLISHED: 4 There is established, in the department of community and neighborhoods, a subordinate division of building services, to be under the supervision of the building official. The function of the division shall be the implementation, administration and enforcement of the provisions of this title. 18.08.020: POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIVISION: The functions of the division of building services shall be: A. To enforce the zoning laws of Salt Lake City; B. To carry out, enforce and perform all duties, provisions and mandates designated, made and set forth in the ordinances of the city concerning building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical construction, and construction related fire suppression; C. To examine and approve all plans and specifications before building permits shall be issued, and to inspect or cause to be inspected all buildings and structures erected in the city; and D. To perform all of the functions and have all of the powers required of and conferred on the building official by the ordinances of the city. 18.08.030: BUILDING OFFICIAL; EMPLOYMENT: The mayor shall employ a qualified building official and such other employees of the division that may from time to time be required to perform the functions of this title, at such compensation and for such periods of time as the mayor may deem proper. 18.08.040: BUILDING OFFICIAL; POWERS AND DUTIES: The building official shall maintain public office hours necessary to efficiently administer the following duties: A. Maintain an official register of all persons, firms or corporations lawfully entitled to carry on or engage in the businesses regulated by this title to whom a current license has been issued by the department of contractors of the state; B. Issue building permits to properly licensed persons, firms or corporations for work to be done within the scope of this title; C. Administer and enforce the provisions of this title in a manner consistent with the intent thereof, and inspect all work authorized by any permit, to assure compliance with provisions of this title or amendments thereto, approving or condemning such work in whole or in part, as conditions require; 5 D. Issue a certificate of approval or certificate of occupancy for all work approved by him/her; E. Require correction or reject all work done or being done, or materials used or being used which do not in all respects comply with the provisions of this title and amendments thereto; F. Order changes in workmanship and/or materials essential to obtain compliance with all provisions of this title; G. Investigate any construction or work regulated by this title and issue such notices and/or stop work orders which are necessary to prevent or to correct dangerous or unsanitary conditions; H. Recommend revocation of contractor licenses to the state department of business regulation for cause; I. Authorize any utility to make necessary connections for power, water or gas to all applicants for such power or water in the city, when the installation and all facets of the construction or remodel project conform to this title J. Verify that buildings not built on site in Salt Lake City (Factory Built Buildings) are built, inspected, and installed in accordance with the "ICC/MBI Standard for Off-Site Construction: Planning, Design, Fabrication and Assembly", or its successor document. In order for the building official to allow occupancy of qualifying structures, units delivered on site must be provided with a permanently affixed tag identifying the technical code versions, with Utah State Amendments, under which they were built. Individuals making the inspections must be certified and licensed building inspectors in the State of Utah; and K. The building official may render interpretations of this title and adopt and enforce rules and supplemental regulations pursuant to adopted state construction codes to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall conform to the intent and purpose of this title, and shall be made available in writing for public inspection upon request. 18.08.050: BUILDING OFFICIAL; DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY: The building official may delegate any of his/her powers and duties. 18.08.060: BUILDING OFFICIAL; UTILITY DISCONNECTION AUTHORITY: The building official, or the building official's authorized representative, shall have the authority to disconnect or order discontinuance of any utility service or energy supply to buildings, structures or equipment therein regulated by this code, in cases of emergency or where necessary to protect life and property. Such utility service shall be discontinued until the emergency or threat to life or property has ceased. 6 18.08.070: BUILDING OFFICIAL; LIABILITY LIMITATIONS: The building official, appeals hearing officer, fines hearing officer, or enforcement officials, when acting for the city in good faith and without malice in the discharge of his/her duties, shall not thereby render himself/herself liable personally, and the same are hereby relieved from all personal liability for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge of such official's duties. 18.08.080: BUILDING OFFICIAL; RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR INSPECTIONS: The building official and any enforcement official shall have the right of entry, within reasonable hours, to any building or premises for the purpose of inspection, or to investigate any work or conditions governed by this title. 18.08.090: BUILDING OFFICIAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROHIBITED: The building official and his/her assistants shall not in any way engage in the sale or installation of equipment or supplies upon which they are required to make inspection under this code. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.12. That Chapter 18.12 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Board of Appeals and Examiners) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.12 BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS 18.12.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the board of appeals and examiners except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 18.12.020: BOARD OF APPEALS CREATED; PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY: In order to (1) hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this title, including any state construction code adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040, or (2) hear and decide appeals of orders by enforcement officials, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals and 7 examiners comprised of an appeals hearing officer and the building official. The building official shall be an ex officio member of said board but shall not have a vote on any matter before the board. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter before the board. The appeals hearing officer may serve consecutive four year terms upon the advice of the mayor and consent of the city council. The appeals hearing officer need not be a resident of Salt Lake City. The board shall provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this title and the appeals hearing officer shall be qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction, housing, and abatement codes and technical disciplines set forth in this title. The board shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this title. 18.12.030: PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS & EXAMINERS: Appeals of decisions by the building official or enforcement officials shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the building official. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the order, decision or determination being appealed, the alleged error made by stating each fact and every theory of relief on appeal and one or more reasons the appellant claims the administrative decision is in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees as set forth in 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 the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, in accordance with the consolidated fee schedule, including costs of mailing, preparation of mailing labels and all other costs relating to notification. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. C. Parties Entitled to Appeal. An applicant, a board or officer of the city, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah Code 10-9a-103, or its successor, may appeal. D. Time for Filing an Appeal; Time for Hearing: The deadline for filing a complete application for appeal is 10 days from the date of the decision, determination or order. Each appeal shall be reviewed informally by the board no later than 45 days from the date of filing of a written appeal, unless a later date is agreed to by the parties. Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a waiver of the person's right to an appeal. 8 E. Notice Required. Upon receipt of an appeal the board of appeals and examiners shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conducting public hearings set forth in Chapter 21A.10. F. Standard of Review. The board shall conduct each appeal de novo. The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. The board shall render a decision based upon the applicable law. The board shall afford due process to the parties on appeal. Each party may call such witnesses and present such evidence as it deems appropriate, provided such evidence is not unduly cumulative or irrelevant as determined by the board. Hearings shall be conducted informally. After hearing all evidence and legal arguments presented by the parties, the board shall apply the plain language of the applicable law and issue a written decision on the merits of all theories of relief the appellant raised in the appeal. G. Effect of Decision. The decision of the board is a final decision of the city, appealable to district court. No person may challenge in district court any order, decision, or enforcement action taken pursuant to this title unless and until that person has exhausted the administrative remedies provided by this chapter. H. Procedures. The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded and such recordings shall be retained for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirements set forth in state law. The building official shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. I. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this title specifically states otherwise. J. Requesting a Stay: The board may grant a request submitted by any party to the appeal to stay a decision of the building official or enforcement official for a specified period of time or until the board issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required if a provision of this title imposes an automatic stay upon the filing of an appeal with the board. If a stay is requested, the board shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the board does not decide a request for a stay within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. 18.12.040: BOARD DECISIONS: The board of appeals shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the parties within 14 days of the hearing on the appeal. 18.12.050: APPEALS OF CIVIL FINES & ABATEMENT COSTS: 9 A. Powers and Duties of Fines Hearing Officer: The fines hearing officer, appointed pursuant to Section 21A.06.090, may hear and decide appeals of civil fines and abatement costs imposed pursuant to this title. As set forth in this section, the fines hearing officer may affirm civil fines, reduce civil fines, and approve civil fine payment schedules. The fines hearing officer may affirm or reduce an abatement statement of costs and may approve abatement cost payment schedules. B. Right to Appear: Any responsible party receiving a notice and order or statement of abatement costs may appear before a fines hearing officer to appeal the amount of the civil fine or abatement cost imposed by submitting a statement of appeal on a form provided by the division of building services. However, in the case of civil fines, no party may appear before a fines hearing officer until violations for which the fines have accrued have been corrected. Appeals to a fines hearing officer contesting the amount of the civil fine imposed must be filed within 30 days from the date of compliance. Appeals to a fines hearing officer contesting the statement of abatement costs must be filed within 20 days from the date the statement of costs is delivered, but the only issue on such appeal is the amount of such costs and not the city’s determination to incur abatement costs. Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a waiver of the person's right to an appeal. C. Responsibility: Commencement of any action to remove or reduce civil fines shall not relieve the responsibility of any responsible party to correct the violation or make payment of accrued civil fines nor shall it require the city to reissue any of the notices required by this chapter. D. Reduction of Civil Fine: Civil fines may be reduced at the discretion of the fines hearing officer after the violation is corrected and if any of the following conditions exist: 1. Strict compliance with the notice and order would have caused an imminent and irreparable injury to persons or property; 2. The violation and inability to correct the same were both caused by a force majeure event such as war, act of nature, strike or civil disturbance; 3. A change in the actual ownership of the property was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office after a notice of violation was issued and the new property owner is not related by blood, marriage or common ownership to the prior owner; or 4. Such other mitigating circumstances as determined by the fines hearing officer. E. Notice Required. Upon receipt of an appeal of a statement of abatement costs the fines hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conducting public hearings set forth in Chapter 21A.10. F. Payment Schedule: At the request of a responsible party subject to civil fines or abatement costs governed by this title, the fines hearing officer may approve a payment schedule for the delayed or periodic payment of the applicable civil fine or abatement costs to accommodate the person's unique circumstances or ability to pay. 10 G. Failure to Comply with Payment Schedule: If a payment schedule has been developed by the fines hearing officer, the failure by a person to submit any 2 payments as scheduled shall cause the entire amount of the original civil fine or abatement cost to become immediately due, less any payments actually made. 18.12.060: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BOARD'S DECISIONS: The city, or any person aggrieved by any decision of the board or fines hearing officer as to abatement costs, may appeal to district court so long as the petition for such relief is filed with the court within 30 days of the board’s or fines hearing officer’s decision. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.16. That Chapter 18.16 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Registration and Licenses) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.16 LICENSES 18.16.010: STATE CONTRACTOR LICENSE REQUIRED: Except as provided in Section 18.20.070, every applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this title shall furnish evidence that such applicant is currently licensed under the provisions of the Utah contractor's license law as it presently exists or hereafter may be amended, giving the classification and number of the license, and shall have secured all licenses required by the ordinances of Salt Lake City. 18.16.020: EXCAVATION BOND REQUIRED: Any person, firm or corporation properly licensed to do business in accordance with this title who in the course of their work has occasion to excavate in the city streets, alleys or rights of way shall file an additional bond with the city in the amount of $10,000.00, or such larger amount as the city engineer may require. 18.16.030: LICENSE NOT TRANSFERABLE: 11 It is unlawful for any contractor to use such contractor's license or to allow his/her license to be used in any way for the purpose of procuring a bond or permit for any person other than such contractor. 18.16.040: SALE OF UNAPPROVED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED: It is unlawful for any dealer or person to sell, deliver or offer for sale any mechanical equipment or apparatus that has not been approved by a recognized listing agency. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.20. That Chapter 18.20 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Permits and Inspections) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.20 PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS 18.20.010: WORK REQUIRING PERMIT: No person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building, structure or premises, or make any installation, alteration or improvement to the electrical, fire, plumbing or mechanical system in a building, structure or premises, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining the prescribed permits for each such building or structure or premises from the building official. 18.20.020: FEES: A. Building permit fees shall be based on the total valuation of the proposed project as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. B. Plan review fees shall be 65% of the building permit fees. C. Fees to expedite building plan review as governed by Section 18.20.050 shall be 2 times the standard building plan review fee. D. Penalties for not obtaining permanent certificate of occupancy will be $300.00 for each month, after the initial 30 day temporary certificate of occupancy, which has no additional cost associated with it; due before the first of the month and only allowed for up to 3 renewals after the initial free 30 day period. Partial months will not be refunded. E. Fees for renewing expired plan review after 180 days as governed by Section 18.20.110 shall be shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 12 F. A fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be charged for each permit for fencing. G. Other fees shall consist of electrical, mechanical and plumbing, and fire suppression and monitoring equipment inspection fees as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.20.030: APPLICATION; FORM AND FILING: To apply for a building permit the applicant shall first file an application on a form furnished by the building official and pay the requisite fee therefor as established in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.20.040: APPLICATION; PLANS AND OTHER DATA: Each application for a permit shall be accompanied by all required plans, diagrams and other data required by the building official. The building official may require the plans and other data to be prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such. 18.20.050: APPLICATION; REVIEW; PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITIONS: A. Application Review: Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the application plans and data filed by an applicant for a building permit shall be checked by the building official. Said application may be reviewed by other government agencies or departments to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their jurisdiction. No building permit shall be issued unless and until the plans and specifications comply with all applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Title 21A. The building official may issue a permit for the construction of part of a building or structure before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been submitted or approved, provided adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of this title. The holder of such permit shall proceed at his or her own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire building or structure will be granted. B. Expedited Plan Review: A building permit applicant may seek an expedited building plan review, provided that the applicant pay the expedited plan review fee set forth in Section 18.20.020 of this title. The expedited building plan review may be conducted by a qualified third party with significant experience conducting building plan reviews, as selected and approved by the building official. The person(s) assigned to conduct the expedited building plan review shall provide initial comments, including corrections to be made to the building plans, within 10 business days of the date the application was filed and all fees paid. C. Plan Review Expiration: If a building permit applicant fails to submit corrected building plans in accordance with the comments and requirements of the building services division or its authorized representative within 180 days of the division transmitting such comments and requirements to the applicant, or if the applicant fails to pay the required building permit fee within 180 days of the division informing the applicant that its building plans are 13 approved and the building permit fee is due, the plan review shall expire at the end of such period and the review become null and void. An expired plan review may be renewed, provided that the applicant pay the plan review renewal fee established in Section 18.20.020 of this title, however, no plan review may be renewed after 3 years from the original submission date or if new versions of the codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040 have come into effect since the prior plan review was conducted. 18.20.060: PERMIT; ISSUED TO LICENSED CONTRACTORS ONLY: Except as otherwise provided by this title, no building permit shall be issued to any person other than a duly licensed contractor licensed by the State of Utah Division of Professional Licensing or its successor. 18.20.070: HOMEOWNER PERMITS: Any permit required by this title may be issued to any person to do any work regulated by this title in a single-family dwelling used exclusively for such person's living purposes, including the usual accessory buildings and quarters in connection with such buildings, provided that any such person is a bona fide owner of any such dwelling and accessory buildings and quarters, and that the same are occupied or designed to be occupied by such owner, and further provided that the owner shall furnish the building official with a complete layout drawing of the proposed work, satisfy the building official that he or she has a working knowledge of the code requirements, performs the work himself or herself, pays the necessary inspection fees, and calls for all inspections required by this title. 18.20.080: PERMIT; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE: The issuance of a permit or approval of plans or other data shall not be construed to be a permit for or an approval of any violation of any of the provisions of this title, Title 21A, or any rights of third parties. The issuance of a permit based upon plans and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans and data or from stopping construction activity being carried on thereunder when in violation of this title or any other law. The city shall have no obligation to enforce the rights of third parties or recover damages to third parties due to the acts or omissions of permit holders. 18.20.090: START OF WORK WITHOUT PERMIT; PENALTY FEES; EMERGENCIES: A. Whenever any work requiring a permit under this title is commenced without a permit first having been obtained the building official may pursue enforcement of this title pursuant to Chapter 18.24. 14 B. Fee Increase When: Whenever any construction or work for which a permit is required by this title is started or commenced without obtaining the prescribed permit, the fees specified in this title may be increased by the building official up to a fee of 10% of the valuation of the proposed construction as determined by the building official, or $1,000.00, whichever is greater, but the payment of such increased fees shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of this title in the execution of the work nor from any other penalties prescribed herein. C. Exception; Emergency Work: This section shall not apply to emergency work when it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the building official that such work was urgently necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit therefor before the commencement of the work. In all such cases, a permit must be obtained as soon as it is practical to do so, and if there be an unreasonable delay in obtaining a permit, a double fee, as herein provided, shall be charged. 18.20.100: PERMIT; DENIAL CONDITIONS: The building official may refuse to issue any permit for work governed by this title to any person who has a permit revoked in accordance with this title, or during such time as such person fails to comply with any provision of this title or Title 21A. No permit shall be issued to the responsible party for a property actively subject to enforcement proceedings by the city for violations of this title or Title 21A, except for permits required to correct the violations. 18.20.110: PERMIT; EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL: Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this title shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days. Before such work can be recommenced, the permittee must request that the permit be renewed by the building official and the fee therefor shall be 1/2 the amount required for a new permit for such work. Such renewal may be granted if such request is made prior to the permit expiring upon the permittee demonstrating justifiable cause for the renewal, and provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans or scope of such work. Such renewal shall be denied if such request is made after the permit has expired and (1) municipal regulations impacting the use, size, yard, space or other requirements concerning the proposed structure or development have changed since the permit was issued, (2) material changes have been made or will be made in the original plans or scope of work, or (3) justifiable cause does not exist to allow the project to be renewed. In connection with renewing a permit that pertains to construction of a new structure or substantial exterior alteration of a site the building official may impose reasonable conditions regarding a deadline to complete the work, posting of a bond, erection of fences, securing methods, and similar conditions to mitigate the hazards of and limit the nuisances of ongoing construction. 15 18.20.120: PERMIT; NOT TRANSFERABLE: Building permits are non-transferable without completion of a permit transfer document approved by the building official. When any construction activity regulated by this title is not completed by the permittee identified in the permit and is instead completed by any other person, such person shall procure a permit to cover the work he or she performs. 18.20.130: PERMIT; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION: The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under provisions of this title whenever the permit is issued in error, or on the basis of inaccurate information supplied, or upon a finding of a violation of any ordinance or regulation of any of the provisions of this title or Title 21A. 18.20.140: HEARING ON DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT: Any person adversely affected by the action of the building official made pursuant to Section 18.20.130 may appeal pursuant to Chapter 18.12, except that an appeal of a revocation or suspension of a building permit based upon a finding of a violation of Title 21A shall be made to the appeals hearing officer as set forth in Chapter 21A.16. 18.20.150: INSPECTION OF WORK: A. All construction, work and equipment for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspections by the building official. The building official may make or require any inspection of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this title and other laws which are enforced by the division. B. No construction, work or equipment regulated by this title shall be connected to any energy, fuel or power supply or water system or sewer system until authorized by the building official. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit or during construction a survey of any lot or parcel may be required by the building official to verify compliance with approved plans. D. The building official shall not be liable for any expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow an inspection. 18.20.160: APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR ONGOING CONSTRUCTION: No work shall be done on any part of the building or structure beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the written approval of the building official. Such written approval shall be given only after an inspection shall have been made of each successive step in the construction as indicated by each of the inspections required by the building official. 16 18.20.170: REQUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS: The building official may require that every request for inspection be made at least one day before such inspection is required and in such method as prescribed by the building official. It shall be the duty of the person requesting any inspections required by this title to provide access to and means for proper inspection of such work. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the building official to perform an inspection within the notice period provided herein. 18.20.180: RESERVED 18.20.190: FINAL INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: A final inspection and building official approval are required on all buildings and structures requiring a building permit prior to occupancy. Final inspection approval shall be issued in the form of a certificate of occupancy. A building or structure shall not be used or occupied in whole or in part, and a change in occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor. A certificate of occupancy may, upon notice, be revoked by the building official if the building official finds that elements of the property for which a certificate was issued have been changed or modified, including a change in occupancy classification, without obtaining the requisite permits required by this title. 18.20.200: REINSPECTIONS AND FEES: A. A reinspection fee may be assessed: 1. When the approved plans are not readily available to the inspector; 2. For failure to provide access on the date for which the inspection is required; 3. For deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building official. B. In instances where reinspection fees have been assessed or reinspection is necessary, no additional inspection of the work will be performed until the required fees have been paid and the permittee calls for a reinspection. The reinspection charge shall be shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule and not exceed the amount shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule for each additional inspection required. 18.20.210: CLEANUP AND PROTECTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY: 17 A. Each permit holder shall be responsible to see that vehicles used in the process of carrying out the work authorized by the permit shall not track any mud, dirt or debris of any kind upon any streets or sidewalks within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City Corporation unless a permit has been obtained from the city engineer for use of a designated portion of the right of way with provisions made to keep that portion of the right of way and adjacent areas cleared of mud, dirt or debris of any kind. The permittee shall install a suitable process to clean the wheels of the equipment prior to its leaving the job site and entering the streets of Salt Lake City Corporation. The suitable process shall consist of: 1. A cleaning area and crew to clean mud and dirt off the wheels and exterior body surface of the trucks, or its equivalent; 2. The cleaning area shall be arranged to furnish adequate draining to prevent puddling; the cleaning area shall be kept mud free and may be on a macadam or concrete slab; 3. The cleaning area shall be located on private property and arranged in such a way that there is no blocking of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on city rights of way except where permission has been granted by the city engineer; 4. The cleaning water or solution used for cleaning shall not be allowed to enter the city streets, gutter, or storm drain or sanitary sewer system. B. All trucks and equipment leaving the site with earthen materials or loose debris shall be loaded and/or covered in such a manner as to prevent dropping of materials on city streets and/or sidewalks. C. Ramps constructed over curbs and gutters shall not interfere with or block the passage of water along the gutter and shall be constructed of asphalt material that will not erode or deteriorate under adverse weather conditions. D. The permit holder shall install erosion and water runoff controls sufficient to ensure that no stormwater, surface water, sediments or debris from the construction site shall drain or wash or be tracked into any public right of way or other adjacent properties, including curb and gutter, unless permission has been granted through the erosion control plan. These controls shall be sufficient to cover any contingency, including, but not limited to, seasonal storms, unseasonal storms, or methods of construction. The building official or the city engineer may require, when in his/her discretion he/she deems necessary, an erosion control plan to be submitted for approval. Such plan may be required any time during construction and must be submitted within 5 days of the request. The building official or the city engineer may suspend all work until the plan requested is approved. The permit holder will maintain all erosion control facilities throughout the life of the construction project. He/she will monitor their effectiveness after storms and make the necessary adjustments to ensure they function correctly. E. The sidewalk and/or curb and gutter shall not be used for storage of debris, dirt or excavated materials. In addition, the sidewalks shall not be removed, blocked or otherwise rendered unusable by either the storage of construction equipment or materials or the construction procedures used, unless a safe, usable alternate walkway along the same side of the street is provided by the contractor unless a permit has been issued by the city engineer. All 18 alternate walkways shall be ramped in accordance with handicap ramp requirements and so constructed as to provide an all weather walking surface 4 feet wide as sound and smooth as the normal concrete sidewalk. F. The permit holder shall be responsible for the immediate removal of mud, dirt or debris deposited on city streets, sidewalks and/or curb and gutters by equipment leaving the site or by the permit holder's construction procedures. G. If it becomes necessary for the city street crews to remove any mud, dirt, or debris which has been deposited upon a street or sidewalk of Salt Lake City Corporation, the total cost to the city of such removal will be charged to the property owner or permit holder, including legal fees, if any. Payment of such charges will be made to the city prior to certification of final inspections, utility clearances, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. H. The building official or the city engineer is empowered to suspend any permit until the permit holder installs the necessary cleaning equipment and/or erosion control facilities to ensure that no dust or debris is deposited upon the streets and sidewalks of Salt Lake City Corporation. Such device shall operate in a manner satisfactory to the building official or the city engineer. 18.20.220: WAIVER OR DEFERRAL OF FEES: Nonprofit organizations may petition the city for the waiver or deferral of any or all fees required by this title on an annual or project by project basis as provided below: A. Petitions shall be filed with the division of housing stability. B. Waivers shall not be granted for projects that are receiving 75% or more of their funding directly or indirectly from state or federal agencies, except for projects that upgrade or construct owner occupied housing or multiple dwelling units used for very low income housing as provided by the guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development. C. Waiver requests shall be heard informally before the director of the department of community and neighborhoods after notice of the hearing has been posted for 7 days in the office of the city recorder. D. The director of the department of community and neighborhoods may recommend granting the waiver or deferral if he/she finds that the project or projects, and the sponsoring nonprofit organization furthers the city's established low income housing goals to provide housing for persons or families under 80% of the city's median income, as defined by the United States department of housing and urban development, and also meets all applicable guidelines established for any such programs by the United States department of housing and urban development. The director may recommend that waivers may be granted for remodeling or construction of offices for nonprofit housing corporations if he/she finds that such remodeling or construction will save the corporation money and that such savings will be applied to a specific housing project. 19 E. The director’s recommendation will be made to the city council and considered at a public meeting. The property owner of any project(s) for which a waiver or deferral of fees is granted shall enter into, as applicable, (1) a restrictive covenant, in a form approved by the city attorney, against the applicable property pertaining to the affordable housing that shall be provided at the property, or (2) a binding agreement regarding the method in which the fee savings shall be applied to a specific housing project. F. Fee waivers or deferrals shall not be granted to any organization which owns, operates, manages or is related by common ownership or management to any other such organization which owns, operates or manages buildings for which existing notices of code violations have not been corrected. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.24. That Chapter 18.24 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administration and Enforcement: Enforcement and Penalties) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.24 ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES 18.24.010: ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY: Unless otherwise provided by this title, the building official is authorized and responsible for enforcement of this title. The fire marshal or designee shall be the principal enforcement officer on post construction activity with respect to the fire codes. Whenever one or more violations of this title exist, any enforcement official has the authority to obtain compliance subject to the provisions of this code. Unless otherwise provided, any violation of this title shall be subject to the enforcement processes and penalties as set forth in this chapter. 18.24.020: CRIMINAL PENALTIES: Unless otherwise provided, it shall be a misdemeanor for any person, firm, or corporation to violate the provisions of this title, either by failing to do those acts required or by doing an act prohibited by this title or the codes referred to herein, or by aiding or abetting in a violation of this title or the codes referred to herein. Each day that any violation of this title is permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense. The class of misdemeanor shall be as dictated by state law. 18.24.030: CHOICE OF REMEDIES: 20 A. In addition to any criminal prosecution, this title may be enforced through administrative or civil actions. The city may pursue any legal remedy to ensure compliance with this title including, but not limited to, injunctive relief. The city has sole discretion over which remedy or combination of remedies it may choose to pursue. B. If the city elects to pursue through administrative or civil actions one or more violations of the provisions of this title, a civil penalty shall be assessed for each violation in the amount set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. Each day a violation continues after notice of the same shall give rise to a separate civil fine. C. The possibility of an administrative or civil remedy does not interfere with the city’s right to prosecute violations of this title as criminal offenses. If the city chooses to file both civil and criminal actions for the same violation, no civil penalties in the form of fines shall be assessed, but other remedies, such as orders to correct the violations or other declaratory or injunctive relief, is available to the city. D. The city may use such lawful means as are available to obtain compliance with the provisions of this title and to collect the civil fines that accrue as a result of the violation of the provisions of this title, including but not limited to a legal action to obtain one or more of the following: an injunction, an order of mandamus, an order requiring the property owner or occupant or permittee to abate the violations, an order permitting the city to enter the property and abate the violations, and a judgment in the amount of the civil fines accrued for the violation, including costs and attorney fees, and a judgment in the amount of any actual costs incurred by the city. E. In addition to the other remedies provided by this title, upon the finding of a violation of this title the building official may evacuate or close a building to occupancy when necessary to protect the public or neighboring property from a risk to health or safety. The building shall thereafter remain unoccupied until the appropriate certificate of occupancy has been issued. F. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected, reoccurs at the same property within 6 months of the initial correction and is due the actions or inactions of the same responsible party as the prior violation, the city may begin enforcement of said recurring violation and impose fines after a 10 day warning period. 18.24.040: NOTICE & ORDER; STOP WORK ORDER: A. Notice and Order. 1. Upon a determination that there is a violation of this title an enforcement official may provide a written notice and order to any responsible party. The written notice and order shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. the date and location of each violation; c. the code sections violated; 21 d. that the violations must be corrected; e. provide a specific date by which the enforcement official orders that the violations be corrected by; f. the amount of the civil fine to accrue for each violation, or other enforcement action that the enforcement official intends to pursue, if the violation is not corrected by the date specified; g. identification of the right to and procedure to appeal; and h. the signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the notice and order on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the written notice and order on the noncompliant property, and b. By mailing the notice and order through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the notice and order mailing requirements of Subsection 18.24.040.A.2.b. 3. Following the issuance of a notice and order, any responsible party shall correct the violations specified in the notice and order. Upon correction of the violations specified in the notice and order, the responsible party shall request an inspection of the property. 4. Following a request for an inspection as set forth in Subsection 18.24.040.A.3, an enforcement official shall conduct an inspection of the property to determine whether the violations alleged in the notice and order have been corrected, including, if applicable, all necessary permits have been issued and all final inspections have been performed as required by applicable city codes. 5. If one or more violations are not corrected by the deadline specified in the notice and order, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set forth in Subsection 18.24.030.B. Accumulation of civil fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of civil fines already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation(s) once confirmed through an inspection requested pursuant to Subsection 18.24.040.A.3. 6. The responsible party shall have the right to contest the notice and order at an administrative hearing in accordance with Chapter 18.12. Failure to timely request an administrative hearing and pay the administrative hearing fee set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing and a waiver of the right to appeal. B. Stop Work Order. Upon a determination that there is a violation of this title an enforcement official may issue a stop work order prior to issuance of a notice and order. If, after issuance of a notice and order pursuant to subsection A, the violations cited remain uncorrected 22 after the correction period set forth in the notice and order, then a daily civil fine in the amount set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be imposed. 18.24.050: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE; ABATEMENT LIEN: A. Upon expiration of the correction period set forth in a notice and order or stop work order, and where the violation(s) remain uncorrected, the city may record on the noncompliant property with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office a notice of noncompliance. B. The recordation of a notice of noncompliance shall not be deemed an encumbrance on the noncompliant property but shall merely place interested parties on notice of any continuing violation of this title at the noncompliant property. C. If a notice of noncompliance has been recorded pursuant to Section A and the enforcement official determines that all violations have been corrected, the enforcement official shall issue a notice of compliance by recording the notice of compliance on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. Recordation of the notice of compliance shall have the effect of canceling the recorded notice of noncompliance. D. If the city files an action for injunctive relief seeking abatement of one or more violations and the district court authorizes the abatement of one or more violations and the city incurs costs and the costs are not paid, a lien or garnishment may be placed to recover the costs and may be considered an encumbrance on the property. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.28. That Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Site Development Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.28 SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 18.28.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Authority: This chapter is enacted pursuant to title 10 of the Utah Code as amended. This chapter is further enacted as an element of the Salt Lake City master plan. B. Applicability: The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all site development within Salt Lake City. C. Purpose: This chapter is adopted: to promote public safety and the general public welfare; to protect property against loss from erosion, earth movement, earthquake hazard, and 23 flooding; to maintain a superior community environment; to provide for the continued orderly growth of the city to ensure maximum preservation of the natural scenic character of major portions of the city by establishing minimum standards and requirements relating to land grading, excavations, and fills; and to establish procedures by which these standards and requirements may be enforced. It is intended that this chapter be administered with the foregoing purposes in mind and specifically to: 1. Ensure that the development of each site occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands so as to minimize problems of drainage, erosion, earth movement, and similar hazards; 2. Ensure that public lands and places, watercourses, streets, and all other lands in the city are protected from erosion, earth movement, and drainage hazards; 3. Ensure that the planning, design, and construction of all development will be done in a manner which provides maximum safety and human enjoyment, and, except where specifically intended otherwise, makes it as unobtrusive in the natural terrain as possible; 4. Ensure, insofar as practicable, the retention of natural vegetation to aid in protection against erosion, earth movement, and other hazards and to aid in preservation of the natural scenic qualities of the city; and 5. Ensure, insofar as Salt Lake City is located in an active seismic zone, that appropriate earthquake hazard mitigation measures are incorporated into the planning and execution of site development. D. Identification of Fault Hazards: Pending the completion by the Utah geological survey (UGS) of a fault hazard map for Salt Lake City, the planning director may rely upon the existing information available from UGS or other publicly or privately prepared geological reports to identify fault hazards. 18.28.020: DEFINITIONS: A. Definition Of Terms: For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms used herein are defined as set forth below: AS GRADED: The surface conditions existent upon completion of grading. BEDROCK: In place, solid, rock. BENCH: A relatively level step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. BORROW: Earth material acquired from an off site location for use in grading a site. BUILDING PERMIT: A permit issued by Salt Lake City for the construction, erection, or alteration of a structure or building. 24 CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION: Means that the specific reports, inspections, and tests that are required have been performed by the person or under their supervision, and that the results of such reports, inspections, and tests comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter. CITY ENGINEER: The city engineer of Salt Lake City. CIVIL ENGINEER: A professional engineer registered in the state of Utah to practice in the field of civil works. CIVIL ENGINEERING: The application of the knowledge to the forces of nature, principals of mechanics, and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design, and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. COMPACTION: The densification of fill by mechanical means. CUBIC YARDS: The volume of material in an excavation and/or fill. CUL-DE-SAC: A street closed at one end. CUT: See definition of Excavation. DRIVEWAY: A way or route for use by vehicle traffic leading from a parking area or from a house, garage, or other structure, to a road or street. EARTH MATERIAL: Any rock, natural soil, or any combination thereof. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: A graduate in geology or engineering geology of an accredited university, with 5 or more full years of professional postgraduate experience in the application of the geological sciences, of which 3 full years shall be in the field of engineering geology that has required the application of geological data, techniques, and principles to engineering problems dealing with groundwater, naturally occurring rock and soil, and geologic hazards for the purpose of assuring that geological factors are recognized and adequately interpreted and presented. EROSION: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice. EXCAVATION: Any act by which vegetation, earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other similar material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated, or bulldozed, and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. EXISTING GRADE: The actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the ground surface before excavation or filling. FILL: Any earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other material which is deposited, placed, replaced, pushed, dumped, pulled, transported, or moved by man to a new location and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. FILL MATERIAL: Earth material free from rock or similar irreducible material exceeding 12 inches in diameter, metal, and organic material except that topsoil spread on cut and fill surfaces may incorporate humus for desirable moisture retention properties. 25 GRADING: Excavation or fill or any combination thereof that alters the elevation of the terrain and shall include the conditions resulting from any excavation or fill. LICENSED ARCHITECT: An architect who is registered with the division of occupational and professional licensing of the state of Utah. NATURAL DRAINAGE: Water which flows by gravity in channels formed by the surface topography of the earth prior to changes made by the efforts of man. ONE STREET ACCESS: A street that provides the sole access to one or more other streets. PARCEL: All contiguous land in one ownership, provided, however, each lot conforming to the zoning ordinances of Salt Lake City in a subdivision may be considered to be a separate parcel. PERCENT OF SLOPE: The slope of a designated area of land determined by dividing the horizontal run of the slope into the vertical rise of the same slope, measured between contour lines on the referenced contour map and converting the resulting figure into a percentage value. This calculation is described by the following formula: S = V/H Where "S" is the percent of slope; "V" is the vertical distance; and "H" is the horizontal distance. PERMITTEE: Any person to which a site development permit has been issued. PLANNING DIRECTOR: The planning director of Salt Lake City. QUARRY: An open excavation for the extraction of resources. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER: A civil engineer who is registered with the division of occupational and professional licensing of the state of Utah. REMOVAL: Killing vegetation by spraying, complete extraction, or excavation, or cutting vegetation to the ground, trunks, or stumps. SEISMIC: Characteristic of, or produced by, earthquakes or earth vibration. SITE: A lot or parcel of land, or a contiguous combination thereof, where grading work is performed as a single unified operation. 26 SITE DEVELOPMENT: Grading and underground utility installation in preparation for an approved, pending development or use for the subject site. SLOPE CLASSIFICATION MAP: A map prepared as a colored exhibit by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor based upon a contour map of the specified scale and contour interval, upon which the measured and calculated percent of slope (measured between every contour interval on the map) is classified or grouped into percentage of slope data in 10% slope groupings as follows: Slope Classification Percent Of Slope Mapped Color Level 0 - 9.9%Uncolored Slight 10 - 19.9%Yellow Moderate 20 - 29.9%Orange Severe 30% and greater Red SOILS ENGINEER: A registered civil engineer of the state of Utah, specializing in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, familiar with the application of principles of soil mechanics in the investigation and analysis of the engineering properties of earth materials. SURCHARGE: The temporary placement of fill material on a site in order to compress or compact the natural soil mass. TESTING LABORATORY: A testing laboratory that requires supervisory personnel to be professional engineers registered with the division of occupational and professional licensing of the state of Utah. VACANT: Land on which there are no structures or only structures which are secondary to the use or maintenance of the land itself. 18.28.030: RESERVED 18.28.040: LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: A. General Application: No person or party shall cause any excavation or grading to be done in excess of the limits set forth below without first having obtained a site development permit. 1. Work Requiring Separate Approval/Permit: A site development permit shall be required in all cases where development comes under any one or more of the following provisions: 27 yards; a. Excavation, fill, or any combination thereof exceeding 1,000 cubic b. Excavation, fill, or any combination thereof exceeding 5 feet in vertical depth at its deepest point measured from the adjacent, undisturbed, ground surface; c. Excavation, fill, or any combination thereof exceeding an area of a 1/2 acre; d. Excavation, fill, or any combination thereof of 10% or more of a building site including the excavation for foundations and footings; e. Removal of vegetation from an area in excess of a 1/2 acre for purposes other than agricultural; f. Engineered interior fills or surcharges. g. Commercial quarries or mining activities operating in permitted zoning districts as provided in Title 21A. 2. Work Not Requiring Separate Approval/Permit: A separate site development permit shall not be required in the following cases: a. Excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of buildings or other structures authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with material from such excavation, or exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the completion of such structure. b. Removal of vegetation as part of work authorized by a valid building permit. B. Permits Required: Except as exempted in Subsection A of this section, a separate approval or permit shall be required for each site, and may cover both excavation and fill. 1. Application: To obtain a permit the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the building department for that purpose. Every such application shall: a. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made; b. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address, or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed work and identify lots of any platted subdivision included within the proposed building site; c. Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended; 28 d. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations, and specifications and other data as required; e. Be signed by property owner or permittee, or his authorized agent, who may be required to submit evidence to indicate such authority; f. Show the location of existing and proposed buildings or structures on the applicant's property, and the location of buildings or structures on adjacent properties which are within 15 feet of the applicant's property, or which may be affected by the proposed site development activities; g. Show the location of property lines and all existing and proposed streets, roadways, driveways, easements, and rights of way on, contiguous, or adjacent to the proposed development site; h. Show the present contours of the site in dashed lines and the proposed contours in solid lines. Contour intervals shall be not greater than 2 feet where slopes are predominately 5% or less, and 5 feet where slopes are predominately steeper than 5%. The source of all topographical information shall be indicated; i. Show the location of all drainage to, from, and across the site, the location of intermittent and permanent streams, springs, culverts, and other drainage structures, and size and location of any precipitation catchment areas in, above, or within 100 feet of the site; j. Include detailed plans and location of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing drainage areas, and the complete drainage network including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may be affected by the proposed project. Include the estimated runoff of the areas served by the proposed drainage system; k. Present a plan showing temporary erosion control measures to prevent erosion during the course of construction; l. All grading in excess of 5,000 cubic yards shall require professional engineering and shall be designated as "engineered grading". Any application including engineered grading shall contain a grading plan prepared by a registered professional engineer or licensed architect; m. Include a revegetation plan including: (1) A survey of existing trees, shrubs, and ground covers, (2) A plan for the proposed revegetation of the site detailing existing vegetation to be preserved, new vegetation to be planned and any modification to existing vegetation, and 29 (3) A plan for the preservation of existing vegetation during construction activity; n. Make a statement of the estimated starting and completion dates for the grading work proposed and any revegetation work that may be required; o. Identify the type of surcharging fill material to be used on the building site; p. Estimate the amount of time surcharging fill material will be in place, and show consideration by a soils engineer of the potential for vertical and lateral soil movements on properties adjacent to the surcharge; q. Submit a copy of the recorded subdivision plat showing developable area limitations, if applicable; r. Describe the method to be employed in disposing of soil and other material that is removed from the site, including the location of the disposal site; s. Describe the method to be used in obtaining fill to be used on the site and the site of acquisition of such fill; t. Include an engineering geology report described in Section 18.28.040.C.2 if the proposed development lies within 500 feet of an identified fault. Said report may be submitted for review to the Utah geological survey by the building official. u. Applications related to commercial quarriers shall contain an acceptable plan for the eventual rehabilitation and use of the quarry site after the resources have been removed. Such a plan, at a scale of not less than one inch equals 100 feet with contour intervals not greater than 5 feet, shall be compatible with its surroundings and in general agreement with the city’s master plan. The plan shall show the proposed treatment of any stream channel adjacent to the resource deposits during extraction operations. Limits of excavation shall be determined to protect any natural or improved channel and any nearby wooded areas considered vital to the function of the rehabilitated area. Included the estimated time period during which quarrying and land rehabilitation operations will be conducted. v. Such other information as may be required by the building official or city engineer such as slope classification map and analysis, profiles or cross sections, additional drainage calculations, soils data including a report from a registered soils engineer or other qualified person. C. Soil Engineering Report or Engineering Geology Required: 1. Soil Engineering Report: The soil engineering report required shall include data regarding the nature, distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, design criteria for corrective measures 30 when necessary, and opinions and recommendations addressing the adequacy of the site under the proposed grading plan to support the proposed development. 2. Engineering Geology Report: The engineering geology report required shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations addressing the adequacy of the site under the proposed grading plan to support the proposed development. This requirement may be waived by written recommendation of the building official if it is deemed unwarranted. D. Issuance: The application, plans, specifications, and other data submitted by an applicant for permit shall be reviewed by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments or agencies to verify compliance with any applicable laws under their jurisdiction. If the building official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans, specifications, and other data filed therewith conform to the requirements of this title and other pertinent laws and ordinances, and that the fees specified have been paid, he shall issue a permit therefor to the property owner or his authorized agent. When the building official issues the permit where plans are required, he shall endorse in writing or stamp the plans and specifications "APPROVED". Such approved plans and specifications shall not be changed, modified, or altered without authorization from the building official, and all work shall be done in accordance with the approved plans. The building official may require that the site development activities and project designs or specifications be modified if delays occur which may create weather generated problems not considered at the time the permit was issued. E. Fees: City fees associated with reviewing and processing site development permits shall be those listed on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. F. Grading and Erosion Control Standards and Regulations: All site development work shall be accomplished in conformance to the following grading and erosion control design standards and regulations: 1. Hours of Operation: All grading operations within 660 feet of residential land uses shall be carried on between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. The building official may waive this requirement if it is shown that by restricting the hours of operation it would unduly interfere with the development of the property and it is shown that the neighboring properties would not be adversely affected. 2. Dust and Dirt Control: All graded surfaces of any nature shall be dampened or suitably contained to prevent dust or spillage on city streets or adjacent properties. Equipment, materials, and roadways on the site shall be used or treated so as to cause the least possible annoyance due to dirt, mud, or dust conditions. 3. Undevelopable Slopes: Any (1) slope identified on a subdivision plat as undevelopable, (2) slope that has been altered without permits or prior approval to 30% or greater, or (3) natural slopes of 30% or greater (as measured pursuant to a “ten-foot averaging” method as defined in Section 20.50.020), shall be designated undevelopable area. In no event shall streets traverse such slopes. 31 4. Finished Cuts and Slopes: Limitations shall be applied to the extent of cut and fill slopes to minimize the amount of excavated surface or ground area exposed to potential erosion and settlement. a. The exposed or finished cuts or slopes of any fill or excavation shall be smoothly graded. b. All cut and fill slopes shall be recontoured and revegetated by the permittee in accordance with an approved plan. c. Cut or fill slopes shall normally be limited to 15 feet in vertical height. However, upon review and favorable recommendation of the city engineer and public utilities director the building official may approve cut and fill slopes exceeding 15 feet provided that such variations be allowed on a limited basis after thorough review of each request and only when balanced by offsetting improvements to the overall aesthetic, environmental, and engineering quality of the development. d. No excavation creating a cut face and no fill creating an exposed surface shall have a slope ratio exceeding one and one- half horizontal to one vertical (11/2:1). e. Exceptions: (1) No slopes shall cut steeper than the bedding plane, fracture, fault, or joint in any formation where the cut slope will lie on the dip of the strike line of the bedding plane, fracture, fault, or joint. (2) No slopes shall be cut in an existing landslide, mudflow, or other form of naturally unstable slope except as recommended by a qualified geological engineer. (3) Where the formation is exposed above the top of the cut which will permit the entry of water along bedding planes, this area shall be sealed with a compacted soil blanket having a minimum thickness of 2 feet. The soil for this blanket shall be relatively impervious and shall be approved by the soils engineer or engineering geologist. f. If the material of a slope is of such composition and character as to be unstable under the anticipated maximum moisture content, the slope angle shall be reduced to a stable value or retained by a method approved by the city engineer and certified as to its stability by a soils engineer or geologist. Said retaining method shall include design provisions which are: (1) Conducive to revegetation for soil stability and visual impact; (2) Used for selected areas of the site and not as a general application; and 32 (3) Limited to tiers each of which is no higher than 6 feet, separated by plantable terraces a minimum of 2 feet in width; g. Any retaining system shall remain and be maintained on the lots until plans for construction are approved and a building permit is issued. The plans shall include provisions to integrate driveway access to the lot while maintaining the structural integrity of the retaining system. h. The building official may require the slope of a cut or fill to be made more level if at any time it is found that the material being, or the fill, is unusually subject to erosion, static or dynamic instability, or if other conditions make such requirements necessary for stability. i. Driveways leaving public rights of way shall not exceed a maximum change in grade angle of 6% transition over an 11 foot run. The slope should be transitioned beyond property line no more than an average 16% grade. Parking structures may allow a maximum change in grade angle of 10% with a minimum 10 foot run. Maximum sight distance should be encouraged with blind entrances or other sight obstructions complying with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62. 5. Abatement of Hazardous Conditions: a. If, at any stage of grading, the building official or city engineer determines by inspection that the nature of the formation is such that further work as authorized by an existing permit is likely to imperil any property, public way, watercourse, or drainage structure, the building official or city engineer shall require, as condition to allowing the work to proceed, that reasonable safety precautions be taken as are considered advisable to avoid likelihood of such peril. Such precautions may include, but shall not be limited to, any of the following: (1) Specification of a more level exposed slope; (2) Construction of additional drainage facilities, berms, or terraces; (3) Compaction or cribbing; (4) Installation of plants for erosion control; and/or (5) Reports from a registered soils engineer and/or engineering geologist whose recommendations may be made requirements for further work. Such requirements by the building official or city engineer shall constitute a required change order in the work to be performed under permit. Said changes may be required to be reflected in amended plans. b. Where it appears that damage from storm drainage may result from work performed hereunder, such work may be stopped and the permittee required to take such measures as may be necessary to protect adjoining property or the 33 public safety. On large operations, or where unusual site conditions exist, the building official or city engineer may specify the time at which grading may proceed and the time of completion or may require that the operation be conducted in specific stages so as to ensure completion of protective measures or devices prior to the advent of seasonal rains. 6. Fill Material and Compaction: a. Fill Material: All fill shall be earth, rock, or inert material free from organic material and free of metal, except that topsoil spread on cut and fill surfaces may incorporate humus for desirable moisture retention properties. Fill not meeting the definition above shall be placed only in an approved public or private landfill or other approved deposit site. b. Backfillings: Any pipe trench or trenching, or excavation made in any slope of any excavated or filled site, shall be backfilled and compacted to the level of the surrounding grade. c. Compaction of Fills: Unless otherwise directed by the building official, all fills governed by this title, intended to support building, structures, or where otherwise required to be compacted for stability, shall be compacted, inspected, and tested in accordance with the following provisions: (1) The natural ground surface shall be prepared by removal of topsoil and vegetation, and, if necessary, shall be graded to a series of terraces. If fill material unacceptable under subsection F6a of this section is placed on the site, or the fill is not placed according to procedures of this title, then it must be removed. (2) The fill shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the city engineer's approved standards. (3) The moisture content of the fill material shall be controlled at the time of spreading and compaction to obtain required maximum density. (4) A written report of the completed compaction, showing location and depth of test holes, materials used, moisture conditions, recommended soil bearing pressures, and relative density obtained from all tests, prepared by a civil engineer or soils engineer licensed by the state of Utah, or testing laboratory shall be submitted to the building official, who shall rely on the expertise of the city engineer for review. (5) The building official or city engineer may require additional tests or information if, in his opinion, the conditions or materials are such that additional information is necessary, and may modify or delete any of the above listed requirements that, in his opinion, are unnecessary to further the purpose of this title. 34 7. Surcharging: Surcharges shall consist of earth material and shall be applied in such a manner as to have no effect on soil stability on adjacent or neighboring properties. G. Erosion Control and Revegetation: All cut and fill surfaces created by grading shall be planted with a ground cover that is a drought resistant variety. Topsoils are to be stockpiled during rough grading and used on cut and fill slopes. Cuts and fills along public roads are required to be landscaped according to a revegetation plan approved by the city. All plant selections must be approved by the parks department and building official prior to approval. H. Drainage: 1. Adequate provisions shall be made to prevent any surface waters from damaging the cut face of an excavation or any portion of a fill. All drainage ways and structures shall carry surface waters, without producing erosion, to the nearest practical street, storm drain, or natural watercourse as approved by the city engineer. The city engineer may also require drainage structures to be constructed, or installed as necessary to prevent erosion damage or to prevent saturation of the fill or material behind cut slopes. 2. An excess stormwater passage shall be provided for all stormwater storage areas. Such passage shall have capacity to convey through the proposed development the excess stormwater from the tributary watershed. The capacity of such excess stormwater passages shall be constructed in such a manner as to transport the peak rate of runoff from a 100-year return frequency storm assuming all storm sewers are inoperative, all upstream areas are fully developed in accordance with the city's current land use plan, and that antecedent rainfall has saturated the tributary watershed. 3. No buildings or structures shall be constructed within such passage, however, streets, parking lots, playgrounds, park areas, pedestrian walkways, utility easements, and other open space uses shall be considered compatible uses. In the event such passageway is reshaped or its capacity to transport excess stormwater is otherwise restricted during or after construction, the building official or city engineer shall notify the agency, party, or parties causing said restriction to remove the same and set a reasonable time for its removal. If said parties refuse to, or are unable to, comply with said order, the building official or city engineer shall cause said restrictions to be removed at the expense of said parties. Where a proposed development contains existing natural drainage, appropriate planning measures shall be undertaken or required to preserve and maintain said natural drainage as part of the excess stormwater passage. 4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, whenever, in the judgment of the building official or city engineer, a condition occurs in a stormwater storage area or passageway that creates a dangerous and imminent health and safety hazard, the building official or city engineer shall order such action as shall be effective immediately or in the time manner prescribed in the order itself. I. Setbacks: The setback and other restrictions specified in this section are minimum and may be increased by the building official or by the recommendation of a civil engineer, soils engineer, or engineering geologist, if necessary for safety and stability, to prevent damage of 35 adjacent properties from deposition or erosion, or to provide access for slope maintenance and drainage. Setbacks deal with distance from property lines, structures, or faults, and must satisfy the requirements of subsections I1 through I3 of this section. Retaining walls may be used to reduce the required setbacks when approved by the building official. 1. Setbacks from Property Lines: The toes and tops of cut and fill slopes where no structures are located shall be set back from the outer boundaries of a "permit area" (PA = lot area excluding any undevelopable areas) including yard setbacks, slope- right areas, and easements, in accordance with the table and figure 2 of this section. SETBACKS FROM PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY a = Setback distance at toe b = Setback at top H = Height from toe to top of cut/fill slope H a b1 Less than 5'0 1' 5' to 30'H/2 H/5 Over 30'15'6' Note: 1. Additional width may be required for interceptor drain. FIGURE 2 2. Setback from Structures: Setback from cut or fill slopes and structures shall be provided in accordance with figure 3 of this section. 36 FIGURE 3 3. Setbacks from Faults: No structure shall be located over a fault. Determinations of the appropriate setback distance from the fault shall be made based on recommendations contained in the geological report required by subsection C of this section. J. Site Development Inspections: 1. Special Inspections: All site development activities for which a permit or approval is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official. Special inspections of grading operations and special testing shall be performed to ensure conformity with approved plans and specifications. The following special inspections and testing are required: a. Fills: (1) The site is to be inspected prior to placement of fill material. (2) The fill material is to be inspected prior to placement on the site. (3) Final compaction of fill is to be tested. (4) The final grade is to be inspected. (5) Revegetation will be inspected during planting, upon planting completion, and again prior to bond release where applicable. b. Cuts: (1) The site is to be inspected prior to cutting or removing material. (2) The grade is to be inspected after cutting. 37 (3) Revegetation will be inspected during planting, upon planting completion, and again prior to bond release where applicable. 2. Inspection Schedule and Enforcement: At the time the site development permit or approval is issued, the building official shall establish the stage of development at which required inspections shall be made. In order to obtain inspections, the permittee shall notify the city of readiness at least 24 hours before said inspection is to be made. Where it is found by inspection that conditions are not substantially as stated or shown on the approved plans, the building official or his inspectors may stop further work until approval is obtained for amended plans. K. Completion of Work: 1. Final Reports: Upon completion of the rough grading work and again at the final completion of the work, reports, drawings, and supplements thereto will be required as follows: a. An "as graded" grading plan, prepared by a civil engineer, including original ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns, and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The engineer shall verify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved site development plan. b. A soil grading report, prepared by a soils engineer, including location and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soil engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall verify the adequacy of the site for the intended use. c. A geologic grading report, prepared by an engineering geologist, including a final description of the geology of the site including any new information disclosed during the grading and the effect of the same on recommendations incorporated in the approved site development plan. The engineering geologist shall verify the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors. This requirement may be modified or waived in writing by the building official if circumstances warrant. 2. Notification of Completion: The permittee, or his authorized agent, shall notify the building official when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. Final approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their protective devices and all erosion control measures including revegetation, have been completed in accordance with the final approved site development plan and the required reports have been submitted. 18.28.050: RESERVED 38 18.28.060: INTERPRETATION, PERMIT PROCEDURE, APPEALS, GROUNDS FOR DENIAL, AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: A. Interpretation; Conflicts: 1. Minimum Requirements: In their interpretation and application, provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements, except where expressly stated to be maximum requirements. No intent is made to impair, or interfere with, any private restrictions placed upon any property by covenant or deed; provided, however, that where this chapter imposes higher standards or greater restrictions the provisions of this chapter shall govern. 2. Application of Most Restrictive Standard: Whenever any provision of this chapter or any other provision of law, whether set forth in this chapter or in any other law, ordinance, or resolution of any kind, imposes overlapping or contradictory regulations over the development of land, the most restrictive standards or requirements shall govern. B. Retention of Plans: Plans, specifications, and reports for all site development submitted to Salt Lake City for approval shall be retained by Salt Lake City. C. Expiration, Renewals, and Extensions of Permit: Every site development permit or approval shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the work authorized by such permit or approvals has not been commenced within 180 days, or if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after the work is commenced. Before such work can recommence, the permit shall first be renewed by the building official and the renewal fee shall be 1/2 the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans or scope of such work, otherwise a full fee may be required as determined by the building official. Any modifications to the original approved work that is related to a development for which the Salt Lake City planning commission granted approval, may require subsequent review and decision by the planning commission as determined by the planning director. D. Appeals: 1. Filing: Any applicant aggrieved by a determination of any administrative official in relation to this chapter may appeal such determination to the board of appeals and examiners pursuant to Chapter 18.12. 2. Effect of Administrative Appeal: In the event of an appeal pursuant to the provisions above, the effect of such filing shall act to stay any and all further action and work pending the determination of the matter on appeal. E. General Grounds for Denial: Factors, in addition to deviation from provisions of this chapter, which may be grounds for denial of a site development permit or approval shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Possible or potential saturation of fill and/or unsupported cuts by water (both natural and/or domestic); 39 2. Runoff surface waters that produce unreasonable erosion and/or silting of drainageways; 3. Subsurface conditions (such as rock strata and faults, soil or rock materials, types of formations, etc.) which when disturbed by the proposed site development activity, may create earth movement and/or produce slopes that cannot be landscaped; 4. Result in excessive and unnecessary scarring of the natural landscape through grading or removal of vegetation. F. Prohibited Activities: 1. Removal of Topsoil: It shall be unlawful to remove topsoil for purposes of resale when unrelated to a bona fide purpose of site development contemplated under this chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed as permitting the removal of topsoil solely for resale. 2. Nuisance: It shall be unlawful to create or maintain a condition which creates a public or private nuisance. After notice by the city, owners shall be strictly responsible to take any necessary action to correct or abate such nuisance. Further, this chapter shall not be construed to authorize any person or owner to create or maintain a private or public nuisance upon real property and compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not be a defense in any action to abate such nuisance. G. Permit or Approval Revocation: In the event the building official or city engineer revokes a site development permit any aggrieved party may appeal such decision pursuant to Chapter 18.12. H. Property Owner Responsibility: Property owners are responsible to maintain their property in a safe, nonhazardous, condition and to otherwise comply with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable ordinances. Failure of city officials to observe or to recognize hazardous or unsightly conditions, or to recommend denial of the site development permit, shall not relieve the permittee, or property owner, from responsibility for the condition or damages resulting therefrom. Nor shall such action result in the city, its officers, or agents, becoming responsible or liable for conditions and damages resulting therefrom. I. Obstruction Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or carelessly obstruct or injure any public right of way by causing or permitting earth or rock to slump, slough, or erode off private property onto the public right of way. J. Flooding: It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or carelessly obstruct or injure any public right of way by causing or permitting flow or seepage of water, or by willfully or carelessly causing or permitting water under his/her control, possession, or supervision to escape in any manner so as to injure any street or public improvement. K. Violation And Penalties: It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, or maintain any grading, excavation or fill or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any provision of this chapter. 40 SECTION 8. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.32. That Chapter 18.32 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Building Regulations) is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.32 BUILDING REGULATIONS 18.32.020: BUILDING CODE AND STANDARDS ADOPTED: The edition of the uniform building code, as adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission as the construction standard to be adhered to by subdivisions of the state (section 58-56-4, Utah Code Annotated, or its successor section) is adopted by Salt Lake City, together with the following chapters of the appendix to the uniform building code: Chapter 3 Division IV - Requirements For Group R, Division 4 Occupancies; Chapter 11 Division I - Site Accessibility; Chapter 11 Division II - Accessibility For Existing Buildings; Chapter 15 Reroofing; Chapter 16 Division I - Snow Load Design; Chapter 16 Division III - Earthquake Regulations For Seismic Isolated Structures; Chapter 31 Division II - Membrane Structure; Chapter 33 Excavation And Grading. ICC/MBI Standard for Off-Site Construction: Planning, Design, Fabrication and Assembly, or its successor document. Hereafter, all references in this code to the uniform building code shall mean the said edition adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission. One copy of the uniform building code shall be filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder. 18.32.035: FEES: A.Building permit fees shall be based on the total valuation of the proposed project as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. B.Plan review fees shall be sixty five percent (65%) of the building permit fees. C.Fees to expedite building plan review as governed by section 18.20.050 of this title shall be two (2) times the standard building plan review fee. 41 D.Penalties for not obtaining permanent certificate of occupancy will be three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each month, after the initial thirty (30) day temporary certificate of occupancy, which has no additional cost associated with it; due before the first of the month and only allowed for up to three (3) renewals after the initial free thirty (30) day period. Partial months will not be refunded. E.Fees for renewing expired plan review after one hundred eighty (180) days as governed by section 18.20.110 of this title shall be shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. F.A fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be charged for each permit for fencing. G. Other fees shall consist of electrical, mechanical and plumbing, and fire suppression and monitoring equipment inspection fees as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.32.050: UBC APPENDIX CHAPTER 3 DIVISION V ADDED; NONCONFORMING BUILDING CONVERSION: Appendix chapter 3 of the uniform building code be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding chapter 3 division V to create a group R division 5 occupancy classification and requirements applicable to change in occupancy when nonconforming group R divisions 1 and 3 occupancies undergo conversion, which shall read as follows: Chapter 3 Division V Requirements For Group R Division 5 Occupancies Sec. 344. Group R, Division 5 Occupancies Defined. Group R, division 5 occupancies shall be: nonconforming group R divisions 1 and 3 structures undergoing conversion. Sec. 345. General Provisions. Because conversion changes the original anticipated ownership plan for a multi-family dwelling unit project from a single ownership into a hybrid mixture of separate ownership of dwelling units combined with collective ownership of common areas through association, etc., each nonconforming group R division 1 or division 3 structure being converted into a condominium project or other type of ownership arrangement involving separate ownership of individual units combined with joint or collective ownership of common areas shall constitute a change in classification of occupancy to that of a group R division 5 and shall comply with basic requirements of this code and the specific requirements listed below. All work on such structures in the form of additions, alterations, or repairs shall conform to applicable standards as required by section 3403 of this code. Where said provisions require conformity to requirements governing new buildings, the applicable requirements of group R division 1 or 3 new construction shall apply. Special Provisions And Minimum Standards. Sec. 346. Property Report. Each conversion project to obtain approval shall submit two copies of a property report prepared by a licensed engineer or architect which discloses and describes: 42 (1) The age of the building or buildings, (2) The general condition, useful life, and capacity of the building's structural elements including the roof, foundations, mechanical system, electrical system, plumbing system, boiler, and other structural elements; (3) All known conditions constituting deficiencies requiring repair to meet existing building codes; and (4) All known conditions which may require repair or replacement within the next succeeding five year period. (5) The existing conditions meet the standards of the Salt Lake City existing residential housing code sections 18.50.140, Exterior Standards; 18.50.150, Interior Standards; 18.50.180, Space And Occupancy Standards; 18.50.190, Light And Ventilation; 18.50.200 Fire Safety-Egress. The building report, as required in section 20.56.060 of the city code, shall note all deficiencies; appeals of noted deficiencies may be addressed to the housing advisory and appeals board. Said report shall certify the structure currently conforms to applicable codes or the owner shall present plans to bring the structures into conformity with applicable building codes prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Sec. 347. Electrical Service Minimum Standards. Each converted dwelling unit shall have an electrical service which provides: (1) A minimum service of 60 amps. (2) Receptacle outlets are required to meet standards of the national electrical code, section 210-21(b). Each habitable room shall have no less than two such receptacles. (3) Where a kitchen is provided, or required by this code, each kitchen shall be installed on a separate circuit. (4) If, as an option, dishwashers or garbage disposals are to be installed or provided for, each must be located on a separate circuit. If such appliances or optional capacity are not provided, the limitation must be disclosed to buyers and in the property report. (5) All bathrooms are to be equipped with GFIC outlet. (6) Lights and fixtures in all storage and equipment facilities over 84 sq. ft. in size. (7) Installation of a smoke detector conforming to manufacturer's recommendations shall be installed in each dwelling unit as a local detection unit. If the building has a common exit hall or corridor then a general automatic detection system shall be installed with the capability of sending a signal to a remote station. (8) Installation of at least one wall switch controlled lighting outlet in every habitable room, bathrooms, hallways, stairways, attached garages, and outdoor entrances. All electrical work and repair must be completed under permit and comply with applicable codes and ordinances. 43 Sec. 348. Plumbing And Water Systems. (a) Plumbing System. A mechanical engineer, licensed plumbing contractor, or a licensed general contractor shall calculate and determine the capacity of the current plumbing system, including the existing and potential load in fixture units (as determined by the uniform plumbing code) as part of the property report required above. All new installations or repairs must be completed under permit and shall conform to applicable plumbing codes. The entire system shall be brought up to applicable standards of this code when required by section 3403. The impact of new installations upon the existing system shall be calculated and stated in the property report. (b) Water Supply. Water piping shall be so arranged that the water supply can be turned on or off to any individual fixture; provided, however, that supply piping to a single unit and building accessory thereto may be controlled by one valve. Sec. 349. Mechanical System. The mechanical system for each converted dwelling unit shall: (1) Equip each unit with its own heating system, except where a central water or steam system is present. (2) Provide each unit with its own means of controlling temperature when the building utilizes a central heating plant. All mechanical work and repair shall be completed under permit and comply with applicable codes. Sec. 350. Discretion Of Building Official To Waive Minor Deviations. The foregoing minimum standards are intended to be fully complied with prior to the building official's approval of permits, record of survey maps, plans or certificates. However, the building official may waive literal compliance with said standards for minor deviations and non-dangerous conditions, if the official determines that strict compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical due to the unique condition of the property, or result in an unnecessary and extreme hardship for the owner of the property. The building official may in such cases impose additional reasonable and equivalent conditions upon the project. Sec. 351. All condominiums shall meet the requirements as listed in 18.96.050 (fit premises) of the city ordinance. 18.32.060: UBC SECTION 109.1 AMENDED; CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Section 109.1 of the uniform building code is amended to read as follows: Section 109.1 Use Or Occupancy. No building or structure of groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R and S occupancy shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. 18.32.090: UBC SECTION 204 AMENDED; DEFINITIONS: 44 Section 204 of the uniform building code, adopted by section 18.32.020 of this chapter, or its successor, is amended by adding definitions of condominiums and conversions which shall read as follows: Condominium, Condominium Project, Condominium Unit. For purposes of this code, "condominium," "condominium project," and "condominium units" or "units" means property or portions thereof conforming to the definitions set forth in section 57-8-3 of Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. Conversion. "Conversion" means a proposed change in the type of ownership in a parcel or parcels of land, together with existing attached structures, from single ownership of said parcel such as an apartment house or multi-family dwelling into a condominium project or other ownership arrangements involving separate ownership of individual units combined with joint or collective ownership of common areas, facilities, or elements. 18.32.120: UBC APPENDIX CHAPTER 35 ADDED; FLOOD HAZARD AREAS: The uniform building code is amended by adding a new appendix chapter 35, which reads as follows: Sec. 3501. Floodplain Hazard Area. For the purpose of this chapter "floodplain hazard area" shall mean those lands lying within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City as defined in section 18.68.020 of the Salt Lake City code, as being located within the boundaries of flood hazard boundary map as defined in said section 18.68.020 and adopted by section 18.68.030 of the Salt Lake City code. A copy of said map and amendments is on file for public examination in the offices of the city recorder and city engineer. Sec. 3502. Floodplain Protection Requirements. All plans involving development, repair, substantial improvements to, or construction of building or structures within the floodplain hazard area shall comply with the standards set forth in chapter 18.68 of the Salt Lake City code relating to floodplain hazard regulations. 18.32.130: UBC APPENDIX CHAPTER 33 AMENDED; EXCAVATION AND GRADING: Appendix chapter 33 of the uniform building code, relating to excavation and grading, is hereby amended by deleting the text of sections 3304 through 3318 and amending by adding a cross reference, so appendix chapter 33 shall read as follows: Appendix Chapter 33 Excavation And Grading Sec. 3304-3318. Said sections and their revised text are hereby deleted, having been incorporated within the text of chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City code relating to site development regulations, drawing particular reference to provisions within chapters 4 and 5 of said development regulations. 45 18.32.140: SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT FEE ABATEMENT: Qualified multi-family apartment projects may apply to, and receive from, the building official an abatement of the normal building permit fees. In order for the building official to approve the discount, the applicant must submit necessary documentation in order for the building official to certify that the apartment project qualifies under the following criteria: A. The project is owned and/or operated as a bona fide organization for providing housing for senior citizens; B. The project operators and/or property owners stipulate that all units shall be rented by persons over age sixty two (62) years of age; C. Operators and/or property owners agree to verify ages of tenants as part of their annual application for an apartment house license; D.Project operators and property owners execute an agreement, binding upon successors in interest and secured by the real property, to reimburse the city the amount of the abated fees plus interest from the date of the permit at the rate applicable to judgment, should the rate of occupancy by qualified senior citizens drop below ninety five percent (95%) during the next thirty (30) years. This occupancy rate shall be determined annually as of the date the annual license application is submitted to the city; and E.The amount of the fees abated, plus interest at the then established rate applicable to judgments from date of the abated fees, shall be repaid to the city upon a subsequent application to convert the project to condominium or other ownership arrangements involving sale of separate units, if submitted within thirty (30) years of such abatement. 18.32.150: UBC SECTION 103 AMENDED; VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Section 103 of the uniform building code is amended to read as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this code is committed, continued, or permitted and upon conviction of any such violation such persons shall be punishable by a fine as provided by section 1.12.050, or its successor, of the Salt Lake City code. 46 SECTION 9. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.36. That Chapter 18.36 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Electrical Regulations) is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.36 ELECTRICAL REGULATIONS 18.36.010: ELECTRICAL CODE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The edition of the national electrical code, as adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission, is adopted by Salt Lake City as the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city, subject to the amendments and exceptions thereto as hereinafter set forth in this chapter, one copy of which code shall be filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder. Hereafter, all references in this code to the national electrical code shall mean the edition of the national electrical code adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission. 18.36.100: PERMIT FEES; RESIDENTIAL WORK: The following fees for a permit for the installation of electrical materials in residences, including multiapartment buildings, shall be paid to the city treasurer before any permit is valid. The basic fee for each permit requiring inspection is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. In addition, the fee for each individual specialty item is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.36.110: FEE FOR TEMPORARY METERING: The fee for permit for temporary metering and service facilities shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.36.120: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FEES: The fees to be paid to the city treasurer for electrical permits covering work in industrial or commercial properties shall be computed as follows: A. Minimum Fee: Minimum fee shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. B. New Service Or Change Of Service: For new service, change of service, alterations or repairs of six hundred (600) volt or less capacity service entrance equipment, the fee shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 47 C. Subfeeders: Fee for installation, alteration or repair of subfeeders, including supply taps from subfeeders, shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. D. Transformers: The installation of transformers shall be subject to inspection fee when such transformers are an integral part of the consumer's distribution system. Such fee shall be in addition to the regular system inspection fee and shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. E. Motor Generator: The fee for installation of a motor generator for emergency or standby shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. F. Alternate Fee Schedule: Electrical permit fees shall be computed on the schedules set forth on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule and shall be paid prior to work being started. When a fee cannot be computed on the standard schedules, it shall be computed based on the alternate schedule shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.36.130: ELECTRICAL WORK EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS: When the cost of electrical work exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), electrical permit fees shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.36.170: POWER TO PANEL PERMITS; REQUIRED WHEN: All new construction shall require a power to panel permit in accordance with section 18.36.180 of this chapter, or its successor section, to be issued in conjunction with the required electrical permit. 18.36.180: POWER TO PANEL PERMIT; FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ONLY: A. Temporary Basis: A power to panel permit shall authorize power for construction purposes on a temporary basis only; permanent power must be authorized separately. B. Permit: At the time power to panel is required to complete construction, the owner or contractor shall apply for and obtain a separate power to panel construction permit. Said permit shall be valid for a sixty (60) day period. C. Extensions: Thirty (30) day extensions for such permit may be issued upon the approval of building and housing services and upon payment of one-half (1/2) of the original permit fee for each extension. D. Certificate Of Occupancy: Final electrical approval for permanent power shall be withheld until a certificate of occupancy is issued. Occupancy occurring prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall result in a discontinuance of all power until occupancy is approved or until occupancy ceases. 48 E. Expiration: Upon expiration of a power to panel construction permit, all power to the electrical panel shall be discontinued. F. Fees: 60 day, no issue fee $20.00 30 day extension 7.00 18.36.210: VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation, whether acting as owner or occupant of the premises involved, or contractor, or otherwise, who violates or refuses to comply with any provisions of this title, or the national electrical code, as amended, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall be deemed to be committed on each day an offense occurs or continues. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.48. That Chapter 18.48 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Dangerous Buildings) is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.48 DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ARTICLE I. REPAIR AND VACATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS 18.48.010: TITLE: This chapter shall implement the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition. 18.48.020: PURPOSE AND SCOPE: It is the purpose of this chapter to provide just, equitable, and practicable methods to require the repair (including temporary boarding) and vacation of buildings or structures that endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety, or welfare of the general public or their occupants. 18.48.030: DEFINITIONS: 49 BUILDING CODE: The International Building Code, or its successor, promulgated by the International Code Council, as adopted by the state. BOARDED BUILDING: A building in which accessible openings, such as windows and doors, are secured by a secondary means against entry. Examples of securing a building by a secondary means includes, but is not limited to, boarding and fencing. DANGEROUS BUILDINGS: Any building or structure that has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described may be deemed to be a dangerous building, provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property, or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered. A. Whenever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. B. Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. C. Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, is more than 1.5 times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location. D. Whenever any portion thereof has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood, or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability thereof is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location. E. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property. F. Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance, or ornamentation on the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached, or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one half of that specified in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location without exceeding the working stresses permitted in the Building Code for such buildings. G. Whenever any portion of a building or structure has wracked, warped, buckled, or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction. H. Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (i) dilapidation, deterioration or decay; (ii) faulty construction; (iii) the removal, movement or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building; (iv) the deterioration, decay or inadequacy of its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially or completely collapse. 50 I. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used. J. Whenever the exterior walls or other vertical structural members list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one third of the base. K. Whenever the building or structure, exclusive of the foundation, shows 33% or more damage or deterioration of its supporting member or members, or 50% damage or deterioration of its non-supporting members, enclosing or outside walls or coverings. L. Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake, or flood, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become an attractive nuisance to children or as to enable persons to resort thereto for the purpose of committing unlawful acts. M. Whenever any building or structure has been constructed, exists, or is maintained in violation of any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to such building or structure provided by the building regulations of this jurisdiction, as specified in the Building Code or Housing Code, or of any law or ordinance of this state or jurisdiction relating to the condition, location, or structure of buildings. N. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any non-supporting part, member or portion less than 50%, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66% of the (i) strength, (ii) fire-resisting qualities or characteristics, or (iii) weather-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location. O. Whenever a building or structure, used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, inadequate light, air or sanitation facilities, or otherwise, is determined by the health officer to be unsanitary, unfit for human habitation, or in such a condition that is likely to cause sickness or disease. P. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire-resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard. Q. Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. R. Whenever any portion of a building or structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the building or structure or whenever any building or structure is abandoned for a period in excess of six months so as to constitute such building or portion thereof an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public. HOUSING CODE: The Salt Lake City Existing Residential Housing Ordinance as promulgated in Chapter 18.50 of the City Code. 51 VACANT/SECURE BUILDING: An unoccupied building having all openings, such as windows and doors, secured against entry, where windows are fully glazed and the doors are secured by means of a lock. 18.48.040: AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE: A. Authority to Enforce: The building official or designee is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter. B. Authority to Inspect: The building official or their designee is hereby authorized to make inspections and take such actions as may be required to enforce the provisions of this chapter. C. Buildings or Structures Subject to Inspection: Any building or structure, where there is reasonable cause to believe a condition exists that renders the building or structure endangering the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety, or welfare of the general public or the structure’s occupants, is subject to inspection by the building official or their designee. 18.48.050: PROCEDURES UPON DETERMINATION OF A VIOLATION: When the building official has inspected or caused to be inspected any building and has found and determined that such building is a dangerous building, the building official shall follow the enforcement procedures set forth in the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. 18.48.060: RESERVED 18.48.070: RESERVED 18.48.080: APPEALS: Appeals of a notice and order issued pursuant to this chapter shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 18.12. 18.48.090: CITY'S ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY: If the property owner does not comply with the notice and order issued pursuant to this chapter within the time specified in the notice and order, the building official or designees may cause the building to be repaired, vacated, or temporarily boarded to the extent necessary to correct the conditions which render the building dangerous as set forth in the notice and order. Any such 52 repair, vacation, or boarding shall be completed and the cost thereof paid and recovered as set forth in this chapter. 18.48.100: RECOVERY OF COSTS: A. Permitted Recovery of Costs: If the building official or designee causes the repair, vacation, or boarding of a building pursuant to a notice issued under this chapter, and after the property owner received at least 10 days’ notice in which to complete the repair, vacation or boarding and failed to do so, the division may collect the cost of that abatement, by filing a property tax lien, as set forth in this section. B. Itemized Statement of Costs: Upon completion of the repair, vacation, or boarding work, the building official or designee shall prepare an itemized statement of costs and mail it to the property owner by certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery, demanding payment within 30 days of the date the statement is post marked. The administrative fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule to cover the city's administrative expenses in contracting for the repair, boarding, or other abatement costs shall be included in the statement of costs. C. Form of Itemized Statement of Costs: The itemized statement of costs shall include: 1. The address of the property at issue; 2. An itemized list of all expenses incurred by the division, including administrative costs; 3. A demand for payment; 4. The address where payment is to be made; 5. Notification that failure to timely pay the expenses described in the itemized statement may result in a lien on the property in accordance with this chapter and Utah Code Section 10-11-4 or its successor; 6. Notification that the property owner may file a written objection to all or part of the statement within 20 days of the date the statement is postmarked; and 7. Where the property owner may file the objection, including the name of the office and the mailing address. D. Delivery of Statement of Costs: The itemized statement of costs described in Subsection C shall be deemed delivered when mailed by certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery addressed to the last known address of the property owner, according to the records of the county recorder. E. Objection to Statement of Costs: A property owner may appeal the statement of costs to the fines hearing officer, only as to the issue of whether the costs were actually incurred, pursuant to Section 18.12.050. 53 F. Failure to Object or Pay: If the property owner fails to make payment of the amount set forth in the itemized statement within 30 days of the date of the mailing of that statement, or to file a timely objection, then the division may certify the past due costs and expenses to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. G. Failure to Pay after Objection Hearing: If the property owner files a timely objection but fails to make payment of any amount ordered by the fines hearing officer within 30 days of the date of the hearing, the inspector may certify the past due costs and expense to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. H. Lien on Property: After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, as set forth in Subsections F and G, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the Salt Lake County Treasurer at the time of the payment of general taxes. I. Release of Lien: Upon payment of the amount set forth in the itemized statement of costs or otherwise determined due and owing by the fines hearing officer, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 18.48.110: APPLICABILITY OF BUILDING CODE: All buildings or structures which are required to be repaired under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the applicable construction codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. 18.48.120: PUBLIC NUISANCES: A. Declaration and Abatement of Public Nuisances: All buildings or structures or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the building official to be dangerous are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, vacation, or boarding in accordance with the procedures specified herein. B. Boarded or Vacant Building as Public Nuisance: Any structure that is vacant or which has been boarded may be declared a public nuisance upon a determination that the structure is detrimental to the safety or public welfare of the residents and property values of this city. ARTICLE II. BOARDING OR TEMPORARILY SECURING BUILDINGS 18.48.200: SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY: 54 The provisions of this article apply to any person or entity who is ordered to board a building under Article I and any person or entity who voluntarily boards a building. 18.48.205: REGISTRATION: A. Registration Required: Registration is required to board a building. In the case where the city causes the boarding work to be done pursuant to Section 18.48.245, the city will register the property on which the building is located and will bill the record owner the yearly registration fee pursuant to Section 18.48.215. In the case where the building official causes temporary boarding work to be done pursuant to Section 18.48.090 and the building is boarded for more than 45 days, the provisions of this Article II shall apply. B. Registration Process: Registration of a property on which a boarded structure shall be located must be done on a form provided by the building official or designee. The form shall specify the following: 1. The address of the structure to be boarded or temporarily secured; 2. The type of building; 3. For residential structures, the number of dwelling units; 4. For nonresidential buildings, the number of square feet of all building faces at ground level; 5. The name, address, and telephone number of a person authorized to act as an agent for the owner for performing the owner's obligations under this article, who lives within 40 miles of Salt Lake City; and 6. Whether the property has the required external water source for landscaping, if landscaping is required. 18.48.210: NOTICE OF REGISTRATION: Upon registration the city may record with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office a notice of registration. The recordation of a notice of registration shall not be deemed an encumbrance on the property but shall merely place interested parties on notice that the cost of City abatement activities conducted pursuant to Section 18.48.245 may be outstanding and recoverable as a lien on the property in accordance with Section 18.48.100. Once the building official determines that the property is no longer subject to registration then a notice of deregistration shall be recorded. Recordation of the notice of deregistration shall have the effect of canceling the recorded notice of registration. 18.48.215: YEARLY REGISTRATION FEES: 55 A. Annual Fee: Upon registration and on each yearly anniversary of the date the property was registered pursuant to this article, a property owner desiring to maintain a boarded building shall pay the annual boarding registration fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. Properties that are defined as a “contributing structure” or “landmark site” pursuant to Section 21A.34.020 shall be subject to a higher registration fee. B. Late Penalty and Interest: If annual registration fees are not timely paid, an accounts receivable fee and interest shall accrue pursuant to Section 3.16.040. C. Failure to Register: Boarding a building before registering pursuant to this article shall result in a fine of up to 25% of the boarding registration fee specified in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. D. Collection of Fees: If the property owner fails to pay the boarding registration fees, the city may take legal action to collect any amounts owed. 18.48.220: POSTING OF BOARDED OR CLOSED TO OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS: Whenever a building is boarded or closed to occupancy, the city shall be authorized to install a sign to be mounted on the exterior of the building. The sign shall state that the building is closed to occupancy and that it is unlawful for any unauthorized person to enter the building. The sign shall also provide phone numbers to call if people are seen on the property or if doors or windows are unsecured. 18.48.225: METHOD OF SECURING BUILDINGS: All buildings shall be boarded in the following manner: A. Securing Opening: All openings in the structure on the first floor, other openings easily accessible from the ground, and openings with broken glass, shall be secured either by erecting a single 1/2 inch thick layer of plywood sheathing or similar material, not to include chipboard/OSB, covering over all exterior openings, overlapping the opening on every edge by 3 inches, affixed along the edges by nails or screws spaced every 6 inches. B. Alternatives to Securing Openings: Alternately, the openings may be secured by conventional wood frame construction. The frames shall use wood studs of a size not less than 2 inches by 4 inches (nominal dimension) placed not more than 24 inches apart on center. The frame stud shall have the 4 inch sides or the wide dimension perpendicular to the face of the wall. Each side of the frame shall be covered with plywood sheathing or similar material of at least 1/2 inch thickness or equivalent lumber nailed over the opening by using nails or screws spaced every 6 inches on the outside edges and every 12 inches along intermediate stud supports; and C. Exterior Doors: Exterior doors shall be secured by a strong non-glass door adequately locked to preclude entry of unauthorized persons, or shall be covered as an opening described in Subsection A or B of this section or successor sections. 56 18.48.230: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: Existing landscaping and lawn on the property shall be maintained in the manner otherwise required by Chapters 9.16 and 21A.48. 18.48.235: EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE: A. Exterior of Building: The exterior of a boarded building shall be maintained as required by relevant requirements set forth in Section 18.50.140. In particular, exterior walls and surfaces shall be properly maintained and severely weathered, peeling, or unpainted wood and damaged siding and roofing shall be replaced or repaired with similar materials and colors. B. Salvage Permit Required: Doors, windows, special glass, fixtures, fittings, pipes, railings, posts, panels, boards, lumber, stones, bricks, marble, or similar materials within the interior of a boarded building shall not be salvaged except upon the issuance of a permit as provided in Section 18.64.070. 18.48.240: SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL: Snow and ice must be removed from public sidewalk areas surrounding the boarded property in the manner indicated in Section 14.20.070. 18.48.245: CITY MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY: A. Notice: If the building official or the building official's designee determines that a boarded building and/or property is not being maintained, the building official or the building official's designee shall issue a notice and order pursuant to Section 18.24.040 requiring compliance with the building maintenance standards as required in city code. B. Failure to Comply with Notice: If the building official or designee determines that the property owner has failed to comply with the notice and order, the city may cause the work to be done by a contractor hired by the city and the city may recover its abatement costs in accordance with the process set forth in Section 18.48.100. 18.48.250: CITY MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING: If the building official or the building official's designee determines that the landscaping on the property surrounding a boarded building is not being maintained as required by city code, the building official or the building official's designee shall follow the notice of violation and corrective measures procedures as detailed in Sections 9.16.050 and 9.16.060. 57 18.48.255: VIOLATIONS: A. It is unlawful for the building owner to fail to maintain the boarded building or ensure the building remains vacated after the property has been abated by either the city or the building owner. Each day a violation occurs shall be a separate offense. B. Violations of the provisions of this chapter are punishable in accordance with Chapter 18.24. 18.48.260: BUILDING INSPECTIONS REQUIRED: Whenever a property owner, manager, or tenant intends to clean, repair, renovate, reopen or reoccupy a building that has been boarded, the building is to be inspected by the building official or designee and a permit must be issued by building services or its successor prior to the building owner, manager, or tenant initiating any of the above actions. Any person conducting any work on a building that has been boarded or closed to occupancy must have a valid building permit at all times. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.50. That Chapter 18.50 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Existing Residential Housing) is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.50 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING 18.50.010: TITLE: This chapter shall be known as the SALT LAKE CITY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ORDINANCE. 18.50.020: PURPOSE AND SCOPE: A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, convenience and aesthetics of Salt Lake City and its present and future inhabitants and businesses, to protect the tax base, and to protect property values within the city, as provided by Section 10-9a-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor section, and other applicable state statutes. This purpose shall be accomplished by regulating the maintenance, repair and remodeling of residential buildings specified in this chapter existing as of the date of enactment hereof by: 58 1. Establishing minimum housing standards for all buildings or portions thereof used, or designed or intended to be used, for human habitation; 2. Establishing minimum standards for safety from fire and other hazards; 3. Promoting maintenance and improvement of structures by applying standards of this chapter to renovations. This chapter allows distinctions in the application of standards based on the year a structure was built, as long as a reasonable level of safety is achieved; 4. Avoiding the closure or abandonment of housing and the displacement of occupants where such can be done without sacrificing the public health, safety and welfare; 5. Providing for the administration, enforcement and penalties for this chapter. B. Scope: 1. Application to Existing Buildings: This chapter encompasses fire safety and structural integrity of existing residential buildings. Within the structures, the scope includes equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, space requirements, and for safe and sanitary maintenance. 2. Application to Remodeling of Existing Residential Buildings: This chapter shall apply to remodeling or renovation of all residential buildings existing as of the date of enactment hereof as follows: a. This chapter applies regardless of tenancy, regardless of the valuation of the renovations, and regardless of the date of such remodeling or renovation, unless otherwise noted in this chapter. b. The requirements of this chapter are minimums. During a renovation or remodeling project, whenever conditions exist which allow such work to comply with the codes adopted in Section 18.04.040, such codes shall apply. c. When a construction standard is omitted from this chapter, the applicable standard shall be the state construction codes adopted and in effect at the time the building was constructed or at the time the relevant electrical, mechanical, or plumbing element was installed, whichever is later. d. When the purpose of the renovation is to create new dwelling units, the codes adopted in Section 18.04.040 shall apply. 3. Application to New Construction: From the date of adoption hereof, newly constructed buildings must comply with the codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. All additions to an existing building envelope shall comply with the codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. 59 4. Change of Use: Any building undergoing a change which intensifies the use shall comply with the provisions of the codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. 5. Permits Required: Except as provided in this subsection, no building or structure regulated by this chapter shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, moved, removed, converted, or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the building official. Except where required by state law, permits are not required for those items identified in Section 105.2 of the International Building Code and International Residential Code, or as otherwise directed by the building official. C. Violations: It is unlawful for any person to: 1. Erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this chapter; 2. Fail to obey a notice and order issued pursuant to this chapter; 3. Occupy, or rent for occupancy, a building that has been closed to occupancy; or 4. Fail to obey an interpretation, decision or requirement of the board of appeals and examiners. 18.50.030: DEFINITIONS: A. Construction of Terms: For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall be construed as specified in this section. Words used in the singular include the plural, and words used in the plural include the singular. B. Whole Includes Part: Whenever the words "apartment house", "building", "dormitory", "dwelling unit", "habitable room", "hotel", "housing unit" or "structure" are used in this chapter such words shall be construed as if followed by the words "or any portion thereof". C. Referenced Documents: References to codes, ordinances, chapters, sections, or subsections shall include any successor to such code, ordinance, chapter, section, or subsection that has been adopted by the city. D. Defined Terms: AGENT: Any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or other entity who acts for or on behalf of others. BASEMENT: A floor level, any part of which is more than 4 feet below grade for more than 50% of the total perimeter or more than 8 feet below grade at any point. BATHROOM: A room containing at least one of each of the following fixtures: sink, toilet, and tub or shower. It may also include a bidet. 60 BEDROOM: Any space designed or used for sleeping. BOARDING HOUSE: The same as defined in Title 21A. BUILDING: Any structure which is used, designed or intended to be used for human habitation. BUILDING CLOSURE, CLOSED TO ENTRY, OR CLOSED TO UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY: A building which has been closed to occupancy. BUILDING INSPECTOR: A person designated by the building official to make inspections of buildings and properties covered by this chapter. CEILING HEIGHT: The vertical distance from the finished floor to finished ceiling or to the lowest point of the ceiling framing members. Where obstructions other than lighting fixtures exist below the ceiling, the height shall be measured from the obstruction to the finished floor. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: A certificate issued by the building official authorizing occupancy of a building. COMMON ROOM: A room available in congregate housing for the shared use of occupants of 2 or more housing units. This does not include common corridors and exit passages, but does include kitchens and game rooms. CONDOMINIUM: Property or portions thereof conforming to the definition set forth in section 57-8-3 of the Utah Code, as amended, or its successor. CONGREGATE HOUSING: Any building which contains facilities for living, sleeping and sanitation, as required by this chapter, and may include facilities for eating and cooking, for occupancy by other than a family. Congregate housing includes SROs, convents, monasteries, dormitories, boarding and rooming houses, hostels, fraternity and sorority houses, but does not include shelters, jails, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or lodging houses. COOKING FACILITY: At a minimum, a range with stove top and oven, or alternatively, a nonportable cooktop and oven, and a sink. CORRIDOR: A hallway that serves more than one dwelling unit. EFFICIENCY DWELLING UNIT: A dwelling unit containing only one habitable room with a bath and/or kitchen in the unit. EXISTING: In existence prior to adoption hereof. EXITWAY: A continuous and unobstructed means of egress to a public way and includes any intervening aisles, doorways, gates, corridors, exterior exit ramps, stairways, smokeproof enclosures, horizontal exits, exit passageways, and exit access ramps as these terms are defined in the International Building Code. FAMILY: The same as defined in Title 21A. FIRE RESISTANCE OR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION: Construction that resists the spread of fire. 61 FLOOR AREA COMPUTATION: The floor area of a habitable room excluding closets, cabinets, bathrooms, and kitchens when such kitchens are separated from the habitable room by walls or other partitions. GARAGE: A building or portion thereof designed, used, or intended to be used for parking or storage of a motor vehicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its tank. GLAZING: Light transmitting glass or plastic installed in windows, doors and skylights, including safety glass, but not including glass block. HABITABLE ROOM: A room in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas are not habitable rooms. HALL: A space used for circulating between the rooms of a building within an individual dwelling unit. HAZARDOUS CONDITION: A condition in a residential building or dwelling unit where failure of a structural, electrical, mechanical or plumbing component system or systems is likely to occur reasonably soon but which has not yet occurred or which is not serious enough to be considered an "imminent danger". "Hazardous conditions" consist of any of the following: 1. All of the conditions listed under the definition of "imminent danger" if those conditions can be repaired safely while all or the affected part of the building or unit remains occupied; or 2. "Imminent danger" conditions which have been partially secured pursuant to Section 18.24.030.E; 3. Improper, missing, misused or malfunctioning electrical service or disconnect devices; 4. Cracked, displaced or missing foundations resulting in settlement and structural damage; 5. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports; 6. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety; 7. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that crack, split, lean, list or buckle due to defective material or deterioration where failure is likely to occur reasonably soon but is not likely to occur immediately; 8. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety; 9. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal or vertical members which sag, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration; 10. Inoperable toilet, bathroom sink, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit or congregate housing unit; 62 11. Lack of or inoperable kitchen sink in a dwelling unit or congregate housing unit; 12. Fireplaces or chimneys which are of insufficient size or strength to carry imposed loads with safety such that failure is likely to occur reasonably soon but is not likely to occur immediately; 13. Except as defined under "imminent danger" below, conditions that reduce the width, height or area of a required emergency exitway or required escape window; 14. All buildings or portions thereof which are not provided with the operable fire extinguishing systems or equipment required by city codes; 15. Buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking or dining purposes which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies; 16. Lack of a kitchen area equipped with a working stove, oven, sink and refrigerator unless specified otherwise by this code. HISTORIC BUILDING: Any building or structure which has been designated for preservation by Salt Lake City pursuant to Title 21A or its successor, or is a contributory structure located in an historic district designated pursuant to Title 21A. HOTEL: Any building containing guestrooms intended or designed to be used, rented, or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by guests on a daily basis. HOTEL/MOTEL ROOM: A room or combination of rooms (suite) offered as a single unit for lodging on a daily or weekly basis. IMMINENT DANGER: A condition in a building or dwelling unit subject to this chapter where structural, electrical, mechanical or plumbing systems have failed so that they may cause immediate death or serious injury to the building's occupants or the public. Conditions of "imminent danger" are those that are so severe and dangerous that either repairs cannot be completed immediately or it is appropriate to have the residents or other occupants leave the building or unit before the repairs have begun. "Imminent danger" consists of any of the following and other similarly serious conditions: 1. Failed or missing foundations, beams, columns, floor systems; 2. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split or buckle and failure is likely to occur at any moment; 3. Broken water lines causing flooding which is undermining structural supports or otherwise endangering the building's integrity; 4. Leaking gas; 5. Missing flues or vent connectors resulting in exhaust gases entering the building; 6. Lack of adequate heating facilities during the months of October through April; 63 7. Overload of main and branch electrical distribution systems; 8. Exposed electrical wires, fuses and electrical current breakers capable of producing electrical shock or fire and readily accessible to the occupants or the public; 9. Stairs and stair components that cannot carry the loads intended and which may collapse if so loaded; 10. Contaminated water systems; 11. A complete absence of toilet facilities; 12. A complete lack of water supply or sewage disposal facilities, as a result of a failure of a building's or dwelling unit's system and not a city system failure; 13. Blocked emergency egress halls, corridors and/or doors, including accumulation or storage of materials in stairways, corridors, doors or windows, or other condition which blocks the means of egress. INFESTATION: The presence of insects, rodents or other pests in or around a building in numbers that are or may be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the occupants. KITCHEN: A space or room used, designed or intended to be used for the preparation of food, which includes permanently installed cooking facilities. MAINTENANCE: The repair, replacement and refinishing of any component of an existing structure, but does not include alteration or modification to the existing weight bearing structural components. MINOR DEFICIENCIES: A structural, electrical, mechanical or plumbing code violation that is minor in nature and is less severe or dangerous than a "substandard condition". "Minor deficiencies" include the following, and other similarly minor conditions: 1. Interior finish wall coverings missing or in disrepair; 2. Lack of paint; 3. Dripping or leaking kitchen or bathroom faucets; 4. Soffit and fascia trim of which no more than 20% is weathered, missing, or loose. MONUMENTAL STAIRS: A stairway, exceeding 4 feet in width, at the main entrance on the exterior of a building. MULTIPLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE: A residential building containing 3 or more dwelling units. NEC: The edition of the national electrical code currently adopted by the city. OCCUPANT: A person occupying or having possession of a dwelling unit. 64 OPENING: An exterior glazed opening capable of being closed to the weather, consisting of a window, a glazed door, or an openable glazed skylight, which opens upon a roof, yard, court, street, alley or recess from a court. PATTERN OF CIRCULATION: Any area in a room or group of rooms where the occupant is likely to walk because of the location of doors, fixtures or furniture placement when size of room restricts furniture placement. Fixtures, pipes and ducts projecting from the ceiling which are located near the middle of the room are within the pattern of circulation. PLUMBING SYSTEM: Any potable water distribution piping, and any drainage piping within or below any building, including all plumbing fixtures, traps, vents and devices appurtenant to such water distribution or drainage piping and including potable water treating or using equipment, and any lawn sprinkling system. PREMISES: A lot, plot or parcel of land including the buildings or structures thereon. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: The portions of a building that contain dwelling units. SRO (SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY): A congregate housing where the dwelling units have one combined sleeping and living room and may include a kitchen and/or a separate private bathroom. SAFETY: The condition of being safe from causing harm, injury or loss. SECURED BUILDING: A building where all windows and doors are intact and lockable against unauthorized entry. SLOPING CEILING: Any ceiling with a slope greater than 1/2 inch per foot. SMOKE DETECTOR: An approved device which senses visible or invisible particles of combustion. SPACE, COMMON: "Common space" means shared areas available for use by the occupants of the building. SPACE, PRIVATE: "Private space" means the portion of a dwelling unit which is for the exclusive use of the occupants of the unit. SUBSTANDARD CONDITION: A structural, electrical, mechanical or plumbing system condition in a residential building or dwelling unit which violates applicable codes but with maintenance or repair can be made fully safe and which does not amount to an "imminent danger" or a "hazardous condition". "Substandard conditions" include the following as well as any violations of the standards in this chapter which have not been included in the categories of "imminent danger", "hazardous condition" or "minor deficiency": 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations with cracking and evidence of settlement; 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports; 3. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to defective material or deterioration; 65 4. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other members that are of insufficient size to carry live and dead loads with safety; 5. Soffit and fascia trim more than 20% of which is weathered, missing or loose; 6. Missing, decayed, buckling or worn out roof covering; 7. Roof having more than 2 layers of shingle type roof covering; 8. Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge or settle, due to defective material or deterioration; 9. Parapet wall or parapet cap bricks that are loose or missing; 10. Stair risers, treads, jacks, stringers or supports that are cracked or otherwise deteriorated or missing; 11. Plumbing which was not installed in accordance with the adopted plumbing code in effect at the time of installation or with generally accepted construction practices, has not been maintained in good condition, or is not free of cross connections or siphonage; 12. Continuous running water in a toilet, bathroom sink or kitchen sink; 13. Lack of hot or cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit or congregate housing structure; 14. Mechanical equipment which was not installed in accordance with codes in effect at the time of installation, or with generally accepted construction practices, or which has not been maintained in good and safe condition; 15. Inoperable heating systems during the months of May through September; 16. Inoperable air conditioning systems, when the building is supplied with such a system and lacks other adequate forms of ventilation and the air conditioning system fails to keep the air temperature below 85°F; 17. Damaged or missing heat ducts or missing heat duct registers; 18. Electrical wiring which was not installed in accordance with codes in effect at the time of installation or with generally accepted construction practices, has not been maintained in good condition, or is not being used in a safe manner; 19. Missing light fixtures, switches and outlet and switch cover plates; 20. Overcurrent situations such as those caused by the use of electrical extension cords and multiple light fixtures; 21. Lack of the minimum natural light and ventilation required by this chapter; 22. Room and space dimensions less than that required by this chapter; 66 23. Dampness of habitable rooms as evidenced by water damage or excess moisture on ceilings, walls or floors; 24. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster or stucco; 25. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundation or floors, including broken windows or doors; 26. Deteriorated or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings; 27. Broken, rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; 28. Wood has been installed within 6 inches of earth which is not naturally decay resistant, treated wood or wood protected by an approved barrier; 29. Infestation of insects, vermin or rodents as determined by the Salt Lake County health department, or its succcessor; 30. Lack of garbage and rubbish storage and removal facilities as determined by the Salt Lake County health department regulations; 31. Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rat harborages, stagnant water, and similar materials or conditions constitute a violation of the Salt Lake County health department regulations; 32. Any building, device, apparatus, equipment, combustible materials or vegetation which, in the opinion of the chief of fire department or building official, is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause; 33. Any fire resistive requirement of this chapter which is not met; 34. Drainage of water from roofs or yards in a manner that creates flooding or damage to a structure; 35. Any equipment or apparatus that causes excessive noise, pollution, odor or light as defined by the Salt Lake City code or Salt Lake County health regulations; 36. Guardrails or handrails in common areas that are missing or cannot support required loads. TOILET ROOM: A room which contains a toilet. It may also contain a sink, but does not contain a tub or shower. UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY: A condition of premises which has been found by the building official to be an "imminent danger" or "hazardous condition" situation as defined by this chapter, or which fails to meet the sanitation requirements of the Salt Lake County health department. VENTILATION, NATURAL: "Natural ventilation" means any openable exterior door, window or skylight which opens upon a roof, yard, court, street or alley. 67 YARD: As defined in Title 21A. 18.50.040: AUTHORITY: A. Enforcement: The building official is authorized to enforce all the provisions of this chapter. The building official may issue and deliver enforcement orders under authority provided by state law. B. Interpretation: The building official may render interpretations of this chapter and adopt and enforce rules and supplemental regulations pursuant to adopted state construction codes to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall conform to the intent and purpose of this chapter, and shall be made available in writing for public inspection upon request. C. Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction: This chapter is not intended to exclude any method of structural design or repair not specifically provided for in this chapter or applicable adopted state construction codes. The building official may approve any alternate material or method of construction conforming to the applicable adopted state construction codes. 18.50.050: RIGHT OF ENTRY: A. Inspection: Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this chapter, or whenever the building official has reasonable cause to believe a code violation exists in any building or upon any premises which makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the building official may, upon obtaining permission of the owner or other person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, or upon obtaining a warrant, enter a residential property or premises to inspect it or to perform the duties imposed by this chapter. If such building or premises is occupied, the building official shall first present proper credentials and request entry. If such building or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. If such entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry. The building official shall establish written policies which outline owner notification procedures for regular inspections and establish handling of owner notification for tenant reports of unsafe, dangerous and hazardous conditions. B. Unoccupied Dwelling Unit: If an unoccupied dwelling unit is open and unattended and the owner or other person having charge or control of the building or premises cannot be located after reasonable effort, the building official or building official's designee may enter the building. The building official shall issue a notice and order pursuant to Section 18.24.040 that the dwelling unit be immediately secured or boarded against the entry of unauthorized persons. C. Inspection Notification: In imminent danger or hazardous condition situations, or when authorization to enter has not previously been granted by a tenant, the owner shall give the 68 tenant a minimum of 24 hours' notification of an inspection of the tenant's premises by the building official. 18.50.060: RESERVED 18.50.070: RESERVED 18.50.080: RESERVED 18.50.090: MINOR DEFICIENCY NOTIFICATION: A. Determination: If the building inspector determines that a minor deficiency exists, the building inspector may take the actions specified in this section. B. Citations: Citations may be issued for minor deficiencies. However, such citations shall be for the owner's information only and shall have no further legal force or effect. When a notice and order is issued pursuant to Section 18.50.100, minor deficiencies may be included under "for owner's information only". If a property inspection reveals only minor deficiencies, the building inspector may mail a letter to the owner informing the owner of such minor deficiencies. 18.50.100: ENFORCEMENT: A. Determination: If the building inspector determines that a violation of this chapter exists, the building inspector may take the actions specified in this section. B. Warning Notice 1. Notice: If the building inspector finds that any provision of this chapter is being violated, the inspector shall provide a written notice to the responsible party. The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the action necessary to correct it. The written notice shall state what action the inspector intends to take if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include the time period in which the violations must be corrected, which will be based on their severity. 2. Delivery of Notice: Such written notice issued by the inspector shall be deemed sufficient and complete when served upon the responsible party as follows: a. Personally by the inspector or his or her representative; or by mailing, postage prepaid, by certified mail, return receipt requested or any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery, addressed 69 to the responsible party at the last known address appearing on the records of the county recorder; and b. By posting notice on the property where said violation(s) occurs. 3. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective enforcement of this chapter, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or welfare, the inspector need not issue a warning notice. C. Notice and Order: If, after issuance of the warning notice (if required), the violations have not been corrected by the time period stated in the notice, the building inspector may issue a notice and order pursuant to Section 18.24.040. The notice and order need not provide any additional correction period and may impose fines beginning on the date it is issued. D. Remedies: Upon issuance of a notice and order, the building inspector may pursue any remedies allowed by Sections 18.24.030 and 18.24.050, except that civil fines shall accrue as set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule specific to the violations of this chapter. E. Daily Violations: Each day a violation continues after the issuance of the notice and order (or cure deadline stated therein, if applicable) shall give rise to a separate civil fine. F. Compliance: Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation(s) once confirmed through an inspection requested pursuant to Subsection 18.24.040.A.3. G. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected, reoccurs at the property within 6 months of the initial correction and is due to the actions or inactions of the same responsible party as the prior violation, the city may begin enforcement of said recurring violation and impose fines after a 10 day warning period. 18.50.110: APPEALS: A. Filing of Appeals: Appeals of enforcement of this chapter shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 18.12. B. Inspection of the Premises: Before any hearing is held by the board of appeals and examiners the board may inspect the building or premises involved. Prior notice of such inspection shall be given to the responsible party filing the appeal, who may be present at such inspection. Failure of the responsible party to provide access without good cause as determined by the building official shall not constitute a reason for the hearing to be postponed and the appeal denied. 18.50.120: RESERVED 18.50.130: APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY: 70 Following the correction of the deficiencies and prior to persons reoccupying any residential building or dwelling unit after it has been closed to occupancy, the building official shall issue an approval for occupancy. 18.50.140: EXTERIOR STANDARDS: A. Structural Repair: All roofs, floors, walls, chimneys, foundations, and other structural components shall be repaired when they no longer retain their structural integrity. Loose bricks in chimneys shall be repaired and missing chimney caps shall be replaced. B. Exterior Surfaces: Exposed materials that require weather protection and exterior surfaces that are deteriorating shall be repaired to the extent necessary to stop damage from cold, wind, water, or dampness. The roof covering and flashing shall form an impervious membrane. C. Drainage: All surface water shall drain away from the structure and any potential adverse effect of the runoff shall be mitigated to the reasonable satisfaction of the building official. D. Windows and Doors: Windows that are required by this chapter for light and ventilation shall be fully glazed. Window openings not required to meet light, ventilation, and egress standards may be sealed with opaque materials or removed. Broken or missing doors, door frames, windows, and window sashes shall be replaced or repaired. E. Appendages: All awnings, fire escapes, exhaust ducts and similar appendages shall be maintained in good repair and be properly anchored. F. House Addressing: All residential buildings shall display a street number in a prominent location on the street side of the building in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numerals shall be in accordance with the codes adopted in Section 18.04.040. Each individual unit within any multiple-family structure shall display a prominent identification number. G. Exterior Walkways: All sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions. 18.50.150: INTERIOR STANDARDS: A. Showers/Tubs: Showers shall be finished to a height of 70 inches above the fixture drain outlet with nonabsorbent material. Freestanding tubs with shower risers may utilize a shower curtain that totally encloses all sides of the tub. B. Floor Coverings: All floor and stair coverings shall be maintained in a secure and substantially intact manner. This standard does not apply to area or throw rugs within dwelling units. 71 C. Walls And Ceilings: All walls and ceilings shall be maintained so that they are secure and intact. Surfaces shall be painted or covered with wallpaper or paneling. D. Finishes, Washable Surfaces: In kitchens and bathrooms of congregate housing and SROs, floors and walls within 15 inches of sinks, bidets, showers, toilets, and tubs shall be finished with a nonporous material that is not adversely affected by moisture. E. Operable Fixtures and Equipment: All fixtures, appliances, and equipment required by this code shall be maintained in safe and operable condition. 18.50.160: DOORS, TRIM AND HARDWARE: A. All doors, trim and hardware shall be kept in good working condition. B. Exterior doors which are required for ingress and egress shall have locks which are keyed from the exterior and are operable from the interior without the use of a key or other special equipment or knowledge. Original locks in historic buildings are not required to be replaced if in good working condition. C. Hinges for out swinging doors shall be equipped with nonremovable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock to preclude removal of the door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins. 18.50.170: ENVIRONMENTAL OR SANITARY STANDARDS: A. All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. Every occupant of a structure shall keep that part of the structure and exterior property which such occupant occupies, controls or uses in a clean and sanitary condition. Every owner of a structure containing a boarding and rooming house, fraternity and sorority house, dormitory, SRO or multiple-family dwelling units shall maintain, in a clean and sanitary condition, the shared or public areas of the structure and exterior property. B. Garbage and refuse storage and removal shall meet the requirements of the Salt Lake County health department regulations. C. There shall be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the Salt Lake County health department regulations. D. Asbestos, regardless of the date of installation, shall meet the requirements of the Salt Lake County health department regulations. E. A room in which a toilet is located shall be separated from food preparation or storage rooms by a tightfitting door. 18.50.180: SPACE AND OCCUPANCY STANDARDS: 72 A. Ceiling Heights: 1. Habitable Rooms: The minimum ceiling height for all habitable rooms shall be as set forth in the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040. This height may be 6 feet 4 inches when the requirements of this chapter for emergency egress, light and ventilation are met and a smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector are installed pursuant to the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040. The only exception is that a smoke detector is not required in a kitchen. Obstructions shall be allowed to 5 feet 10 inches when the obstruction is not in the pattern of circulation and obstructions are not greater than 20% of the floor area of the room. 2. Nonhabitable Rooms Except Bathrooms: All nonhabitable rooms, except bathrooms, shall have no minimum ceiling height requirement. 3. Bathrooms and Toilet Rooms: Bathrooms and toilet rooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of 6 feet 0 inches. Obstructions shall be allowed to 5 feet 10 inches. The bathroom ceiling height at the back of a sink, toilet or tub without shower may be sloped to a minimum height of 5 feet 0 inches at the wall when the ceiling height is no less than 6 feet 0 inches at a point 2 feet 0 inches from the wall adjacent to the bathroom plumbing fixture. 4. Sloping Ceilings: In any room with a sloping ceiling, at least one-half (1/2) the floor area shall have a minimum ceiling height as required by this section. No portion of the room with a ceiling height below 5 feet 0 inches may be used in the floor area computation. 5. Corridors: A minimum ceiling height of 6 feet 4 inches shall be required in corridors so long as there are a smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector installed pursuant to the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040. Obstructions shall be allowed to 5 feet 10 inches when the obstruction is not in the pattern of circulation and obstructions are not greater than 20% of the floor area of the corridor. B. Room and Corridor Size: 1. Floor Area and Room Dimensions: Floor area and room dimensions shall be as set forth in the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040. 2. Sleeping Room Dimensions: Every room used for sleeping shall have floor area equal to the amounts required by the construction codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. Where more than 2 persons occupy a room used for sleeping, the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of 2. 3. Corridors: The minimum width of corridors shall be 36 inches. In dwelling units constructed prior to 1983, a minimum corridor width of 28 inches shall be permitted. C. Special Dwellings: 1. Efficiency Dwelling Units: An efficiency dwelling unit shall: 73 a. Have a living room floor area equal to the amounts required by the construction codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. An additional 100 square feet of floor area shall be provided for each occupant in excess of two; b. Have a closet; c. Have a kitchen sink and cooking and refrigeration facilities, each having a clear working space of at least 30 inches in front of the fixture or appliance; d. Have a bathroom containing a toilet, sink and bathtub or shower. 2. Congregate Housing: Except for Shared Housing as defined in Title 21A, individual units in congregate housing shall have at least one room with not less than 70 square feet of floor area per occupant. When individual rooms are less than 120 square feet, a separate common room shall be provided of at least 120 square feet for each 10 units, with a minimum of one common room per floor. When separate rooms are not provided with cooking facilities, the common room may be a common kitchen with a floor area as defined by the floor area computation. D. Cooking Facilities: 1. Cooking Facilities in Dwelling Units: Each dwelling unit shall have a kitchen that supplies: a. A range with stove top and oven, or in the alternative, a nonportable cooktop and oven. Hot plates, pans, and similar units shall not be considered as cooking facilities. All cooking appliances shall be maintained in good working condition. b. An approved sink, with a minimum dimension of 12 inches by 12 inches by 4 inches deep. c. A minimum of 4 square feet of counter space. d. A refrigerator. 2. Cooking Facilities for Individual Units in Congregate Housing: As long as such cooking facilities do not encroach into the required floor area, required cooking facilities may be supplied in individual units, provided all of the following items are supplied: a. A range with stove top and oven, or in the alternative, a nonportable cooktop and oven. Hot plates, pans, and similar units shall not be considered as cooking facilities and are not allowed. Portable cooking devices are not allowed in individual rooms; b. An approved sink, with a minimum dimension of 12 inches by 12 inches by 4 inches deep; c. A minimum of 4 square feet of counter space; 74 d. A refrigerator. 3. Common Kitchens in Congregate Housing: When cooking facilities are not provided within individual units, congregate housing shall have a common kitchen area which shall contain the following minimum facilities: a sink for each 20 tenants or portion thereof, a range for each 20 tenants or portion thereof, and a refrigerator for each 10 tenants or portion thereof. The minimum kitchen area shall be 120 square feet based on the floor area computation for the first 10 occupants or portion thereof, and an additional 30 square feet for each additional 10 persons or portion thereof. 18.50.190: LIGHT AND VENTILATION: A. Natural Light in Habitable Rooms: 1. Every habitable room shall have at least one window facing directly to the outdoors to provide natural light. The minimum total window area shall equal 1/20th or more of the floor area of the room, with a minimum of 3 and 1/2 square feet. Special purpose rooms such as home theaters and film processing rooms shall not be subject to this requirement. Kitchens may be provided with artificial light, which shall be a minimum of 1.5 watts incandescent or 0.8 watts fluorescent per square foot of the room. 2. The glazed area of an exterior door may be used for purposes of computing window size for natural light. 3. For the purpose of meeting light or ventilation requirements, as well as emergency egress, a room may be considered as a portion of an adjoining room when 1/2 of the area of the common wall is open and unobstructed and provides an opening of not less than 1/10 of the floor area of the interior room or 25 square feet, whichever is greater. B. Ventilation: 1. Habitable Rooms: a. Except as provided in subsection B1b of this section, all habitable rooms shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openings to the exterior which have the capability of being closed to the weather. Total openings shall have an area at least 1/20 of the floor area of the room or 3 and 1/2 square feet, whichever is greater. b. A mechanical ventilation system shall be allowed in lieu of openings for natural ventilation. Such system shall create a positive pressure in the room and the air intake shall be connected directly to the outside and be capable of 2 air exchanges per hour. In kitchens, the ventilation system may create negative pressure. The air intake/exhaust source shall be located at least 3 feet above any opening which is within 10 feet of the air intake/exhaust. c. Exterior doors may be used to meet natural ventilation requirements. 75 2. Bathrooms, Laundry Rooms, and other Nonhabitable Areas: a. Except as provided in subsection B2b of this section, all bathrooms and laundry rooms shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openings to the exterior which have the capability of being closed to the weather. Such openings shall have a total area not less than 1/20 of the floor area of the room, with a minimum of 1 and 1/2 square feet. b. A mechanical exhaust system connected directly to the outside shall be allowed in lieu of natural ventilation. The system shall be capable of providing 5 air exchanges per hour. The exhaust air shall discharge at least 3 feet above or 10 feet away from any air intake source. Toilet rooms may be ventilated with an approved recirculation fan or similar device designed to remove odors from the air. c. Mechanical or convection venting of bathrooms into the attic shall be acceptable. Recirculating fans may be used in toilet rooms only. Bathrooms with tubs or showers shall have a convection or mechanical exhaust system. d. Bathrooms constructed prior to 1970, which are vented with convection vent openings extending to the outside shall meet the ventilation requirement as long as the walls, ceiling and floor are not adversely affected by moisture. 18.50.200: FIRE SAFETY; EGRESS: A. Fire Safety: No hazard of fire or explosion shall be created or allowed to exist in any building, premises, equipment or apparatus. B. Exit and Emergency Egress: 1. Every existing dwelling unit shall have a safe, continuous and unobstructed means of egress of a minimum ceiling height of 6 feet 4 inches and a minimum egress width of 28 inches. Obstructions shall be allowed to 5 feet 10 inches when the obstruction is not in the pattern of circulation and obstructions are not greater than 20% of the floor area of the exitway. The exitway shall be kept in a proper state of repair and maintained free of hazardous conditions and obstructions. 2. Every sleeping room located below the fourth story shall have at least one openable window or exterior door approved for emergency egress or rescue. Every egress window shall comply with the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040, unless the size of the opening under such codes is not feasible then the opening shall have a minimum of 3 and 1/2 square feet of openable space and clear opening dimensions of at least 20 inches in one dimension and 24 inches in the other dimension. The escape window must open directly into a yard or exit court, or into a public street or alley. When windows are provided as a means of emergency egress or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height of not more than 48 inches. If the distance from the floor to the windowsill is more than 48 inches, a permanent ladder or platform attached to the wall or 76 floor may be installed to meet the maximum height requirement. The ladder or platform must be approved by the city. 3. For windows that are below grade, a window well shall run parallel to the width of the window and extend at least 18 inches out from the exterior face of the building. When the distance from the top of the window well to its bottom exceeds 48 inches, it shall be equipped with an approved permanently affixed ladder or stairs that are accessible with the window in the fully open position. Grates are permitted over window wells when hinged away from the structure and not weighing over 15 pounds per section of the grate. 4. Bars, grills, grates or similar devices may be installed on emergency escapes or rescue windows or doors, provided such devices are equipped with approved release mechanisms which are operable from the inside of the grate without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. C. Stairs and Handrails: Stairs and rails shall meet the requirements of the means of egress section of the applicable adopted state construction code with the following modifications: 1. If there are 4 or more risers, a handrail shall be required. Two handrails shall be required when the width of the stairs is 48 inches or more. Stairways less than 48 inches in width or stairways serving one individual dwelling unit in group R, division 1 or 3 occupancy, or a group R, division 3 congregate residence may have one handrail. Handrails are not required for monumental stairs. 2. Handrails shall be placed not less than 30 inches nor more than 38 inches above the outermost edge of the tread. Handrails for existing stairs are not required to extend beyond the top or bottom stair tread. 3. Stairs shall have a maximum riser height of 9 inches and a minimum step run of 8 inches. Existing stair flights may have a maximum variation in rise and run of 2 inches at the top and bottom of the flight. A maximum of 1 inch variation of rise and run shall be allowed for all intermediate risers and treads. Stairs shall be level and shall comply with life safety standards as defined herein. 4. Winding, circular and spiral stairs may run to narrow to a point. The run shall measure 8 inches (12 inches from the narrow point). 5. There shall be no minimum rise or run requirement nor maximum variation in the rise and run for stairs leading only to mechanical, storage, utility, and nonhabitable rooms in any residential structure and laundry rooms in individual dwelling units provided the stairs are structurally sound. 6. Steps shall be maintained in a safe manner. Missing steps, steps which are deteriorated to the point that a foothold is difficult to maintain, staircases which have missing boards, and/or staircases which contain boards that have lost their structural integrity shall be repaired to a safe condition. 7. Interior and exterior stairs shall have a minimum headroom height of 6 feet 4 inches so long as there are electrical powered smoke detectors installed pursuant to 77 the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040, except for stairs to mechanical or storage rooms, utility and nonhabitable rooms in any residential structure and laundry rooms in individual dwelling units, which have no minimum headroom height. Within stairways obstructions shall be allowed to 5 feet 10 inches when the obstruction is not in the pattern of circulation and obstructions are not greater than 20% of the floor area of the stairway. 8. Stairs in the interior or exterior of an existing building where stair jacks are replaced or more than 50% of the tread or risers are replaced shall meet the requirements of the applicable adopted state construction code. 9. A stair tread, stair support, stair riser, landing or railing which is either missing or so severely in disrepair or damaged that it cannot support its intended live and dead loads shall be repaired. 10. Interior stair landings shall have a minimum width of 28 inches and a minimum length in the direction of travel of 30 inches. D. Guardrails: 1. Guardrails shall be required for all balconies, porches, patios and open stairs more than 30 inches above or below grade. Guardrails shall also be required for any grade change more than 30 inches next to a walking surface. Guardrails shall not be less than 42 inches in height, except for guardrails serving private dwelling units, which shall have a minimum height of 36 inches. Guardrails may have a minimum height of 36 inches if the building was built before 1970. Guardrails having a height less than 36 inches shall be allowed if they were installed as part of the building's original construction and are not a replacement. For structures which are on the historic register or are contributory structures located within one of the city's historic districts, height of existing and replacement guardrails may be determined based upon standards adopted by the city's historic landmark committee. 2. Guardrails shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that there is no open area in excess of 4 inches in diameter. The diameter of such open space may be 9 inches for buildings built before 1985, and 6 inches for those built between 1985 and 1991. E. Smoke Detector Requirements: 1. When smoke detectors are required in dwelling units by the applicable adopted state construction code, the detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the hallway or area giving access to rooms used for sleeping. In efficiency dwelling units, the detector shall be centrally located on the ceiling or wall of the main room or sleeping room. 2. Where sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling or wall directly above the stairway immediately outside the bedrooms. Wall mounted detectors shall be a minimum of 4 inches and maximum of 12 inches from the ceiling, but no detector shall be mounted within 12 inches of any corner formed by the 78 meeting of walls, ceilings or beams unless manufacturer's listing specifies otherwise. When activated, the detector shall provide an alarm in the dwelling unit. 3. When one or more sleeping rooms are added to or created within a structure, smoke detectors shall be installed in compliance with the manufacturer's listing and shall receive their primary power from the building wiring in compliance with the applicable adopted state construction code. 4. All habitable rooms having a ceiling height of less than 7 feet 6 inches shall have installed a 120 volt electrical powered smoke detector. F. Fire Resistive Separations: Walls or ceilings separating dwelling units from each other and from hazardous uses shall be maintained in their original condition with all penetrations sealed or covered with an approved material. These separations include walls and ceilings separating a garage from a dwelling unit or common area and walls and ceilings separating furnace rooms in structures containing 3 or more dwelling units. When 50% or more of a wall or ceiling is removed for any reason, the entire wall or ceiling shall be reconstructed to meet the requirements of the applicable adopted state construction code for one hour occupancy separation. 18.50.210: PLUMBING: A. Minimum Requirements: 1. Unless provided otherwise in this chapter, plumbing, piping and fixtures shall be in accordance with the code in effect at the time of installation. 2. Plumbing, piping and fixtures shall have no leaks and shall be maintained in good condition. All waste lines shall be connected to an approved sewer system. 3. The minimum plumbing fixtures required for dwelling units are a bathroom sink, toilet, tub or shower, and kitchen sink. 4. Cold running water shall be plumbed to each toilet. Hot water shall be supplied to plumbing fixtures and plumbing appliances intended for bathing, washing or culinary purposes. 5. A space without obstruction from floor to ceiling of not less than 12 inches shall be in front of all toilets. Toilets shall be located in a space without obstruction from floor to ceiling of not less than 22 inches in width. No encroachments of these dimensions are permitted. 6. Where vents do not exist for plumbing fixtures meeting the applicable codes in effect at the time of their installation, vents need not be installed when the plumbing fixture or trap and trap arm is replaced providing the sewer line is not altered. B. Water Heaters: Water heaters shall comply with the construction codes adopted in Section 18.04.040 or the construction code in effect at the time of installation. 79 C. Cross Connections: In order to protect against contamination of the water supply through cross connections, all water inlets for plumbing fixtures shall be located above the flood level rim of the fixture. Hoses or handheld shower heads shall not be attached in any manner that would permit water contamination during reverse pressure. Water supply pipes provided with an approved backflow preventer or antisiphon device shall be permitted. Handheld shower heads shall be permitted when provided with a permanently mounted holder attached to the wall or shower pipe, or when an antisiphon device is installed. Water faucet outlets below the overflow rim of the fixture shall be permitted until the faucet is replaced. A new fixture shall not be installed where it would create a cross connection. D. Drains: 1. Drain traps shall meet standards of the applicable adopted state construction code. Existing traps shall be allowed as originally designed. If the trap has been modified it shall be replaced with an approved trap, and a vent shall be added as required by the applicable adopted state construction code. 2. All open entrapped sewer lines and outlets shall be capped with an approved cap. E. Fixture Requirements: Every kitchen sink, tub, shower and toilet shall be provided with the minimum water pressure and quantities required by the codes adopted pursuant to Section 18.04.040. F. Bathrooms in Rental Dwelling Units: Each rental dwelling unit shall have a bathroom within the dwelling unit. Every toilet and bathtub or shower required by this code shall be in a room which will afford privacy to the occupant. G. Congregate Housing: 1. The minimum plumbing fixtures required for congregate housing are a sink, toilet, and tub or shower for each 10 occupants or portion thereof and a kitchen sink. Bathrooms shall have installed a door with privacy lock. 2. Congregate housing that does not provide private toilets, sinks, bathtubs or showers shall have on each floor, accessible from a public corridor, at least one toilet, one sink, and one bathtub with shower or one separate shower for each 10 occupants or portion thereof. For each additional 10 occupants, or portion thereof, an additional one toilet, one sink and one bathtub or shower accessible from a public corridor shall be provided. 18.50.220: MECHANICAL: A. Mechanical Equipment: 1. Existing Installations: Mechanical systems lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of this code may have their use, maintenance or repair continued if the use, maintenance or repair is in accordance with the original design and location and no hazard to life, health or property has been created by such mechanical system. 80 2. Compliance: All mechanical equipment shall be in accordance with the code in effect at the time of installation. 3. Maintenance: All mechanical equipment shall be properly maintained and shall be operated in a safe manner. B. Heating: 1. Temperature: Heating shall be provided by a permanently installed heating system capable of heating all habitable rooms and bathrooms to a minimum of 68°, which shall be measured in the center of the room at a height of 3 feet from the floor. 2. Air Return: A return air duct which serves more than one dwelling unit shall not be permitted. A duplex or multiple dwelling unit legally constructed before 1970 may have an existing common air return continued if a listed smoke detector fan shutoff is installed in the return air duct. 3. Fuel Burning Appliances: a. Except for direct vented appliances, gas furnaces and gas water heaters shall not be permitted in bedrooms, in bathrooms or in closets accessed only from a bedroom or a bathroom. Existing furnace rooms with access only through an existing bedroom may continue to exist when a 120 volt smoke detector is installed in the bedroom and relayed to a smoke detector installed in the furnace room. All combustion air is to be supplied from outside air. b. Gas shutoff valves are required on all gas appliances. Shutoff valves shall be installed in accordance with the applicable adopted state construction code. c. All fireplaces, wood burning stoves, and all other appliances producing combustible gas byproducts shall be connected to an operating chimney or approved flue. All flues and vents shall be installed in compliance with EPA requirements and the requirements of the applicable adopted state construction code in effect at the time of installation. d. All fuel burning appliances shall be provided with combustion air per the requirements of their listing and with the applicable adopted state construction code in effect at the time of their installation. e. All fuel burning appliances shall be provided with listed clearances and maintained in good working condition and in accordance with their listing. f. All ventilation fans shall be installed according to their listing and maintained in good working condition. g. All ducts and vents shall be maintained according to original installation requirements. 81 18.50.230: ELECTRICAL: A. Safety: All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be properly installed, maintained and used in a safe manner. Unless provided otherwise in this chapter, all electrical wiring and equipment shall be in accordance with the electrical code in effect at the time of installation. All conductors shall be protected by fuses or circuit breakers that are adequately sized. B. Electrical Equipment: Electrical equipment shall not exceed the load capacity of the service and branch circuits shall have adequately sized circuit breakers or fuses. C. Facilities Required: The following electric facilities must be furnished at a minimum and must be operable: 1. Service: The minimum main service to any dwelling unit shall be 60 amperes. Existing dwelling units with electrical services less than 60 amps per dwelling unit which have no special electrical service loads, such as air conditioners, ranges, heating units and clothes dryers may continue to be operated without upgrading the service. 2. Branch Circuits: Circuits supplying air conditioners, ranges, cooktops, stoves and heating appliances shall meet the requirements of the NEC. Branch circuits shall not be overfused. 3. Receptacles: Every habitable room shall contain at least two electrical receptacles or one electrical light fixture and one electrical receptacle. Grounding type receptacles shall only be used when connected to a grounding system. Existing nongrounding type receptacles may be replaced with grounding type receptacles where protected by a ground fault circuit interrupter. D. Upgrading Facilities: 1. Service: When remodeling work is done, the service must be upgraded if required by the NEC. 2. Circuits: When new circuits, outlets, switches, wiring and service panels are being installed, the installation shall meet the requirements of the NEC. 3. Receptacles: Wiring, receptacles and switches may be replaced without upgrading so long as circuits are not overloaded. E. Lighting: 1. Dwelling Units: Every toilet room, bathroom, laundry room, furnace room, interior stairway and hall shall contain at least one permanently mounted electric light fixture. 2. Apartments, SROs and Congregate Housing: a. Lighting in the common areas shall be as follows: Aisles, passageways, stairwells, corridors, exitways and recesses related to and within the 82 building complex shall be illuminated with a minimum of a 40 watt light bulb or equivalent for each 200 square feet of floor area; provided, that the spacing between lights shall not be greater than 30 feet. Structures containing three dwelling units or less shall not be required to provide exit lighting when no lighting outlet has been previously provided. b. Every furnace room shall contain at least one electric lighting fixture. c. Open parking lots and carports shall be provided with a minimum of one foot-candle of light on the parking surface during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather resistant covers and shall not cast glare on neighboring properties. F. General: 1. All electrical panels, boxes, outlets and lighting fixtures shall have proper covers. 2. Flexible cords, as defined in the NEC, shall be used only according to their listing and shall not be installed as permanent wiring or strung across exitways. 18.50.240: ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS: A. Upgrading: Existing residential units shall be upgraded whenever any of the following events occur: 1. Whenever wallboard, plaster or other finish material is removed which exposes wall cavities of foundations, exterior walls, floors or ceilings, these spaces shall be insulated to the degree it is practical. Where attic and crawl space areas are insulated, the space shall be ventilated as per the currently adopted applicable state construction code. 2. Where insulation increases the accumulation of snow, and the snow load capacity of the roof structure is exceeded, the roof members shall be upgraded to withstand the additional loads. 3. When access is available to foundations of existing structures, foundations shall be insulated to the standard required by the applicable Utah energy code when remodeling of the structure is initiated. 4. When boarded structures are renovated for reoccupancy, the structure shall be insulated to the following standards when wall, ceiling, roof or floor cavities are open or accessible: wall, R-11; ceilings and roofs, R-32; floors, R-7. Thermal resistance "R" shall have the meaning as defined in the Utah energy code. 5. When new habitable space is created within an existing building envelope, all such spaces shall be insulated to the current Utah energy code standards. 83 6. All replacement windows shall be double pane. Replacement glass for structures which are on the historic register or are contributory structures located within one of the city's historic districts may be determined based upon standards adopted by the city's historic landmark committee. Replacement metal windows shall have a thermal break. Single pane replacement glass may be installed on windows not designed to accept double pane glass. 7. All exterior door replacements shall be weather stripped. 8. New mechanical equipment installed shall meet a minimum of 80% efficiency. 9. Except for the other applicable requirements of this chapter, when a new addition is made to an existing residential structure, only the addition shall be made to comply with current Utah energy code standards. B. Exterior Door and Window Seals: 1. Exterior doors and windows shall be weathertight. If broken, all panes shall be replaced with glazing in compliance with the applicable adopted state construction codes. 2. All doors and windows shall be properly caulked and weatherproofed. SECTION 12. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.52. That Chapter 18.52 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Mechanical Regulations) is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.52 MECHANICAL REGULATIONS 18.52.010: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this title: ENERGY USING EQUIPMENT: That which is designed, constructed, erected or altered to operate by the use of fuel and/or power and shall include any devices and appurtenances or appliances, materials, ducts, pipes, piping, venting, gas piping, valves, fittings, fans, blowers and burners necessary to the performance of such functions that shall create comfort heating and/or cooling or power for work services. MECHANICAL SYSTEM: Means and shall include, but not be limited to, any heating, comfort cooling, ventilation and refrigeration systems, or energy using equipment. 84 18.52.020: UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE ADOPTED: The edition of the uniform mechanical code, as adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission, is adopted by Salt Lake City as an ordinance, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City subject to the amendments and exceptions thereto as hereinafter set out, one copy of which code shall be filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder. Hereafter all references in this code to the uniform mechanical code shall mean the said edition adopted by the Utah uniform building code commission. 18.52.040: MANUAL ON RECOMMENDED GOOD PRACTICES ADOPTED: "Recommended Good Practices For Gas Piping Appliance Installation, And Venting", Mountain Fuel Supply Company, revision of June 1980, is adopted by Salt Lake City as an ordinance, rules and regulations of the city, subject to the amendments and exceptions thereto as hereinafter set out, three (3) copies of which code have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder. 18.52.050: MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES: A. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of filing an application therefor, pay the fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule to the city treasurer before the permit is valid. The basic fee for each permit requiring inspection is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. In addition, the fee for each individual specialty item is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. SECTION 13. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.56. That Chapter 18.56 of the Salt Lake City Code (Technical Building Specifications: Plumbing Regulations) is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.56 PLUMBING REGULATIONS 18.56.010: UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED: The uniform plumbing code, 1988 edition, published by the International Association Of Plumbing And Mechanical Officials as a code in book form, three (3) copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder, is hereby adopted, except as such code may be altered or modified by the provisions of the ordinances of Salt Lake City. 85 18.56.020: PLUMBING SYSTEM DEFINED: "Plumbing system" means all potable water supply and distribution pipes, all plumbing fixtures and traps, all drainage and vent pipes, and all building drains and appurtenances within the property lines of the premises except: a) fixed lawn sprinkler systems beyond backflow prevention devices, and b) building sewers and private wastewater disposal systems three feet (3') or more beyond the outside walls of buildings. Included also are potable water treating or using equipment and water heaters. 18.56.030: WATER SUPPLY PORTION OF PLUMBING SYSTEM: The water supply portion of the plumbing system shall be considered to extend from the meter box (or the property line in the absence of a meter) to and throughout the building, terminating at an approved backflow prevention device or devices serving fixed lawn sprinklers. Included also are fire prevention and firefighting piping and equipment. 18.56.040: PLUMBING PERMIT FEES: A.Before a permit shall be valid, permit fees shall be paid to the city treasurer. The basic fee for each permit requiring inspection is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. In addition, the fee for each individual specialty item is shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. B. Fees for fire extinguishing systems shall be paid to the city treasurer as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.56.050: HOT WATER CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS: All single-family residences which have central water heating units shall deliver a minimum capacity of thirty (30) gallons of one hundred forty degree Fahrenheit (140°F) water. Multiple units shall have a central water heating unit which shall deliver a minimum capacity of thirty (30) gallons of one hundred forty degree Fahrenheit (140°F) water per residential unit, when a central water heating unit is installed. 18.56.060: LOW FLUSH TOILETS; REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT: After the effective date hereof, no building permits shall be issued for new construction or remodeling of hotels, motels, apartment houses, dwellings or other structures which have toilets or water closets which use more than four (4) gallons of water per flush. Any toilets or water closets installed prior to said effective date shall meet the standards of this section when replaced. All fixtures installed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be of a design such 86 that the walls of the toilet or water closet bowl are thoroughly washed and contents discharged with each flush. 18.56.070: LOW FLUSH TOILETS; ON WATERSHED PROPERTY: After January 1, 1982, any toilets installed prior to the effective date hereof which are located on watersheds in Salt Lake County, or canyons contiguous to these watersheds, shall be replaced with toilets or water closets which meet the standards for new construction or remodeling specified in section 2-5-29 of the revised ordinances of Salt Lake County, 1965, or its successor, as amended. 18.56.080: FLOOR DRAINS; DUAL FLANGE AND SAFE PANS REQUIRED: All floor drains, area drains and indirect waste receptors installed on any floor level other than slab on grade shall have a dual flange and safe pans installed, with a minimum of thirty six inches (36") square of approved material, unless they are part of an original pour of concrete. 18.56.100: SOVENT PLUMBING SYSTEMS: "Sovent" is an engineered drainage plumbing system that does not meet conventional code requirements as found in the uniform plumbing code, 1988 edition, as adopted by section 18.56.010 of this chapter, or its successor section. The system is based on the combined hydraulic/pneumatic flow and performance characteristics of drainage plumbing products, and will be allowed for use in the city under the following provisions: A. Certification: The proprietor(s) of the engineered system shall certify that the plans meet the design requirements and shall also certify at the completion of the installation that they have inspected the system and that the system complies with the approved plans; B. Submittal Of Calculations: Submit hydraulic and pneumatic calculations for the proposed system before a permit is obtained; C. Offsets: A double offset shall be installed in the stack on floor levels where no fixture or branch connections are made; D. Deaerator Fitting: A deaerator fitting shall be located as close as possible to the base of the stack. No branch or fixture connections are permitted on this system downstream from the deaerator fitting. A full size bottom pressure relief line shall connect the deaerator fitting to the building drain at least ten (10) pipe diameters downstream from the base of the stack through a wye fitting rolled above the centerline. The full size bottom pressure relief line shall be provided with an accessible upper terminal cleanout; E. Prohibited Attachments: Pumpout, blowout, garbage disposal, clothes washing machine, or outlets from grease traps are prohibited in this system; 87 F. Cleanouts: Accessible cleanouts shall be provided in all horizontal drains. Cleanouts shall be provided for each aggregate change of direction exceeding one hundred thirty five degrees (135°); G. Conventional Plumbing: Vents from conventional plumbing and pressure equalizing line vents from a sovent system shall not connect to the sovent stack below other drainage fittings; H. Future Alterations: No alteration may be made without prior written permission from the division of building and housing services, and no provisions for future openings will be permitted on this system. This system shall be properly identified on each installation site. All buildings of B-2 occupancies with more than eight thousand (8,000) square feet per floor shall provide at least one 4-inch waste stack and one 4-inch vent stack for any alteration or additions. 18.56.105: MISCELLANEOUS PLUMBING REQUIREMENTS: A. Overflow roof drains shall not be connected to the primary roof drain lines. B. Overflow roof drains shall drain to a point where they can be easily seen for early problem detection. C. Fill valves for fire sprinkler storage tanks shall be equipped with an approved air gap on reduced pressure backflow preventer. D. Safe pan drains shall be no smaller than one and one-half inches (11/2") unless first approved by the administrative authority. E. Trough drains are prohibited unless first approved by the administrative authority. F. Drainage for gravity dump washers shall be by direct hookup to the building drain or to a sealed sump connected to the building drain. There shall be a floor drain immediately downstream of each gravity dump washer hookup. 18.56.110: UNSANITARY CONSTRUCTION AND CONDITIONS: Any portion of a plumbing system or any construction or work regulated by this title found or determined to be unsanitary, as defined in this title, or otherwise a menace to life, health or property, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.64. That Chapter 18.64 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Demolition) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 88 CHAPTER 18.64 DEMOLITION 18.64.005: PURPOSE AND INTENT: A. The purpose of the provisions in this chapter is to: 1. Promote the public welfare by maintaining the integrity and continuity of the urban fabric and economic vitality; 2. Provide an orderly and predictable process for demolition of buildings and structures when appropriate; 3. Ensure demolition occurs safely; 4. Protect utilities and other infrastructure from damage during demolition; 5. Provide for enforcement of timely completion of demolition and for improvement of property following demolition to ensure the site is not detrimental to the use and enjoyment of surrounding property; 6. Provide for enforcement and maintenance of property to avoid purposeful demolition by neglect; and 7. Encourage preservation of the city's housing stock where appropriate. B. A primary intent of the city council with respect to this chapter is to promote responsible re-use of existing housing stock where practical and provide an orderly process for demolition where it is not practical or cost efficient to rebuild/reuse. Accordingly, the council finds that it is in the public interest to require existing buildings to be maintained in a manner that does not constitute a public nuisance until replaced by new construction, except as otherwise permitted by this code. 18.64.010: PERMIT REQUIRED: It is unlawful to demolish any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be demolished, without first obtaining a permit for demolition of each such building or structure from the city building official as provided in this chapter. 18.64.020: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: To obtain a permit for demolition, an applicant shall submit an application in writing on a form furnished by the building official for that purpose. Each application shall: A. Identify and describe the type of work to be performed under the permit; B. State the address of the structure or building to be demolished; 89 C. Describe the building or structure to be demolished including the type of use, type of building construction, size and square footage, number of stories, and number of residential dwelling units (if any); D. Indicate the method and location of demolished material disposal; E. Identify the approximate date of commencement and completion of demolition; F. Indicate if fences, barricades, scaffolds or other protections are required by any city code for the demolition and, if so, their proposed location and compliance; G. State whether fill material will be required to restore the site to level grade after demolition and, if required, the approximate amount of fill material; H. If the building or structure to be demolished contains any dwelling units, state whether any of the dwelling units are presently occupied; and I. State the proposed use of the premises following demolition. If new construction is proposed following demolition, state the anticipated start date and whether any development applications have been submitted to and/or approved by the city. J. Affirm that the property will comply with the landscaping requirements for the zoning district that the property is located in as required under the provisions of Chapter 21A.48. 18.64.030: FEES AND SIGNATURE: A. The permit application shall be signed by the party or the party's authorized agent requesting the permit. A signature on the permit application constitutes a certification by the signee that the information contained in the application is true and correct. B. The fee for a demolition permit application shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. C. An additional fee for the cost of inspecting the property to determine compliance with the requirements of this chapter and to assure the property is kept free of weeds and junk materials shall be collected in the amount shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 18.64.040: ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT: A. A demolition permit may be issued only upon completion of an application in accordance with Section 18.64.020 herein; or the building official or fire marshal orders immediate demolition: 1. Due to an emergency as provided in Chapter 18.64; or 2. Because the premises have been damaged beyond repair because of a natural disaster, fire, or other similar event; or 90 3. The building official or fire marshal authorizes immediate demolition because clearing of land is necessary to remove a nuisance as defined in this code or Section 76-10-801 et seq., Utah Code or its successor. B. If proposed demolition involves a landmark site, a contributing structure, or a structure located in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, as provided in Section 21A.34.020 of this code, or its successor, a demolition permit shall be issued only upon compliance with applicable provisions of that section or its successor. 18.64.045: DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT: The owner of a boarded building shall maintain the exterior of the building as provided in Sections 18.48.235 and 18.50.140. 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 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 the City code, including without limitation the city’s community benefit policies in chapters 19 and 21A.50.050. 18.64.070: PREDEMOLITION SALVAGE PERMITS: A. A predemolition salvage permit shall be required for removal of doors, windows, special glass, fixtures, fittings, pipes, railings, posts, panels, boards, lumber, stones, bricks, marble, or similar materials on the exterior or interior of any building prior to demolition of the structure. A predemolition salvage permit may be issued only contemporaneously with, or after, city approval of: 1. A building permit for new construction on the premises following demolition, or 2. A demolition permit. B. A predemolition salvage permit fee shall be as shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 91 18.64.080: EXPIRATION; DILIGENCE: A demolition permit shall expire 45 calendar days from the date of issuance, unless a completion date allowing more time is requested and approved by the building official at the time of application. A demolition permit may be renewed upon request prior to expiration with approval of the building official for 1/2 of the original permit fee, provided continuous progress is being made. If a permit is allowed to expire without prior renewal, any subsequent request for reinstatement shall be accompanied by a reinstatement fee equal to the original demolition permit fee. 18.64.090: QUALIFICATIONS TO DO WORK: A. It shall be unlawful for demolition work permitted under this chapter to be performed except by a contractor having a general contractor or demolition license in good standing issued by the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing in the Utah Department of Commerce. B. Salvage work under a predemolition salvage permit may be done without a contractor's license provided all other applicable conditions of this chapter are met. 18.64.100: DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: A. Prior to the commencement of any demolition or moving, the permittee shall plug all sewer laterals at or near sidewalk lines as staked out by the department of public utilities. No excavation shall be covered until such plugging is approved by the department or by the building official. The permittee shall further ensure all utility services to the structure and/or premises have been shut off and meters removed prior to commencement of demolition work. B. When the applicant indicates the demolition will require more than 30 days to complete, and where required by the building official for the safety of the public, the applicant shall also provide plans to fence the demolition site so that it is inaccessible to unauthorized persons in a manner acceptable to the building official. The building official may waive the fencing requirement if it is determined that fencing would be inappropriate or unnecessary to protect safety or health. C. A permit for demolition shall require that all materials comprising part of the existing structure(s), including the foundation and footings, be removed from the site. Unless otherwise approved under a building permit for redevelopment of the site, the depression caused by the removal of such debris shall be filled back and compacted to the original grade, as approved by the building official, with fill material excluding detrimental amounts of organic material or large dimension nonorganic material. D. Permitted demolition work, including filling and leveling back to grade and removal of required pedestrian walkways and fences, shall be completed within the permit period unless the building official finds that any part of the foundation of building or site will form an 92 integral part of a new structure to be erected on the same site for which plans have already been approved by the division. In such event, the building official may approve plans for appropriate adjustments to the completion time and may impose reasonable conditions including the posting of a bond, erection of fences, securing, or similar preventions to ensure the site does not create a hazard after the demolition is completed. 18.64.110: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ORDINANCE: Provisions of this chapter shall be subordinate to any contrary specific provisions of Title 21A, Chapter 21A.34 of this code, dealing with demolition in historic districts, or its successor. 18.64.120: VIOLATIONS: A. It is unlawful for the owner of a building or structure to violate the provisions of this chapter. Each day a violation occurs shall be a separate offense. B. Violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be punishable in accordance with Chapter 18.24. ARTICLE II. EMERGENCY DEMOLITION 18.64.130: PURPOSE: Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, the process for demolishing buildings in an emergency situation shall be as provided by this article. 18.64.140: EMERGENCY DEMOLITIONS APPLICABILITY: A. If the building official determines that the walls or roof of a building or structure are collapsing, either in whole or in part, or in imminent danger of collapsing in such a way as to fall on other structures, property, or public rights of way, are a public nuisance, create a danger to persons who may enter the property, or create a danger of fire, the building official may issue an order that the building should be demolished pursuant to this article. A notice and order reflecting this determination shall be issued and delivered in accordance with Section 18.24.040. B. If the city’s fire marshal determines that a building or structure that has been affected by fire presents an impermissible danger to persons who may enter the property, then the fire marshal may issue an order that the building should be demolished pursuant to this article. A notice and order reflecting this determination shall be issued and delivered in accordance with Section 18.24.040. 93 C. If the building official or fire marshal declares an emergency demolition the requirements of Section 21A.34.020.F, or its successor, shall not apply. 18.64.150: RESERVED 18.64.160: BILL FOR COSTS; COLLECTION: A. Permitted Recovery of Costs: If the building official or designee causes the emergency demolition of a building pursuant to a notice issued under Section 18.64.140, after the property owner received at least 10 days’ notice in which to complete demolition and failed to do so, the division may collect the city’s abatement costs which shall include the cost of the demolition contractor, costs of any environmental testing or environmental controls over demolition materials, and a reasonable amount to pay the costs of city personnel involved in the demolition, by filing a property tax lien, as set forth in this section. B. Itemized Statement of Costs: Upon completion of the demolition work, the building official or designee shall prepare an itemized statement of costs and mail it to the property owner by certified mail or using any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery, demanding payment within 30 days of the date the statement is post marked. C. Form of Itemized Statement of Costs: The itemized statement of costs shall include: 1. The address of the property at issue; 2. An itemized list of all expenses incurred by the division, including administrative costs; 3. A demand for payment; 4. The address where payment is to be made; 5. Notification that failure to timely pay the expenses described in the itemized statement may result in a lien on the property in accordance with this chapter and Utah Code Section 10-11-4 or its successor; 6. Notification that the property owner may file a written objection to all or part of the statement within 20 days of the date the statement is postmarked; and 7. Where the property owner may file the objection, including the name of the office and the mailing address. D. Delivery of Statement of Costs: The itemized statement of costs described in Subsection C shall be deemed delivered when mailed by certified mail or by any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery addressed to the last known address of the property owner, according to the records of the county recorder. E. Objection to Statement of Costs: A property owner may appeal the statement of costs to the fines hearing officer pursuant to Section 18.12.050. 94 F. Failure to Object or Pay: If the property owner fails to make payment of the amount set forth in the itemized statement within 30 days of the date of the mailing of that statement, or to file a timely objection, then the division may certify the past due costs and expenses to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. G. Failure to Pay After Objection Hearing: If the property owner files a timely objection but fails to make payment of any amount ordered by the fines hearing officer, the inspector may certify the past due costs and expense to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. H. Lien on Property: After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, as set forth in Subsections F and G, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the Salt Lake County Treasurer at the time of the payment of general taxes. I. Release of Lien: Upon payment of the amount set forth in the itemized statement of costs or otherwise determined due and owing by the fines hearing officer, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the county. SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 18.68.160. That Section 18.68.160 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Floodplain Hazard Protection: Mandatory and Prohibitionary Nature of Chapter) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 18.68.160: MANDATORY AND PROHIBITIONARY NATURE OF CHAPTER: It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to perform any act prohibited by this chapter or to fail to perform any act or comply with any requirement of this chapter or to aid or abet therein, or to fail or refuse to comply with any valid order called by the specified officials responsible to administer the provisions of this chapter. No permits shall be issued to any applicant during the time he/she shall fail to correct defective work or noncomplying work or violation exists after written notice by the official responsible for the permit or their designee. SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.76. That Chapter 18.76 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Mobile Home Parks) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 95 CHAPTER 18.76 MOBILE HOME PARKS 18.76.010: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: CABANA: A room enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a mobile home for residential use by the occupant of the mobile home. DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A unit other than a self- contained unit. HOOKUP: The arrangement and connection of parts, circuits and materials employed in the connections required between the mobile home or recreational vehicle utility outlets and inlets and the park service connections that make the mobile home or recreational vehicle operational. MOBILE HOME: A factory assembled structure or structures equipped with the necessary service connections and constructed to be readily mobile as a unit or units on its own running gear, and designed to be used as a dwelling unit without a permanent foundation. MOBILE HOME PARK: A contiguous parcel of land which, after having the approval of the city planning commission, is used for the accommodation of occupied mobile homes. MOBILE HOME SPACE OR LOT: A designated portion of a mobile home park designed for the accommodation of one mobile home and its accessory buildings or structures for the exclusive use of the occupants. MOBILE HOME STAND OR PAD: That part of the mobile home space which has been prepared and reserved for the placement of one mobile home. MOTOR HOME: A self-propelled vehicular unit primarily designed as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation use. PARK DRAINAGE SYSTEM: The entire system of drainage piping used to convey sewage and other wastes from the mobile home or recreational vehicle drainage outlet connection, at the mobile home or recreational vehicle site, to the property line connection with the sewer lateral from the main line sewer. PARK PLUMBING SYSTEM: Means and includes, but is not limited to, the park drainage and water supply systems within the park property lines. PARK WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: All of the water supply piping within the park, and shall extend from the water meter to the mobile home or recreational vehicle water supply system, and shall include main and branch service lines, fixtures, devices, piping in service buildings, and appurtenances thereto. RAMADA: Any freestanding roof or shade structure installed or erected above an occupied mobile home or any portion thereof. 96 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicular unit, other than a mobile home, primarily designed as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacational use, which is either self-propelled or is mounted on or pulled by another vehicle, including, but not limited to, a travel trailer, a camp trailer, a truck camper, or a motor home. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK: A site, lot, tract or parcel of land upon which one or more recreational vehicles are parked for temporary use as living quarters. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACE: A plot of ground within a recreational vehicle park to accommodate one recreational vehicle. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STAND OR PAD: That part of the recreational vehicle space which has been prepared and reserved for the placement of one recreational vehicle. SELF-CONTAINED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A unit which: A. Can operate independent of connections to external sewer, water and electrical systems; and B. Has a toilet and holding tank for liquid waste; and C. Contains water storage facilities and may contain a lavatory, kitchen sink and/or bath facilities connected to the holding tank; provided, however, that all facilities shall be in sound operating condition, and further provided that it may be connected to external electric, water and sewer systems. SERVICE BUILDING: A building housing separate toilet and bathing facilities for men and women and which may also have laundry facilities, flushing rim sink, and other facilities as may be required by this title, and which shall be apart from the facilities within the mobile home or recreational vehicle. SEWER CONNECTION: All pipes, fittings and appurtenances installed to carry sewage from the mobile home or recreational vehicle drain outlet to the inlet provided in the park drainage system. SEWER RISER PIPE: That portion of the park sewer lateral which extends vertically to the ground elevation and terminates at each mobile or recreational vehicle space. TRAVEL TRAILER: A vehicular, portable unit, mounted on wheels, not requiring a special highway movement permit when drawn by a motorized vehicle, and: A. Designed as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation use; and B. When factory equipped for the road, having a body width of not more than 8 feet and a body length of not more than 32 feet. WATER CONNECTION: All pipes, fittings and appurtenances from the water riser pipe connection to the water inlet connection of the mobile home or recreational vehicle. WATER RISER PIPE: That portion of the park water supply system which extends vertically to the ground elevation and terminates at a designated point at each mobile home or recreational vehicle space. 97 18.76.020: RESERVED 18.76.030: PERMITS, LICENSE AND COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: It is unlawful for any person to construct, maintain or operate a mobile home or recreational vehicle park within the limits of the city unless such person complies with this title and all other pertinent provisions of this code, and first obtains approval, permits and licenses as required. 18.76.040: RESERVED 18.76.050: CONSTRUCTION PERMITS REQUIRED; FEES: Mobile home park construction permits required by the division shall be issued to properly licensed contractors as follows: A. A general building permit fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule, to be issued for pads, patio slabs, metal sheds (sheds to be installed by mobile home occupant), curb, gutter, drives, piers, sidewalks, fence or wall, per mobile home space; B. Electric meter stands or pedestals at the rate shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; C. The park plumbing system, including sewer and water risers, shall require the fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule, for each space; D. All permanent buildings, swimming pools, etc., shall have permit fees assessed at the regular and normal fee schedule; E. Fire hydrants within the property lines shall require a permit fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule, for each hydrant. 18.76.060: RESERVED 18.76.070: RESERVED 18.76.080: LOT MARKERS: The limits of each mobile home lot in a mobile home park shall be clearly marked on the ground by permanent flush stakes, markers, or other suitable means. 98 18.76.090: RESERVED 18.76.100: ADDITIONS AND REMODELING OF PARKS: Existing mobile home and recreational vehicle parks may be enlarged or remodeled provided the addition or remodel conforms to all the provisions of this title. 18.76.110: RESERVED 18.76.120: RESERVED 18.76.130: RESERVED 18.76.140: RESERVED 18.76.150: UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES: The complete distribution system or collection system of any utility shall be underground. 18.76.160: SEWER CONNECTIONS AND FEES: All applicable fees set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be paid prior to occupancy of any mobile home, including those fees due to the engineering department for sewer lateral connection from the property line to the sewer main line in the street. 18.76.170: STREET SURFACING REQUIREMENTS: All streets shall be provided with a smooth, hard and dense surface which shall be durable and well drained under normal use and weather conditions. The surface shall be maintained free of cracks and holes, and its edges shall be protected by suitable means to prevent traveling and shifting of the base. 18.76.180: STREETLIGHTS: 99 Lighting shall be designed to produce a minimum of 0.1 foot- candle throughout the street system. Potentially hazardous locations, such as major street intersections and steps or stepped ramps, shall be individually illuminated with a minimum of 0.3 foot-candle. 18.76.190: LANDSCAPING: Portions of a mobile home lot or recreational vehicle space not occupied by a mobile home or recreational vehicle or accessory buildings or structures shall be landscaped or treated in such a manner as to eliminate dust, weeds, debris and accumulation of rubbish. 18.76.200: UNLAWFUL AND HAZARDOUS USES: No person shall use, permit, or cause to be used for occupancy or storage purposes in a mobile home park a mobile home which is structurally unsound, which constitutes a hazard, or which does not protect its occupants against the elements. All mobile homes are subject to Chapter 18.50. 18.76.210: VIOLATION; NOTICE TO DISCONTINUE: Whenever any mobile home is being used contrary to the provisions of this chapter, the division may pursue such enforcement methods as permitted by this title. 18.76.220: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: The division is hereby designated and authorized as the officers charged with the enforcement of this chapter. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.80. That Chapter 18.80 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Parking Lot Construction) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.80 PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION 18.80.010: PARKING LOT DEFINED: 100 "Parking lot" means an open area other than a street used for the parking of more than four (4) automobiles, and available for public use, whether free, for compensation, or as an accommodation for clients or customers. 18.80.020: PERMIT; REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION; ISSUANCE CONDITIONS: No parking lot or parking area shall be constructed without first obtaining a permit authorizing such construction. No permit shall be issued without first securing the recommendations of the city transportation engineer and no permit shall be issued until the applicant has complied with the provisions of this chapter. 18.80.030: WALLS, SCREENING AND BUMPER CURB REQUIREMENTS: The parking lot shall be provided with attractive walls, guardrails or screening shrubbery, at least along the street side, to limit points of ingress and egress, to prevent encroachment of parked vehicles on any sidewalk, and to improve the general appearance and, where necessary, with a bumper curb parallel with the inside of the wall or guardrail at such distance that the wheels of the motor vehicles in the parking lot are stopped prior to the motor vehicle's contact with the wall or guardrail. 18.80.040: DRIVEWAY RESTRICTIONS: Driveways must not exceed thirty feet (30') in width where they cross the sidewalk; adjacent driveways must be separated by an island at least twelve feet (12') in width; and driveways must be at least ten feet (10') from the property line of any intersecting street. 18.80.050: BUILDINGS FOR ATTENDANTS: Attendant buildings must be located far enough from the entrance to prevent congestion at the sidewalk, and must be constructed so as not to detract from the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. Every operator of a parking lot, before constructing or reconstructing, or locating or relocating an attendant building, shall secure the approval of the city transportation engineer and the city planning director. 18.80.060: SURFACING OF PARKING AREA: Ground surfaces of the parking area shall be paved or hard surfaced. 18.80.070: LIGHTING FACILITIES; REQUIRED WHEN: 101 Parking lots which are operated and open to use during the hours of darkness after one hour after sunset shall be provided with lights and lighting facilities that will provide 0.03 watt per square foot with incandescent light source, or 0.01 watt per square foot with either mercury vapor or fluorescent light source, but in no event less than 0.2 foot-candle average maintained illumination on the entire parking lot surface and an average ratio of six to one (6:1). 18.80.080: LIGHTING FACILITIES; PERMIT AND PLAN REQUIRED: Before installing the lighting facilities required by section 18.80.070 of this chapter, or its successor, and before altering or adding to any lighting facilities presently existing, the operator of a parking lot shall first make application to the building official for a permit, and shall submit with such application a detailed plan for such facilities. If it shall be found that the installation will conform to the requirements of this chapter and the electrical code, a permit shall be issued upon payment of the fee required by the electrical code covering work in commercial and industrial property. 18.80.090: CAR CAPACITY AND MANEUVERING: The maximum car capacity indicated on the application shall be reasonable, and the arrangement of parking facilities shall not necessitate the backing of cars onto adjoining public sidewalks, parkways, roadways or thoroughfares in conducting parking and unparking operations. 18.80.100: CLEANUP OF WASTE AND LITTER: Every operator of a "parking lot", as defined in this chapter, whether such operator is owner, lessee, representative or agent, shall keep such parking lot in a clean condition at all times, free from all kinds of refuse and waste material. It shall be sufficient compliance with this section to clear the parking lot from refuse and waste material once each day. 18.80.110: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: It shall be the duty of the building official to enforce the provisions of this chapter with respect to lighting facilities. It shall be the duty of the board of health to enforce the provisions of this chapter as to keeping the premises in a clean condition. 18.80.120: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER PROVISIONS: It is unlawful for any operator of a "parking lot", as defined in this chapter, whether such person is owner, lessee, representative or agent, to fail to comply with, or to violate any provision of this chapter. 102 SECTION 17. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.92. That Chapter 18.92 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Building Conservation Code) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.92 BUILDING CONSERVATION CODE 18.92.010: UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The uniform code for building conservation, 1988 edition, is adopted by the city as the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city, subject to the amendments and exceptions thereto as hereinafter set out. Three (3) copies of the code shall be filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the city recorder. 18.92.020: EXCEPTION TO SECTION 402(d) AMENDED: The exception to section 402(d) of the code is amended to read as follows: Exception: Existing corridor walls, ceilings and opening protection not in compliance with the above may be continued when the corridors and common areas are protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Such sprinkler system may be supplied from the domestic water supply system, provided the system is of adequate pressure, capacity and sizing for the combined domestic and sprinkler requirements. When the building or floor changes occupancy, the entire floor or building must be protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout. 18.92.030: SECTION 403 AMENDED: Section 403 of the code is amended by deleting the following sentence: Roofs, floors, walls, foundations and all structural components of buildings or structures shall be capable of resisting the forces and loads specified in chapter 23 of the building code. 18.92.040: EXCEPTION ADDED TO SECTION 606(1): An exception to section 606(1) is enacted to read as follows: 103 Exception: Existing nonconforming materials do not need to be surfaced with an approved fire retardant paint or finish when an automatic fire extinguishing system is installed throughout and the nonconforming materials can be substantiated as historic in character. SECTION 18. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.94. That Chapter 18.94 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Commercial Building Benchmarking and Market Transparency) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 18.94 COMMERCIAL BUILDING BENCHMARKING AND MARKET TRANSPARENCY 18.94.10 : PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to promote long-term economic development in Salt Lake City through the enhanced energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings, and to reduce local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from energy consumption in such buildings through increased energy efficiency, by requiring certain non-residential buildings to benchmark and report energy consumption and investigate opportunities to implement cost-effective building energy tune- ups. Promoting and recognizing efficient buildings will contribute to a cleaner environment and a more efficient use of energy resources. 18.94.020: SCOPE: The provisions of this chapter apply to buildings and building owners as follows: A.All buildings owned by the City, that are not used for residential purposes, wastewater reclamation plants, or for heavy manufacturing purposes as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this Code, with three thousand (3,000) square feet or more of gross floor area; provided, however, no building with less than twenty two thousand (22,000) square feet of gross floor area shall be subject to the provisions of section 18.94.080 of this chapter. B.All other governed buildings or campuses of buildings that are not used for residential purposes within Salt Lake City's geographic boundaries, where at least one of the buildings is comprised of at least twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area. To the extent a governed building contains elements or uses that are not included within the definition of a governed building under this chapter, the square footage of gross floor area of such elements or uses shall be excluded from the square footage of gross floor area of such building and shall not be considered a part of the governed building for purposes of this chapter. C. Exemptions: 104 1.Governed buildings that are new construction and the Certificate of Occupation was issued less than two (2) years prior to the applicable deadlines; or 2.Governed buildings that do not have a Certificate of Occupation or temporary Certificate of Occupation for all twelve (12) months of the calendar year being benchmarked; or 3. Governed buildings where a full demolition permit has been issued for the prior calendar year, provided that demolition work has commenced, some energy-related systems have been compromised, and legal occupancy is no longer possible at some point during the calendar year being benchmarked; or 4.Governed buildings, including individual buildings or structures, that do not receive utility services; or 5.Any of the following: a property or building that is not assessed ad valorem real property taxes by Salt Lake County, houses of worship, apartments, agricultural storage facilities and greenhouses, buildings used for heavy manufacturing purposes as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this Code, oil and gas production facilities, buildings that contain movie/television/radio production studios, soundstages, broadcast antennae, data center, or trading floor that together exceed ten percent (10%) of gross floor area. D. Governed buildings do not include properties owned by State or Federal government. 18.94.030: DEFINITIONS: BASE BUILDING SYSTEMS: A building assembly made up of various components that serve a specific function and that are controlled and operated by the owner or designee, including: A. The building envelope; B. The HVAC (heating ventilating and air conditioning) systems; C. Conveying systems; D. Electrical and lighting systems; E. Domestic hot water systems. BENCHMARK: To track and report the total energy consumed for a governed building for the previous calendar year and other descriptive information for such building as captured by the benchmarking tool. Total energy consumption may not include separately metered uses that are not integral to building operations, such as broadcast antennas and electric vehicle charging stations. BENCHMARKING SUBMISSION: A subset of: A. Information input into the benchmarking tool; and 105 B. Benchmarking information generated by the benchmarking tool. BENCHMARKING TOOL: The Energy Star portfolio manager or any replacement tool adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and any substantially similar tool approved by the Director. BUILDING ID NUMBER: The identification number that is unique to a governed building. BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: A computer-based system that monitors and controls a building's mechanical and electrical equipment, such as HVAC, lighting, power, fire, and security systems, including an energy management system, incorporating interior temperature sensors and a central processing unit and controls, which are used to monitor and control gas, steam and oil usage, as applicable. CAMPUS: A collection of two (2) or more buildings where at least one of the buildings has at least twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area or more and that act as a single cohesive property with a single shared primary function, and are generally owned and operated by the same party. CITY PROPERTY: All buildings owned by the City, that are not used for residential purposes, wastewater reclamation plants, or for heavy manufacturing purposes as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this Code. DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability. DIRECTOR: The Director of the Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability. ENERGY STAR PORTFOLIO MANAGER: The tool developed and maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to track and assess the relative energy performance of buildings nationwide. ENERGY STAR SCORE: The 1 - 100 numeric rating generated by the Energy Star portfolio manager tool. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP: A property that: A. Had arrears of property taxes or water or wastewater charges that resulted in the property's inclusion, within the prior two (2) years, on the City's annual tax lien sale list; or B. Has a court appointed receiver in control of the property due to financial distress; or C. Is owned by a financial institution through default by the borrower; or D. Has been acquired by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; or E. Has a senior mortgage subject to a notice of default. GOVERNED BUILDING: All stand-alone and enclosed buildings used or occupied for a commercial use, including: A. Banking/financial services; 106 B. Stand-alone data centers; C. Education (including K - 12, daycare, pre- school, vocational school); D. Entertainment/public assembly (including convention centers, gyms, movie theaters, performing arts, meeting halls, recreation centers); E. Food sales and services (including restaurants, supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores); F. Healthcare (including hospitals, medical offices, senior care communities, assisted living and nursing care); G. Lodging (including hotels, motels); H. Mixed use; I. Offices; J. Retail (including retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, department stores, mass merchandising stores, specialty stores, enclosed retail malls and shopping centers); K. Technology/science (including data centers and research facilities); L. Warehouses, distribution, and package delivery facilities. GROSS FLOOR AREA: All gross floor area, which is the area included within the exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, including mezzanines, enclosed interior balconies, enclosed porches, basement floor area, penthouses, attic space having headroom of seven feet (7') or more, and interior connected floor area devoted to accessory uses. Gross floor area does not include balconies, patios, crawl spaces, courts, convertible indoor/outdoor space, parking or loading areas, and covered walkways. HEAVY MANUFACTURING: The same as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this Code. OCCUPANCY: The physical occupancy of a unit or space by an occupant or a tenant. OWNER: Any of the following: A. An individual or entity possessing title to a governed property; B. The net lessee in the case of a property subject to a triple net lease with a single tenant; C. The Board of Managers in the case of a nonresidential condominium; D. An agent or party duly authorized to act on behalf of the owner. PERSISTENT COMMISSIONING: An ongoing process of comparing data obtained through the building management system with analytic models; identifying problematic sensors, controls and equipment; and resolving operating problems, optimizing energy use and identifying retrofits for existing buildings. 107 SHARED BENCHMARKING INFORMATION: Any descriptive information identifying governed buildings with Energy Star scores above 50, and any portions of the submitted benchmarking information that owner elects to be posted publicly on the department's website. SUBMITTED BENCHMARKING INFORMATION: Whole-building information generated by the benchmarking tool and descriptive information about the governed building and its operational characteristics, which is submitted to the department. The information shall be limited to: A. Descriptive information: 1. Property address; 2. Primary use type; 3. Gross floor area; B. Output information: 1. Site electricity consumption (kWh); 2. Site natural gas consumption (therms); 3. Site energy use intensity (site EUI); 4. Weather normalized source energy use intensity (source EUI); 5. Total annual greenhouse gas emissions; 6. Water use per gross square foot (if available); 7. The Energy Star score, where available; and C. Comparable information based on updates/revisions to Energy Star portfolio manager. TENANT: A person or entity occupying or holding possession of all or a portion of real property, or all or a portion of a governed building pursuant to a rental or lease agreement. TUNE-UP EVALUATION: A utility sponsored retro-commissioning process that systematically evaluates base building systems and identifies improvements to achieve optimal building performance. This includes planning, investigation, and documentation to optimize operation, maintenance and performance of the facility and/or its base building systems and assemblies. TUNE-UP EVALUATION REPORT: A report certified by the tune-up professional demonstrating that a tune-up evaluation was conducted through a utility-sponsored tune-up incentive program. TUNE-UP PROFESSIONAL: An individual or entity approved or utilized by local utilities to provide tune-up evaluation services or who possesses other substantially similar credential to perform a tune-up evaluation required by this chapter. 108 18.94.040: SUMMARY OF BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND INITIAL COMPLIANCE DATES: Properties Submitted Benchmarking Information Due Shared Benchmarking Information Made Publicly Available Date When First Tune-Up Evaluation Report Must Be Filed Frequency Of Tune-Up Evaluation City property May 1, 2018 Sept. 1, 2018 May 1, 2020 Prior to Dec. 31 of every fifth year Governed building (50,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or larger) Governed building (25,000 to 49,999 sq. ft. of gross floor area) May 1, 2019 Sept. 1, 2020 May 1, 2021 Prior to Dec. 31 of every fifth year May 1, 2020 Sept. 1, 2021 May 1, 2022 Prior to Dec. 31 of every fifth year 18.94.050: BENCHMARKING AND BENCHMARKING SUBMISSION REQUIRED: A.Governed buildings and City properties shall be benchmarked annually for the previous calendar year according to the following schedule: 1.Each City property shall be benchmarked no later than May 1, 2018, and every May 1 thereafter. 2.Each governed building with a gross floor area of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet or more shall be benchmarked no later than May 1, 2019, and every May 1 thereafter. 3. Each governed building with a gross floor area of twenty five thousand (25,000) to forty nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine (49,999) square feet shall be benchmarked no later than May 1, 2020, and every May 1 thereafter. B.Below is a summary table of the first benchmarking submission compliance dates: Properties Benchmarking Submission By Building Owner City property May 1, 2018 109 Governed building (50,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger) Governed building (25,000 to 49,999 square feet of gross floor area) May 1, 2019 May 1, 2020 C.Benchmarking shall be performed and/or verified by the owner. D. Before making a benchmarking submission the owner shall run all automated data quality checker functions available within the benchmarking tool, and shall correct all missing or incorrect information identified. E.If the current owner receives notification from the City that any information reported as part of the benchmarking submission is inaccurate or incomplete, the information so reported shall be amended in the benchmarking tool by the owner and the owner shall provide an updated benchmarking submission to the Director within sixty (60) days of the notification. F.Exceptions: 1.Governed buildings whose average occupancy throughout the calendar year for which benchmarking is required is less than sixty percent (60%); or 2.Governed buildings under financial hardship; or 3.Due to special circumstances unique to the applicant's facility and not based on a condition caused by actions of the applicant, strict compliance with provisions of this chapter would cause undue hardship or would not be in the public interest; or 4.An owner is unable to benchmark due to the failure of either a utility provider or a tenant (or both) to report the information necessary for the owner to complete any benchmarking submittal requirement. G.For properties qualifying for these exceptions, the owner shall file documentation, in such form and with such certifications as required by the Director, with the department in the year prior to the due date for the benchmarking submission, establishing that the governed building qualifies for such an exception. H.A randomly-selected subset of benchmarking submission not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total benchmarking submissions completed in a given year may be subject to verification by the City. Such reviews shall be conducted in a way so as to preserve the anonymity of individual properties and shall be conducted at no cost to the owner. I.An owner may make a claim of confidentiality for any submitted benchmarking information pursuant to the limitations under State law. 18.94.060: BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE TRANSPARENCY: 110 A. The City shall make accessible to the public the shared benchmarking information for the previous calendar year. 1. For each governed building with a gross floor area of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet or more, on or about September 1, 2020, and on or about each September 1 thereafter. 2.For each governed building with a gross floor area of twenty five thousand (25,000) to forty nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine (49,999) square feet, on or about September 1, 2021, and each September 1 thereafter. B. The department may, upon request, make available the submitted benchmarking information for the previous calendar year for an individual City property or governed building. 18.94.070: PROVIDING BENCHMARKING INFORMATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER: A. Each tenant occupying a governed building shall, within sixty (60) days of a request by the owner and in a form to be determined by the Director, provide all information that cannot otherwise be acquired by the owner and that is needed by the owner to comply with the requirements of this chapter. 18.94.080: TUNE-UP EVALUATIONS REQUIRED: A.Required: Tune-up evaluations are required for governed buildings and City properties that are eligible for participation in a utility-sponsored tune-up incentive program, as determined by the utility offering the incentive program and that have an Energy Star score of 49 and below. Implementation of tune-up measures in addition to evaluations is encouraged but not required. B.Report: The owner shall conduct a tune-up evaluation of the base building systems of a qualifying governed building and file a tune-up evaluation report prior to December 31 of the year in which the tune-up evaluation is being performed. The initial reporting year shall be determined by the last digit of the property's tax ID number as illustrated below, and subsequent tune-up evaluation shall be completed and tune-up evaluation reports filed every fifth year thereafter: Last Digit Of Tax ID 50,000 Square Feet And Above Of 25,000 To 49,999 Square Feet Of Number Gross Floor Area Gross Floor Area Last Digit Of Tax ID 50,000 Square Feet And Above Of 25,000 To 49,999 Square Feet Of Number Gross Floor Area Gross Floor Area 0 2021 2022 1 2021 2022 2 2022 2023 3 2022 2023 111 4 2023 2024 5 2023 2024 6 2024 2025 7 2024 2025 8 2025 2026 9 2025 2026 City. C. Report Submission: The owner shall submit the tune-up evaluation report to the D. Exceptions: Tune-up evaluations are not required if any of the following are met: 1. If the governed building is less than five (5) years old; or 2.If a registered design professional or tune-up professional certifies that: a.The governed building has an Energy Star score of 50 or above for the year prior to the first tune-up due date or for at least two (2) of the three (3) years preceding the due date of the governed building's tune-up evaluation report. b. There is no Energy Star rating for the building type and owner submits documentation that the property's energy performance is better than the energy performance of an average building of its type for two (2) of the three (3) years preceding the due date of the governed building's tune-up report. c.The governed building has received certification under the most recent LEED 2009 rating system for existing buildings or operation and maintenance, or existing buildings version 4 rating system or future iterations of LEED published by the U.S. Green Building Council or other substantially similar rating systems for existing buildings, for at least two (2) of the three (3) years preceding the due date for the governed building's tune-up evaluation reports. d.The governed building has performed a tune-up evaluation within the past five (5) years prior to the tune-up evaluation due date. 3. If the governed building has a persistent commissioning program in place. For properties qualifying for these exceptions, the owner shall file documentation, in such form and with such certifications as required by the Director, with the department in the year prior to the due date for the tune-up report, establishing that the governed building qualifies for such an exception. E. Verification: A randomly-selected subset of tune-up evaluation reports not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total tune-up evaluation reports completed in a given year may 112 be subject to verification by the City. Such reviews shall be conducted in a way so as to preserve the anonymity of individual properties and shall be conducted at no cost to the owner. 18.94.090: NOTIFICATION: A. Between January 1 and March 1 of each year during which an owner is required to provide a benchmarking submission, the Director shall notify these owners of their obligation to benchmark performance for the previous calendar year through whatever means the Director so chooses. 18.94.100: VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT: A. If the Director determines that an owner has failed to comply with the requirements of this chapter or the owner submits incomplete or false information, the Director may issue up to three (3) written notices of noncompliance to the owner, allowing owner to cure such noncompliance within ninety (90) days after each notice of violation. After the third written notice of violation, the Director may impose a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00) per violation thereafter not exceeding a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annually. 18.94.110: APPEALS PROCESS: A. Any owner affected by the Director's determination related to that owner's property regarding enforcement of this chapter may request, within thirty (30) days of owner's written notification of the Director's determination, in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the Board of Appeals and Examiners, established under this title. SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.95. That Chapter 18.95 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Use of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.95 USE OF LEED STANDARDS IN CITY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION 18.95.10 : PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to promote development consistent with sound environmental practices by requiring, subject to Sections 18.95.040, 18.95.050, and 18.95.120 of this chapter, that applicable building projects constructed with city construction funds obtain, at a minimum: 113 a) "silver" for city owned and operated buildings, or b) "certified" for private building projects that receive city funds. These designations shall be from the "USGBC" as defined herein. 18.95.020: DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter: APPLICABLE BUILDING PROJECT: The construction or major renovation of a commercial, multi-family residential, or municipal building that will contain more than 10,000 square feet of occupied space when the design contract for such project commences on or after November 17, 2006. CERTIFIED: The level of compliance with the leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) standards designated as "certified" by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER: The city employee designated pursuant to Subsection 3.24.040A or that employee's designee pursuant to Section 3.24.050. CITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS: Funds that are authorized to be used for construction by the city council for use by any person or city department in order to construct an applicable building project, including, without limitation, loans, grants, and tax rebates. However, this term shall not apply to the funds of the library or redevelopment agency. CITY ENGINEER: The city employee designated pursuant to Section 2.08.080 of this code or that employee's designee pursuant to Section 3.24.050. LEED STANDARD: The leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) green building rating system for new construction and major renovations (LEED-NC) as adopted in November 2002 and revised in November 2005, the LEED green building rating system for commercial interiors (LEED-CI) as adopted in November 2002, or the LEED green building rating system for existing buildings upgrades, operations and maintenance (LEED-EB) as adopted in October 2004 and updated in July 2005. MAJOR RENOVATION: Work that demolishes space down to the shell structure and rebuilds it with new walls, ceilings, floors and systems, when such work affects more than 25% of the building's square footage, and the affected space is at least 10,000 square feet or larger. SILVER: The level of compliance with LEED standards designated as "silver" by the USGBC. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE: A determination of good faith efforts to comply as further described in Section 18.95.110. TEMPORARY STRUCTURE: Any proposed building that is intended to be in existence for 5 years or less or any existing building that at the time it was constructed was intended to be in existence for 5 years or less. USGBC: The organization known as the United States green building council. 114 18.95.030: APPLICATION: Whenever city construction funds are used for an applicable building project, such project shall at a minimum obtain a silver certification by the USGBC in the case of a city owned building project or certified certification in the case of all other projects, subject to the exceptions, waivers, and determinations of substantial compliance provided for in this chapter. 18.95.040: EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply if the building official and either the chief procurement officer or the city engineer jointly determine in writing that any of the following circumstances exist: A. The applicable building project will serve a specialized, limited function, such as a pump station, garage, storage building, equipment area, or other similar area, or a single- family residence; B. The applicable building project is intended to be a temporary structure; C. The useful life of the applicable building project does not justify whatever additional expense would be incurred to increase the building's long term efficiency; D. The application of LEED standard factors will increase construction costs beyond the funding capacity for the project, or will require that the project's scope of work or programmatic needs be diminished to meet budget constraints; E. The use of LEED standard factors will create an impediment to construction due to conflicts of laws, building code requirements, federal or state grant funding requirements, or other similar requirements; F. LEED factors are not reasonably attainable due to the nature of the facilities or the schedule for construction; or G. LEED certification will violate any other federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other sections of this code. If an exception is granted, the developer must agree to integrate green building practices into the design and construction of the project to the maximum extent possible and feasible. A determination that an exception does not apply may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18.12. 18.95.050: WAIVERS: The denial of an exception pursuant to Section 18.95.040 of this chapter does not preclude an application for waiver pursuant to this section. The board shall have the authority to grant a waiver from the requirements of this chapter only if it makes the following findings in writing: 115 A. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of this chapter; B. There are special circumstances attached to the project that do not generally apply to other projects that are subject to this chapter; C. The waiver would not have a substantially negative effect on the master plans, policies, and resolutions of the city and would not be contrary to the purposes of this chapter; D. Any asserted economic hardship is not self-imposed; and E. The spirit of this chapter will be observed and substantial justice done. 18.95.060: APPEAL OF CITY DECISIONS: Appeals of decisions by the building official or enforcement officials pursuant to this chapter shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 18.12. 18.95.070: RESERVED 18.95.080: REQUIRED DEPOSIT: All private sector developers, excluding nonprofit developers, who receive city funds for applicable building projects shall submit a $10,000.00 "good faith" deposit with the city which shall be refunded upon the building project receiving the applicable level of LEED certification or after a determination of substantial compliance. 18.95.090: PROOF OF REGISTRATION: Within 30 days from receiving notice that the city will fund an applicable building project, all private sector developers shall submit written proof that said project is registered with the USGBC. City funds will not be dispersed until the required deposit under Section 18.95.080 and the proof of registration under this section are received by the city. 18.95.100: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION: If a project is not LEED certified or has not been granted a determination of substantial compliance within one year after a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued by the city, then a private sector developer must file a written application with the city for an extension to obtain LEED certification. Said application must be filed with the city no later than 395 days after the date on which the certificate of occupancy was issued by the city. The city may grant a one year extension pursuant to this section and any additional extensions as may be necessary so long as a 116 private sector developer is actively pursuing LEED certification. Extensions pursuant to this section shall begin on the date granted by the city. 18.95.110: REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE: Receipt of LEED certification from the USGBC shall be conclusive evidence of the level of certification stated therein. If certification is not received from the USGBC or is not at the level required by this chapter, a private sector developer may request that the city issue a determination that the project has substantially complied with this chapter upon a reasonable demonstration that such project as constructed is consistent with the intent of this chapter and that strict enforcement of this chapter would create an unreasonable burden in light of the needs of such project, the ability of the project owner to control cost increases, and other relevant circumstances. The request for determination of substantial compliance must contain the following information: A. Final LEED certification application, documentation, and response from the USGBC; B. An explanation of the efforts and accomplishments made by the private sector developer to achieve compliance with this chapter; C. An explanation of the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing certain high performance building design or construction techniques that, if implemented, would otherwise have likely resulted in certification; and D. Any other supporting documents the private sector developer wishes to submit. 18.95.120: DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE: The building official and either the chief procurement officer or the city engineer shall review within 60 days of receipt of a request for determination of substantial compliance and shall approve or deny the request based on the good faith efforts of the private sector developer to comply with this chapter. In making a determination of the good faith efforts, review of the request shall include whether the private sector developer has established the following: A. That reasonable, appropriate, and ongoing efforts to comply with this chapter were taken; and B. That compliance would otherwise have been obtained but for the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing high performance building design or construction techniques. In making any such determination, cost increases due solely to aesthetic elements shall not constitute any part of a demonstration of unreasonable burden. A determination of substantial compliance pursuant to this section shall satisfy Section 18.95.030. 117 If the request for determination of substantial compliance is denied, the private sector developer will be deemed to have not satisfied Section 18.95.030 and shall forfeit the "good faith" deposit under Section 18.95.080 and may be assessed an additional penalty up to the amount originally funded by the city. Any penalty assessed shall be offset by the "good faith" deposit. 18.95.130: PENALTY: Any private sector developer who fails to: a) comply with this chapter, b) apply for an extension pursuant to Section 18.95.100 of this chapter, or c) receive a determination of substantial compliance, shall forfeit the "good faith" deposit to the city to cover the cost and inconvenience to the city. An additional penalty may be assessed based on a direct analysis of possible LEED design credits. Given that a total of 26 LEED design credits are required for certification, the additional penalty shall be based on the following considerations: A. If the city determines that a project could have reasonably received 21-25 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the city up to 25% of the amount originally funded. B. If the city determines that a project could have reasonably received 16-20 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the city up to 50% of the amount originally funded. C. If the city determines that a project could have reasonably received 6-15 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the city up to 75% of the amount originally funded. D. If the city determines that a project could have reasonably received 0-5 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the city up to 100% of the amount originally funded. Failure to pay a penalty within 90 days of written notice from the city shall result in a lien against the project. 18.95.140: RULE MAKING AUTHORIZATION: The building official and either the chief procurement officer or the city engineer are authorized to issue administrative rules under this chapter. 18.95.150: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS: Pursuant to the authority granted under Subsection 18.08.040K, the building official may render interpretations of this chapter. Such interpretations shall conform with the intent and purpose of this chapter, and shall be made available in writing for public inspection upon request. 118 18.95.160: LIMITATIONS: Nothing required under this chapter shall supersede any federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other provisions of this code; or any contract, grant, or other funding requirement; or other standards or restrictions that may otherwise apply to an applicable building project. This chapter shall not apply whenever its application would disadvantage the city in obtaining federal funds. SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.96. That Chapter 18.96 of the Salt Lake City Code (Additional Regulations: Fit Premises) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: CHAPTER 18.96 FIT PREMISES 18.96.10 : TITLE: This chapter may be referred to as the SALT LAKE CITY FIT PREMISES ORDINANCE. 18.96.020: EXCLUSIONS FROM APPLICATION OF CHAPTER: The following arrangements are not governed by this chapter: A. Residence at a detention, medical, geriatric, educational, counseling, or religious institution; B. Occupancy under a contract of sale of a dwelling unit if the occupant is the purchaser; C. Occupancy by a member of a fraternal or social organization in a building operated for the benefit of the organization; D. Transient occupancy in a hotel, or motel (or lodgings subject to Utah code section 59-12-301); except that single room occupancy units ("SRO") shall be governed by this chapter. "SRO" means an existing housing unit with one combined sleeping and living room of at least 70 square feet, but of not more than 220 square feet, where the usual tenancy or occupancy of the same unit by the same person or persons is for a period of longer than one week. Such units may include a kitchen and a private bath; and E. Occupancy by an owner of a condominium unit. 119 18.96.030: IDENTIFICATION OF OWNER AND AGENTS: A. A property owner, or any person authorized to enter into an oral or written rental agreement on the property owner's behalf, shall disclose to the tenant in writing at or before the commencement of the tenancy the name, address and telephone number of: 1. The owner or person authorized to manage the premises; and 2. A local person authorized to act for and on behalf of the owner for the purpose of receiving notices and demands, and performing the property owner's obligations under this chapter and the rental agreement if the owner or manager reside outside of Salt Lake City. B. A person who enters into a rental agreement as “landlord”, “property manager” or the like, and fails to comply with the requirements of this section becomes an agent of the property owner for the purposes of: 1. Receipt of notices under this chapter; and 2. Performing the obligations of the property owner under this chapter and under the rental agreement. C. The information required to be furnished by this section shall be kept current. This section is enforceable against any successor property owner, owner, or manager. D. Every rental property with more than one unit rented without a written agreement shall have a notice posted in a conspicuous place with the name, address and telephone number of the owner or manager and local agent as required by subsection A of this section. 18.96.040: PROPERTY OWNER TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF DWELLING UNIT: A. A copy of the lease or rental agreement, rules and regulations, an inventory of the condition of the premises, a list of all appliances and furnishings and a summary of this chapter shall be given to each tenant at the time the rental agreement is entered into. The summary shall be prepared by the city for the purpose of fairly setting forth the material provisions of this chapter and shall include information about mediation resources in the Salt Lake City area and shall encourage property owners and tenants to take advantage of mediation services. The property owner shall secure and retain the tenant's signed acknowledgment that the foregoing documents have been provided to the tenant. Such acknowledgment shall be returned to the property owner no later than 3 days after the tenant takes possession of the dwelling unit. Before entering into a rental agreement, the property owner shall disclose to the tenant any current notice by a utility provider to terminate water, gas, electrical or other utility service to the dwelling unit or to common areas of the building, the proposed date of termination, and any current uncorrected building or health code violation included in a deficiency list or notice from the division or any other government entity. 120 B. By explicit written agreement, a property owner and a tenant may establish a procedure whereby the tenant notifies the property owner of needed repairs, makes those repairs and deducts the cost of the repairs from the rent due and owing. C. A property owner may allocate any duties to the tenant by explicit written agreement. Such agreement must be clear and specific, boxed, in bold type or underlined. 18.96.050: PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES AND EACH DWELLING UNIT: A property owner shall: A. Comply with the requirements of applicable building, housing and health codes and city ordinances and not rent the premises unless they are safe, sanitary, and fit for human occupancy; B. Maintain the structural integrity of the building; C. Maintain floors in compliance with safe load bearing requirements; D. Provide exits, emergency egress, and light and ventilation in compliance with applicable codes; E. Maintain stairways, porches, walkways and fire escapes in sound condition; F. Provide smoke detectors and fire extinguisher as required by code; G. Provide operable sinks, toilets, tubs and/or showers; H. Provide heating facilities as required by code; I. Provide kitchen facilities as required; J. Provide running water; K. Provide adequate hall and stairway lighting; L. Maintain floors, walls and ceilings in good condition; M. Supply window screens where required by code; N. Maintain foundation, masonry, chimneys, water heater and furnace in good working condition; O. Prevent the accumulation of stagnant water in the interior of any premises; P. Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and other facilities and appliances supplied by the property owner as required by applicable codes; Q. Provide and maintain appropriate garbage receptacles and arrange for timely garbage removal as required by code; 121 R. Supply electricity, and hot water at all times and heat during at least the months of October through April and as weather conditions might otherwise reasonably warrant, except where the dwelling unit is so constructed that electricity, heat or hot water is within the exclusive control of the tenant and supplied by a direct public utility connection; S. Once proof of pest infestation has been established, be responsible for initiation of pest control measures. In no instance shall a property owner be required to apply pesticides contrary to label directions; T. Not interrupt or disconnect utility service; U. Provide adequate locks to exterior doors and furnish keys to tenants as required by applicable codes; V. Maintain the dwelling unit in a reasonably insulated and weather tight condition as required by the building and housing and Utah state energy conservation codes; W. Provide for and protect each tenant's peaceful enjoyment of the premises; X. Ensure that repairs, decorations, alterations, or improvements, or exhibiting the dwelling unit shall not unreasonably interfere with the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment of the premises; Y. Provide a mailbox; and Z. Provide separate meters for each tenant for gas and electricity or include charges for utility services in the rent. 18.96.060: TENANT TO MAINTAIN DWELLING UNIT: A tenant shall: A. Comply with all appropriate requirements of the rental agreement and applicable provisions of building, housing and health codes; B. Maintain the premises occupied in a clean and safe condition and not unreasonably burden any common area; C. Dispose of all garbage and other waste in a clean and safe manner and avoid leaving garbage or litter in hallways, porches, patios and other common areas; D. Maintain all plumbing fixtures in as sanitary a condition as the fixtures permit and avoid obstructing sinks, toilets, tubs, showers and other plumbing drains; E. Use all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, and other facilities and appliances in a reasonable manner; F. Not destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the premises or knowingly permit any person to do so; 122 G. Promptly inform the property owner of any defective conditions or problems at the premises; H. Not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the residential rental unit of another renter; I. Upon vacation, restore the premises to their initial condition except for reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by the property owner; J. Be current on all payments required by the rental agreement and this chapter; K. Not increase the number of occupants above that specified in the rental agreement without written permission of the owners; L. Not modify or paint the premises without the express written permission of the property owner/agent; M. Dispose of oil, car batteries, and other hazardous waste materials away from the rental premises, and in a manner prescribed by federal and local laws; and N. Not require the owner to correct or remedy any condition caused by the renter, the renter's family or the renter's guests or invites by inappropriate use of the property during the rental term or any extension of it. 18.96.070: RULES AND REGULATIONS: A property owner may adopt rules or regulations concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises which become a part of the rental agreement if they apply to all tenants in the premises in a nondiscriminatory manner, do not conflict with the lease, state law or city ordinance, and are provided to the tenant before the tenant enters into the rental agreement. Rules, regulations or lease terms can, by agreement between the parties, be more favorable to the tenant than allowed by state law or city ordinance but cannot be more restrictive. Rules may be modified from time to time by the property owner. However, no rule adopted after the commencement of any rental agreement shall substantially modify the existing terms, conditions or rules without written consent of the tenant. 18.96.080: ACCESS: A. A tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the property owner to enter into the dwelling unit in order to make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations, or improvements; or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective purchasers, tenants, or work people. B. A property owner may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency. C. Except in case of emergency the property owner shall give the tenant at least 24 hours' notice of plans to enter and may enter only between 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. 123 D. A property owner has no other right of access except: 1. Pursuant to court order; 2. To make repairs requested by the tenant pursuant to Sections 18.96.110 and 18.96.120 of this chapter; 3. To make repairs ordered by the division pursuant to this title; or 4. If the tenant has abandoned the premises as defined in Section 78B-6-814, Utah Code, or any successor provision. 18.96.090: RESERVED 18.96.100: RESERVED 18.96.110: REPAIR OF SPECIFIED FAILURES: In the event of the failures specified below, which are not due to the unavailability of utility service, the property owner shall take reasonable steps to begin repairing the failures promptly after receipt of written notice of the failure delivered in accordance with Section 18.50.100, and shall remedy such failure within the period set forth in the notice and order issued by the inspector: A. Inoperable toilet B. Tub, shower or kitchen and bathroom sink with inoperable drain or no hot or cold water C. Inoperable refrigerator or cooking range or stove D. Nonfunctioning heating (during a period where heat is reasonably necessary) or electrical system E. Inoperable electric fixture F. Broken exterior door or inoperable or missing exterior door lock G. Broken window with missing glass H. Inoperable exterior lighting I. Broken stair or balustrade J. Inoperable or missing smoke detector required by code K. Inoperable required fire sprinkler system (if smoke detectors are not present or operating) L. Inoperable required fire sprinkler system (if smoke detectors are installed and operable) 124 M. Broken or leaking water pipes causing an imminent threat to life, safety or health N. Other broken or leaking water pipes O. Disconnection of electrical, water or natural gas service caused by property owner The division shall establish repair period standards based on the severity of the failures identified above. The tenant shall grant the property owner reasonable access to perform the repairs required in this section. 18.96.120: VIOLATIONS Violations of this chapter shall be enforced pursuant to Sections 18.50.100 and 18.50.110. 18.96.130: RETALIATORY CONDUCT PROHIBITED: A. Except as provided in this section and section 57-22-4, Utah Code Annotated, a property owner may not terminate a rental agreement or bring or threaten to bring an eviction action because the tenant has in good faith: 1. Complained of code violations at the premises to a governmental agency, elected representative or public official charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building, housing, health or similar code; 2. Complained of a building, housing, health or similar code violation or an illegal property owner practice to a community organization or the news media; 3. Sought the assistance of a community organization or the news media to remedy code violation or illegal property owner practice; 4. Requested the property owner to make repairs to the premises as required by this chapter, a building or health code, other regulation, or the residential rental agreement; 5. Become a member of a tenants' union or similar organization; 6. Testified in any court or administrative proceeding concerning the condition of the premises; or 7. Exercised any right or remedy provided by law. 125 SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.20. That Chapter 21A.20 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 21A.20.010: RESERVED 21A.20.020: COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS: A civil enforcement officer may investigate any complaint alleging a violation of this title and take such action as is warranted in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. 21A.20.030: PROCEDURES UPON DISCOVERY OF VIOLATIONS: A. If the civil enforcement officer finds that any provision of this title is being violated, the civil enforcement officer may provide a written warning notice to the property owner and any other person determined to be responsible for such violation. The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the action necessary to correct it. Additional written notices may be provided at the civil enforcement officer's discretion. B. The written warning notice shall state what action the building services division intends to take if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include information regarding the established warning period for the indicated violations and shall serve to start any warning periods provided in this chapter. C. Such written warning notice issued by the civil enforcement officer, if issued, shall be deemed delivered when: 1. A copy of the written notice is posted on the property where said violation(s) occur, and 2. The written notice is either: a. Mailed certified mail or using any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery to the property owner at the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder and any other person determined to be responsible for such violation, at their last known address, or b. Personally served upon the property owner and any other person determined to be responsible for such violation. D. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective enforcement of this title, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or welfare, the civil enforcement officer may seek enforcement without issuing a warning notice and may proceed directly to issuing a notice and order as set forth in Subpart E. 126 E. Upon discovery of a violation of this title, or if the violation remains uncorrected after expiration of the warning period set forth in the warning notice, if issued, the civil enforcement officer may issue a notice and order. 1. The written notice and order shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The code sections violated; d. That the violations must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the enforcement official orders that the violations be corrected by; f. The amount of the civil fine to accrue for each violation, or other enforcement action that the enforcement official intends to pursue, if the violation is not corrected by the date specified; g. Identification of the right to and procedure to appeal; and h. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the notice and order on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the written notice and order on the noncompliant property, and b. By mailing the notice and order through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the notice and order service requirements of this Subsection 21A.20.030.E.2.b. F. Following the issuance of a notice and order, any responsible party shall correct the violations specified in the notice and order. Upon correction of the violations specified in the notice and order, the responsible party shall contact the enforcement official identified in the notice and order to request an inspection of the property. G. If one or more violations are not corrected by the deadline specified in the notice and order, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set forth in Section 21A.20.040. Accumulation of civil fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of civil fines already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation(s) once confirmed through an inspection requested pursuant to Subsection E. 127 H. The responsible party shall have the right to contest the notice and order at an administrative hearing in accordance with Chapter 21A.16. Failure to timely request an administrative hearing and pay the administrative hearing fee set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing and a waiver of the right to appeal. I. Upon expiration of the citation period set forth in a notice and order, and where the violation(s) remain uncorrected, the city may record on the noncompliant property with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office a notice of noncompliance. The recordation of a notice of noncompliance shall not be deemed an encumbrance on the noncompliant property but shall merely place interested parties on notice of any continuing violation of this title at the noncompliant property. If a notice of noncompliance has been recorded and the enforcement official later determines that all violations identified in the notice of noncompliance have been corrected, the enforcement official shall issue a notice of compliance by recording the notice of compliance on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. Recordation of the notice of compliance shall have the effect of canceling the recorded notice of noncompliance. J. If the city files an action for injunctive relief seeking abatement of one or more violations and the district court authorizes the abatement of one or more violations and the city incurs costs and the costs are not paid, a lien or garnishment may be placed to recover the costs and may be considered an encumbrance on the property. 21A.20.040: CIVIL FINES: A. General: If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at $50 a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and $200 a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. C. Failure to obtain certificate of appropriateness pursuant to Section 21A.34.020: For development or any building activity on properties subject to Section 21A.34.020 without a certificate of appropriateness, if such violation is not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at $50 per day, except that the fine for full or partial demolition of a contributing structure or landmark site without a certificate of appropriateness shall be $250 per day. 21A.20.050: DAILY VIOLATIONS: 128 Each day a violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separate offense and give rise to a separate civil fine. Accumulation of civil fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of civil fines already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation. 21A.20.060: COMPLIANCE: The city may use such lawful means as are available to obtain compliance with the provisions of this title and to collect the civil fines that accrue as a result of the violation of the provisions of this title, including a legal action to obtain one or more of the following: an injunction, an order of mandamus, an order requiring the property owner or occupant to abate the violations, an order permitting the city to enter the property to abate the violations, and a judgment in the amount of the civil fines accrued for the violation, including costs and attorney fees. The city has sole discretion over which remedy or combination of remedies it may choose to pursue. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements are punishable as a Class C misdemeanor upon conviction. 21A.20.070: RECURRING VIOLATIONS: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected, reoccurs at the same property within 6 months of the initial correction and is due to the actions or inactions of the same person or property owner as the prior violation(s), the building services division may begin enforcement of said recurring violation by sending by certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery a notice and order in the form described in Subsection 21A.20.030.E of this chapter. Civil fines set forth in Section 21A.020.040 of this chapter will begin accruing if the violation is not remedied within 10 calendar days of the citation deadline contained in that notice. 21A.20.080: APPEALING CIVIL FINES TO A FINES HEARING OFFICER: A. Powers and Duties of Fines Hearing Officer: The fines hearing officer, appointed pursuant to Section 21A.06.090 of this title, may hear and decide appeals of civil fines imposed pursuant to this chapter. As set forth in this section, the fines hearing officer may reduce civil fines and approve civil fine payment schedules. B. Right to Appear: Any person receiving a notice of violation may appear before a fines hearing officer to appeal the amount of the civil fine imposed by submitting a civil fine appeal on a form provided by the building services division. However, no party may appear before a fines hearing officer until violations from which the civil fines stemmed have been corrected and a notice of compliance has been issued. Appeals to a fines hearing officer contesting the amount of the civil fine imposed, must be filed within 30 days from the date of the notice of compliance. C. Responsibility: Commencement of any action to remove or reduce civil fines shall not relieve the responsibility of any person cited to correct the violation or make payment of 129 subsequently accrued civil fines nor shall it require the city to reissue any of the notices required by this chapter. D. Reduction of Civil Fine: Civil fines may be reduced at the discretion of the fines hearing officer after the violation is corrected from which the civil fines stemmed and if any of the following conditions exist: 1. The violation pertains to landscaping, in which case the time for payment and correction of landscaping violations may be abated from October 15 through the next April 1, or such other times as caused by weather conditions adverse to successful landscaping; 2. Strict compliance with the notice and order would have caused an imminent and irreparable injury to persons or property; 3. The violation and inability to correct the same were both caused by a force majeure event such as war, act of nature, strike or civil disturbance; 4. A change in the actual ownership of the property was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office after the first or second notice was issued and the new property owner is not related by blood, marriage or common ownership to the prior owner; or 5. Such other mitigating circumstances as determined by the fines hearing officer. E. Payment Schedule: At the request of a person subject to civil fines governed by this chapter, the fines hearing officer may approve a payment schedule for the delayed or periodic payment of the applicable civil fine to accommodate the person's unique circumstances or ability to pay. F. Failure to Submit Payment on Payment Schedule: If a payment schedule has been developed by the fines hearing officer, the failure by a person owing civil fines to submit any two (2) payments as scheduled shall cause the entire amount of the original civil fine to become immediately due. 21A.20.090: NOTICE OF CITY'S INTENT TO ABATE ZONING VIOLATIONS: A. If the city obtains a court order permitting entry on the property for the purpose of abating zoning violations, the building services division shall provide written notice of that order to the property owner of record at the address on file with the Salt Lake County Recorder. B. The notice shall: 1) identify the property owner of record according to the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder, 2) describe the property and the violations the court order permits the building services division to enter the property to abate, 3) attach a copy of the court order, and (4) inform the property owner when the abatement is scheduled to occur. 130 C. Notice may be delivered in person, or by certified mail, or by reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery, if mailed to the last known address of the property owner according to the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. 21A.20.100: COLLECTION OF THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT: A. If the building services division or an agent thereof enters a property to abate a violation pursuant to a court order, as set forth in Section 21A.20.090 of this chapter, the building services division may collect the cost of that abatement, by filing a property tax lien, as set forth in this section. B. Upon completion of abatement work, the building services division shall prepare an itemized statement of costs and mail it to the property owner by certified mail or by any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery, demanding payment within 30 days of the date the statement is post marked. C. The itemized statement of costs shall: 1. Include: a. The address of the property at issue; b. An itemized list of all expenses incurred by the building services division, including administrative costs; c. A demand for payment; and d. The address where payment is to be made; 2. Notify the property owner: a. That failure to timely pay the expenses described in the itemized statement may result in a lien on the property in accordance with this chapter and Utah Code section 10-11-4 or its successor; b. That the property owner may file a written objection to all or part of the statement within 20 days of the date the statement is postmarked; and c. Where the property owner may file the objection, including the name of the office and the mailing address. D. The itemized statement of costs described in subsection C of this section shall be deemed delivered when mailed by certified mail or by any reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery addressed to the last known address of the property owner, according to the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. E. If the property owner files a timely objection, the building services division will schedule a hearing in accordance with title 52, chapter 4 of the Utah Code (Open and Public Meetings Act), and will mail or deliver to the property owner prior to the hearing a notice stating the date, time, and location of the hearing. 131 F. At the hearing described in subsection E of this section, a fines hearing officer shall review and determine the actual cost of abatement incurred by the building services division in abating the property, including administrative costs. The property owner must pay any amount the fines hearing officer determines is due and owing to the Salt Lake City Treasurer at the address provided in the statement of costs within 30 days of the date of the hearing. G. If the property owner fails to make payment of the amount set forth in the itemized statement within 30 days of the date of the mailing of that statement, or to file a timely objection, then the building services division may certify the past due costs and expenses to the Salt Lake County Treasurer and the Treasurer will proceed as set forth in Utah Code section 10- 11-4 or its successor. H. If the property owner files a timely objection but fails to make payment of any amount found due and owing under subsection F of this section within 30 days of the date of the hearing, the building services division may certify the past due costs and expense to the Salt Lake County Treasurer and the Treasurer will proceed as set forth in Utah Code section 10-11-4. I. After entry by the Treasurer of the County, as set forth in subsections G and H of this section the amount entered shall be a nonrecurring notice charge as defined in Utah Code 11- 60-102, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the Salt Lake County Treasurer at the time of the payment of general taxes. J. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, where the property owner presents evidence demonstrating financial hardship to the satisfaction of the building services division, the building services division may waive some or all administrative fees and the actual costs incurred in abating the property if the property abated is the property owner's principal place of residence. SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Adding the definition of “CITATION DEADLINE.” That the definition of “CITATION DEADLINE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: CITATION DEADLINE: the date identified in the notice and order to correct the violation(s) identified therein. 132 b. Adding the definition of “CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.” That the definition of “CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: an employee of Salt Lake City’s Division of Building Services, or successor division, authorized to perform civil enforcement functions, or any duly authorized agent, representative, or designee. c. Adding the definition of “NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE.” That the definition of “NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE: a written notice informing the person cited that the violation has been corrected. d. Adding the definition of “PERSON CITED.” That the definition of “PERSON CITED” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: PERSON CITED: the property owner, property owner's agent, tenant or occupant of any building or land or part thereof and any architect, builder, contractor, agent or other person who participates in, assists, directs or creates any situation that is contrary to the requirements of this title, and who received the notice of violation and is being held responsible for the violation. e. Adding the definition of “PROPERTY OWNER.” That the definition of “PROPERTY OWNER” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: PROPERTTY OWNER: any person who, alone or jointly or severally with others, holds legal title to the property at issue. 133 SECTION 22. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.020. That Section 2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to eliminate the “Housing advisory and appeals board” therefrom as follows: 2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED: For the purpose of this chapter the term "city board" or "board" means the following city boards, commissions, councils, and committees: Accessibility and disability commission Airport board Board of appeals and examiners Business advisory board Citizens' compensation advisory committee City and county building conservancy and use committee Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board Community recovery committee Fire code board of appeals Golf enterprise fund advisory board Historic landmark commission Housing trust fund advisory board Human rights commission Library board Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board Planning commission Public utilities advisory committee Racial equity in policing commission Salt Lake art design board Salt Lake City arts council board Salt Lake City sister cities board Transportation advisory board 134 SECTION 23. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.21. That Chapter 2.21 of the Salt Lake City Code (Housing Advisory and Appeals Board) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: 2.21.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the housing advisory and appeals board except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 67-13, 2013) 2.21.020: CREATION AND MEMBERSHIP: A. The city creates a housing advisory and appeals board ("HAAB"). B. HAAB shall be comprised of ten (10) members from among the qualified electors of the city in a manner providing balanced geographical, professional, neighborhood and community representation. C. The HAAB chair or vice chair may not be elected to serve consecutive terms in the same office. The secretary of HAAB shall be designated by the building official. D. The expiration of terms shall be staggered with no more than three (3) terms expiring in any one year. Expiration of terms shall be on December 31. 2.21.030: POWERS AND AUTHORITY: HAAB shall have the power and authority to: A. Apply the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.14 and Title 18, Chapter 18.50 of this code; B. Hear and decide appeals as specified in Title 5, Chapter 5.14 and Title 18, Chapter 18.50 of this code; C. Modify the impact of specific provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.14 and Title 18, Chapter 18.50 of this code, where strict compliance with the provisions is economically or structurally impracticable and any approved alternative substantially accomplishes the purpose and intent of the requirement deviated from; D. Conduct housing impact hearings pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 18.64 of this code; E. Recommend new procedures to the building official and new ordinances regarding housing to the city council; and F. Hear and decide appeals as specified in Title 18, Chapter 18.48 of this code. 135 2.21.040: HAAB PANELS: Unless otherwise determined appropriate by the chair, HAAB may exercise any of its responsibilities under title 5, chapter 5.14, or title 18, chapter 18.50 of this code in panels of five (5) voting members appointed by the chair. (Ord. 65-15, 2015) SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.80.040. That Section 2.80.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board: Fund Created) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 2.80.040: FUND CREATED: There is created a restricted account within the general fund, to be designated as the "Salt Lake City housing trust fund" (the "fund"). The fund shall be accounted for separately within the general fund, and the fund shall be used exclusively to assist with affordable and special needs housing in the city. No expenditures shall be made from the fund without approval of the city council. A. There shall be deposited into the fund all monies received by the city, regardless of source, which are dedicated to affordable housing and special needs housing including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Grants, loan repayments, bonuses, entitlements, mitigation fees, forfeitures, donations, redevelopment tax increment income, and all other monies dedicated to affordable and special needs housing received by the city from federal, state, or local governments; 2. Real property contributed to or acquired by the city under other ordinances for the purposes of preserving, developing, or restoring affordable housing; 3. Monies appropriated to the fund by the council; and 4. Contributions made specifically for this purpose from other public or private sources. 5. CDBG, ESG, and HOPWA monies only as designated by the city's community development advisory board and approved by the mayor and city council, and HOME monies only as designated by the city's housing trust fund advisory board and approved by the mayor and city council. B. The monies in the fund shall be invested by the city treasurer in accordance with the usual procedures for such special accounts. All interest or other earnings derived from fund monies shall be deposited in the fund. 136 SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.120.B.2. That Subsection 5.14.120.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Rental Dwellings: Enforcement: Civil Penalties: Amount of Penalty) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 2. Amount of Penalty: Civil penalties shall accrue as follows: a. Violations of the self-certification standards established by the City: $50.00 per violation per day. If more than 10 violations exist, the daily penalties shall double. SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.120.B.6. That Subsection 5.14.120.B.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Rental Dwellings: Enforcement: Civil Penalties: Appeals) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 6. Appeals: a. Appeals Contesting the Existence of a Violation: (1) Appeals contesting the existence of the violation must be done in accordance with Section 18.12.030. b. Appeals Contesting the Amount of the Penalties Imposed: any person receiving a notice of violation may appeal the civil fines imposed, but not the basis therefor (which must be done pursuant to Subsection 5.14.120.B.6.a), in accordance with Section 18.12.050. SECTION 27. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.125. That Section 5.14.125 of the Salt Lake City Code (Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Appellate Process Details) shall be, and hereby is repealed in its entirety as follows: 5.14.125: HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD APPELLATE PROCESS DETAILS: A. Filing Of Appeals: Appeals shall be submitted on an appeal form provided by the building official. The appellant shall state the specific order or action protested and a statement 137 of the relief sought, along with the reasons why the order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. B. Failure To Appeal: Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a waiver of the person's right to an appeal. C.Inspection Of The Premises: Before any hearing is held by a Housing Advisory and Appeals Board panel, the panel shall inspect the building or premises involved. Prior notice of such inspection shall be given to the notified party filing the appeal, who may be present at such inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, the Chairperson of the panel shall state for the record the material facts observed at the inspection, which facts shall be read at the initiation of the hearing. Failure of the notified party to provide access without good cause as determined by the building official shall not constitute a reason for the hearing to be postponed and the appeal may be denied. D. Written Notice: Written notice of the time and place of panel hearings shall be mailed to the appellant in accordance with procedures adopted by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. E.Appeals Hearing: Any notified party may appear personally or authorize a designee to act in their behalf. The City and any notified party may call and examine witnesses on any relevant matter, introduce documentary and physical evidence, and cross examine opposing witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted. F.Record: A record of the entire proceeding of all appellate hearings under this section shall be made by tape recording, or by any other means of permanent recording determined to be appropriate by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. The record shall be retained on file in accordance with the City's record retention schedule. SECTION 28. Amending the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. That the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 29. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 138 ___________________________ atherine D. Pasker, Senior City Att Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2024. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR (SEAL) Bill No. of 2024. Published: Ordinance amending Title 18 administration_v2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:March 11, 2024 By: _ K orney 139 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Service Fee Additional Information Section Boarding or Securing of Buildings Boarding administrative costs $500 Plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.100 18.48.100 Boarding registration fee $14,000 Per parcel 18.48.215 Boarding registration fee for a contributing structure or landmark site $14,850 Per parcel 18.48.215 Other abatement administrative cost $129 Plus actual costs 18.48, 9.36, 21A.20 City maintenance of building $219 Annual, plus actual costs, see Section 18.48.250 18.48.250 Building Code Enforcement Violation of Title 18 (except Ch. 18.50 or Stop Work Order) $100 18.24.030 Violation of Stop Work Order $250 18.24.040.B Violation of Ch. 18.50 Substandard condition $50 18.50.100.D Hazardous condition $100 18.50.100.D Imminent danger condition $250 18.50.100.D Appeal of a decision to the board of appeals and examiners $285 Add’l fee for required public notices 18.12.020 Item G2 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:June 4, 2024 RE: Planning and Historic Landmark Commission Membership and Appeals Hearing Officer Term Limit Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00986 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight)) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance with the understanding that the City Recorder will publish the ordinance as soon as possible. (Staff note: As mentioned in the Council staff report, the Administration requested that the ordinance is published quickly so that the two affected Commissions can have a quorum for their meetings.) MOTION 3 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. _________________ ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Jill Love Jill Love (May 9, 2024 09:16 MDT)Date Received:05/09/2024 Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/09/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 05/08/24 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT:PLNPCM2023-00986 Planning and Historic Landmark Commission Membership & Appeals Hearing Officer Term Limit Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Olivia Cvetko | Principal Planner Olivia.Cvetko@slcgov.com | 801-535-7285 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the zoning text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with added text stating that the Planning Director can act as an ex officio member of the Historic Landmark Commission BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City initiated this petition to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to the minimum required members of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission, and the term limits for Appeals Hearing Officers. The proposed amendments were intended to eliminate the minimum required number of commissioners for both the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission so that if there is a sudden exit of commissioners, both land use authorities would be able to conduct city business. 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 Additionally, this amendment removes the language stating that the appeals hearing officer can serve no more than two (2) consecutive five-year terms. These are appointed positions and if the Mayor and City Council find that an Appeals Hearing Officer is familiar with city statues and making sound decisions, there should be an avenue to keep them appointed. This amendment will affect chapter 21A.06 Decision Making Bodies and Officials. On March 7, 2024 the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended establishing a new minimum of five (5) Historic Landmark Commissioners and Planning Commissioners. Planning Commission agreed with this recommendation and provided a positive recommendation to the City Council on March 13, 2024. Additionally, staff identified the following language: “The Director of the Planning Division (or the Planning Director’s designated representative) shall serve as an ex officio member without vote” needs to be added to the Historic Landmark Commission section of the zoning ordinance. This language already exists for the Planning Commission. The ordinance within this transmittal reflects the Historic Landmark Commission/ Planning Commission recommendation as well as the new language allowing the Planning Director to serve as an ex officio member. 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: •December 26, 2023 – An online open house posted to the Planning Division’s website. •February 28, 2024 – Public notices posted at the following locations: o Salt Lake City Public Library – Main Branch o Salt Lake City Public Library – Marmalade Branch o Salt Lake City Public Library – Chapman Branch •March 7, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing. One member of the public spoke to agree with a five (5) commissioner minimum to allow for an appropriate mix of skills and opinions. •March 13, 2024 – Planning Commission held a public hearing. One member of the public spoke to agree with a five (5) commissioner minimum to allow for an appropriate mix of skills and opinions. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of March 13, 2024 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of March 13, 2024 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of March 13, 2024 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Petition Initiation Request 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the membership and term length of zoning decision-making bodies) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the membership and term length of zoning decision-making bodies pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00986. WHEREAS, on March 13, 2024, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition to amend Salt Lake City’s land use regulations pertaining to the membership and term length of zoning decision-making bodies pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00986; and WHEREAS, at its March 13, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding 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 Subsection 21A.06.030.D. That Subsection 21A.06.030.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Planning Commission: Membership), shall be amended as follows: 21A.06.030: PLANNING COMMISSION: D. Membership: The Planning Commission shall consist of least five (5) and up to eleven (11) voting members, appointed from among qualified electors of the City in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. 1 1. The Director of the Planning Division (or the Planning Director's designated representative) shall serve as an ex officio member without vote. 2. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.060.040.C. That Subsection 21A.06.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Appeals Hearing Officer: Qualifications), shall be amended as follows: 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed to a term of five (5) years and may serve continuous consecutive terms upon reappointment. The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.060.050.D. That Subsection 21A.06.050.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission: Membership), shall be amended as follows: 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: D. Membership: The historic landmark commission shall consist of at least five (5) and up to eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. 1. The planning director (or the planning director’s designated representative) shall serve as an ex officio member without vote. 2. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 2 _______________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior 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 changing PC and HLC body size and AHO term length (final)v2 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:April 26, 2024 By: City Attorney 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00986 Dec. 6 2023 Mayor Mendenhall initiated a zoning text amendment petition to amend the minimum number of required member on the Historic Landmark and Planning Commission and remove the term limits for the Appeals Hearing Officer. Dec. 11 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00986 assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner. Dec. 26 2023 An online open house posted to the Planning Division’s website. Feb. 28 2024 Planning Staff posted public notices at three public library locations. March 7 2024 The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing for the petition and voted to recommend the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. March 13 2024 The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the petition and voted to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed zoning text amendments. March 27 2024 The Planning Commission ratifies the minutes for their meeting on January 24, 2024. April 12 2024 Draft ordinance requested from the City Attorney’s Office. April 26 2024 Draft ordinances received from the City Attorney’s Office 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00986 Salt Lake City is requesting to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to the minimum required members of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission, and the term limits for Appeals Hearing Officers. This amendment also removes the language stating that the appeals hearing officer can serve no more than two (2) consecutive five-year terms. This amendment will affect chapter 21A.06 Decision Making Bodies and Officials. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this 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 on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held in person and electronically: DATE: TIME: PLACE: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Olivia Cvetko at 801-535-7285 or via e-mail at Olivia.cvetko@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00986 The City and County Building is an accessible facility. 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. PETITION INITIATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM PL-\. 'lNG OJ\,1SlON OEPARTMLVI' Q{C'mllltm-TIYond "EIGHBORHOODS lo:Mayor Erin-Mendenhall Ce.R1,,helOtta, OliaofSlaff;Blake'!l,ons,s,DepartmentofC'onmlllltilyandNeighlx>rilOOdsDit,ctol'; N'"dNonis,Pluming Dii or From: MidlaelaOktay, DeputyPlanniQg Diredor]?i O Date:December6, 2023 Re:luitfale Petitionlo A!ueudtheCityOXletodeJctemiuirnwn1UC!ll1be:lsJUpllli.Uiruwus for both PlanningandHistoricLaildu,-ui<Olmmissions&todeletetern,limi1s br Appeals Ht>al'ingOfficeis U1e Planning Division is1-equesting that youinitiatea petitiondirecting the Planning Division to make changes to the zoning ordinance where it stipulates the membership minimums and maximwns for both the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Con1111L<sion. The request also includes deleting the tenn limits for ApJ>e.11s HearingOfficers. 11,e codestipttlates: •a minimum of 9 and n maximum of 11 PC members •a minimum of7 and a maximwu of 11 HLC n,embers The proposaJ is todelete the miuhuum membership requirements so thnt if there is an instance that we have one or more unexpected res.ign.1tions) the commissions can still conduct business nnd mnke land use decisions. With regard to Appeals Hearing Officers and tlieir tenns; n,ecode stipulates that Appeals Hearing Officexs can only be •1>pointed to two tel"lns, each term limit limited to five years. Removal of te1111 liluits wonld rulow the city to 1-etaiu Appeals Hearing Officers that are familiar with Olli"ordinances, p,-o , a u dha v e demonstrated sound decision making. Ofticers have bisto1ically been land use attorneys fan1iliar with ndministrative law procedures, the 1'.1Iunicipal Land Use Development ManagementAct (MLUDMA), and land use law. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow tl,eCityadoption process forzoning text amendments, which includes citizen input and public beaiin.gs witl1 the Historic l..nndmnrk Commission, Planning C.Ornmission nnd CityCouncil. Change,svill bemade toTitle 21A: Zoning O1-dinance but otherchaptet-s \\ith.in the cityoode mai•alsobe changed if identified as necessaiy. Tilis memo includes a signature block to initiate the petitionif thatis thedecided courseof action. U the decided courseof action is to not initiate the application, the signature blockcnn1·emain blank. Please c"Oatatt me al 385-214-53JJ or michaela.okt.w@skgov.com if you have any questious. lbank )'OIL Con.currence to initiate tl1e zoning text amen.d,nen.t petition as noted above. 9f lJl'i'iU-.0 Erin Meudeuhall, Mayor pALTLAK!CIIYCOA90AATION 461SOVTl-1STATESTREET,ROOM406 PO BOX 145400SALTLAKECl1Y,UT &1114.5400 Date WWW.SLC«N TB. m1-S36-ID7 FAX 801.,S35.6174 Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. 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 BUDGET STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE: June 4, 2024 RE: Proposed FY 2025 Consolidated Fee Schedule ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council enacted ordinances in May 2011 creating the consolidated fee schedule (CFS) which organizes fees into one chart by department, function and identifies relevant City ordinances authorizing each fee collected by the City. Some ordinances designate a specific maximum fee, formula to use or a general authorization to charge a fee for a particular service. The CFS is intended to improve transparency by centralizing fee information into one document and accountability by designating where fees are authorized. The Finance Department coordinates the CFS with other City departments and performs cost justification analysis as needed. Follow-up questions about fees can be directed to the associated department and/or addressed as part of unresolved issues. Fee Changes Each year a proposed CFS is transmitted to the Council along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. Per an ordinance adopted by the Council several years ago, General Fund fees are adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which for FY 25 is 4.0%. Enterprise fund fees like the Airport, Public Utilities, Waste Collection (Refuse Fund/Sustainability) and Golf are not subject to standard annual adjustments and are intended to operate like a business (incoming revenues cover all expenses). Enterprise fund fees are determined within the context of each enterprise’s annual budget and long-term capital planning needs and are discussed in those Funds’ budget briefings. The proposed FY25 General Fund CFS includes: 1. CPI Adjustment – adjusts General Fund fees by 4.0% CPI. Some fees are determined by special calculations and do not use the CPI adjustment such as the Building Permit fees that are based on total project valuation. 2. Boarded Building Fees– The Council held a separate briefing on May 30th regarding potential changes to the boarded building fees located in the Consolidated Fee Schedule. Based on comments and questions from Council Members, it is likely these fees will not be adopted as part of the budget; rather they will be adopted mid-year. 3. Reduced Golf “Twilight” Fees and Athletic Field Reservation Fees – On May 7, 2024, the Council held a separate briefing on a request from the Administration to reduce golf “twilight” fees and athletic field reservation fees. The proposed reductions were adopted by the Council on May 7th. 4. General Fund Fee adjustments outside the CPI adjustment - The Administration is proposing updating several general fund fee updates that have not been updated in several years (most have not been updated since 2010), in addition to the regular CPI adjustment to City fees (see next bullet). The Administration indicates that the impact of these changes was insignificant so a revenue impact to the budget was not included. The proposed fee increases are as follows: PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: June 4, 2024 Budget Hearings: May 21 and June 4, 2024 Potential Action: June 11 or 13, 2024 Page | 2 Fee Proposed Increase Ordinance Building Rental/Washington Square, C&C Bldg., PSB & Pioneer Precinct - Regular City business hours (8 am to 5 pm) Fee: $55.00/hr Deposit: $200.00 Up to 40 people, no more than 3 hours. See Section 15.14.020 Non-City Business Hours $55.00/hr Deposit: $200.00 See Section 15.14.020 Wedding ceremony Based fee for two hours $235.00 Fee $235.00 Deposit No food. See Section 15.14.020 Business Licensing: Owner Occupied Rental Base Fee 4 units or less , owner occupies 1 of those units 5.14.040 Dwelling Units $35 Per Rental Unit. 5.14.040 Fraternities, sororities, rooming and boarding house $35 Per room for lodging or sleeping purposes. 5.14.040 CAN: News racks permit application $200 Annual. 14.36.080 Sidewalk vending cart – Revocable Land Use Fee $450 Annual. 5.65.030 Engineering: Public Way Construction Permits Sidewalk Closure (detour) $21o Per week (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Sidewalk diversion $35 Per week (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Vehicular traffic lane closure $300 Per week (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Bike Lane Closure $500 Per week (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Long Term (one month) Sidewalk Closure (detour) $840 Per month (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Long Term Sidewalk Diversion $140 Per month (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Long Term Vehicular Traffic Lane Closure $1,200 Per month (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Long Term Bike Lane Closure $500 Per month (Construction Barricades) 14.32.410 Police - No Trespass sign $30.96 Plus tax. Fee will be waived when sign is placed by SLCPD. Community Response Team for special event $52 Per hour. Parks & Public Lands - Landscaping permit for Public Right of Way $21 Per job, or $80.66 per year. 2.26.210 5. New General Fund Fees – The table below provides a summary of the new General Fund fees in the FY25 proposed CFS. If the Council chooses not to enact a new fee, then the resulting revenues will not be collected and corresponding cuts to the General Fund will need to be identified or offsetting revenue increases found. Department / Division / Program Service Fee Engineering Sidewalk diversion $35.00 per week Bike lane closure $125 per week Certified address mailer $13.00 Police No trespass sign $30.96 cost plus tax Page | 3 Community Response Team for special events $52.00 per hour POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Special Events Fees – The Council has discussed the balancing of policy objectives of fully recovering costs for City events (and potential damage to City assets), with the desire to encourage more events to add to the vibrancy of the City. The Council may wish to add this to legislative intents. 2.Hardship Fee Waiver – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration potential benefits and costs of a fee waiver for economic hardship. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Automatic Fee Increases Per City Code 3.02.030 only fees that flow into the General Fund are automatically adjusted for inflation, i.e., consumer price index or CPI. Enterprise fund fees are determined by the budget context for the enterprise and the long-term capital planning needs. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I – Consolidated Fee Schedule Redlined Version Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. Item G3-G11 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/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Ordinances for Salt Lake City and Library Budgets for FY 2024-25. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Budget Ordinances items G3 through G11. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motions: 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. 31 SALT LAKE CITY APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 23, 2024 32 33 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. 34 SALT LAKE CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE Annual Salaries Effective June 23, 2024 Mayor $211,765 Council Members $52,941 Except for leave time, benefits for the mayor and city council members are equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. Item H1 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:June 4, 2024 RE: RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZING ASSISTANCE FOR FAIRMONT HEIGHTS SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 2257 SOUTH 1100 EAST MOTION 1 – ADOPT RESOLUTION I move that the Council adopt the resolution and authorize the City administration to negotiate the final terms of the transaction. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the resolution, and proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:May 7, 2024 RE: RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZING ASSISTANCE FOR FAIRMONT HEIGHTS SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 2257 SOUTH 1100 EAST ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on an informal public benefits analysis conducted by the Administration to evaluate the possibility of offering either a lease or a loan to a development project called Fairmont Heights, at 2257 South 1100 East. The project would provide approximately 110 units of new affordable senior housing on a 0.81- acre property. The Administration intends to use $5,633,510 in one-time, “dormant” funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which the Council allocated to an affordable housing use as part of the Fiscal Year 2024 budget. A public hearing is required by City and State code on any public benefits analysis or proposal for below-market-rate assistance. This has been scheduled for May 21, 2024. The Administration also requests formal Council approval to proceed with a ground lease or loan for the Fairmont Heights project, which would allow the developers to meet the application deadline for 9% LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credits) credits. Council action is tentatively scheduled for June 4, and conducting the straw polls on three questions listed in the Policy Questions section (below) would further facilitate the developers’ application process. The project also was awarded a $1,000,000 loan through the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Housing Development Loan Program. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefits analysis and consider straw polling three questions: to approve the public benefits analysis; to determine that City assistance is appropriate; and, to authorize the Administration to negotiate the final terms of the transaction. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION A.Project Overview and City Funding Options. Item Schedule: Briefing: May 7, 2024 Public Hearing: May 21, 2024 Potential Action: June 4, 2024 Page | 2 1.Project Overview. Specifics of the project have not changed from the two proposals submitted for the 2024 Affordable Housing Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), and the High-Opportunity NOFA. Currently, the Administration plans to purchase a 0.81-acre property at 2257 South 1100 East for the development of a housing project with the following characteristics: ▪Intended for seniors aged 62 and up. ▪Approximately 110 one- and two-bedroom units, in two buildings. ▪About 80% of the units would be affordable to households at 80% or less of area median income (AMI). ▪About 50% of the units would be affordable to 50% or less of AMI. In response to a staff question about the relatively high cost-per-unit of this project (the highest of the 15 applications to the NOFA), HASLC’s executive director noted three factors: ▪High land costs in the heart of Sugarhouse; ▪Dated initial estimates from over a year ago that are now being updated for the much more competitive 2024 construction pricing market; and, ▪The need for a full parking structure underneath one building, which will accommodate both phases of the project. 2.Ownership Structure. The development would be operated directly or indirectly by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC). Ownership would be split in a limited partnership between two entities: ▪Lincoln Avenue Communities, an affordable housing developer which is located in California and part of a Lincoln Avenue Capital, LLC, a private equity company; and ▪Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (HAME), which is a 501(c)(3) affiliated with HASLC. HAME would be the lessee of the ground lease if approved by the City Council, and would entitle, finance, permit, and commence construction on the first phase of the project by June 30, 2026. 3.Previous Funding. In its role as the RDA Board, the Council approved a $1,000,000 loan from the Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) to Lincoln Avenue Communities for acquisition and construction costs for the project. Preliminary terms for that project were approved at the same time. In response to a Council staff question, CAN clarified the following: “If the Council approves the ground lease structure, HAME/Lincoln may be interested in utilizing the RDA loan as their contribution to the purchase price, which is effectively [equivalent to] their prepayment for the first 20 years of the ground lease. However, we will need to clarify with the RDA to ensure that would be allowed under the current RDA Board approval. This would free up their other capital for predevelopment costs (architecture, engineering, etc.). However, they are prepared to contribute their own capital at closing if this is outside of the RDA Board approved parameters.” B.Options for City Funding. The Administration intends to use $5,633,510 in one-time, “dormant” funds from the CDBG program run by the Housing Stability Division, which is located in the Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN). By way of reminder, these funds were in unallocated accounts managed by the Housing Stability Division. In order to comply with HUD regulations, the City agreed to prioritize expenditure of these funds in allowable areas, one of which is senior housing. The Council and the Administration agreed to designate these funds to acquire property suitable for an affordable housing development by either the City/RDA or the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC). Page | 3 As the Administration negotiates final terms with the developer, it will determine which of the two following two options for making the proposed Fairmont Heights property available for development is more advantageous. 1. The Administration’s preferred option is the below-market ground lease of the property, specifically, in the form of a 99-year below-market ground lease. 2. A second option would be a below-market interest rate on an acquisition loan, which would convert to a permanent loan at below-market interest rate once construction is complete. The Administration plans to determine which of these two options is more advantageous as it negotiates final terms with the developer. Its preference is the below-market ground lease. C.LIHTC Application. The developers intend to apply for 9% LIHTC credits, and applications are due on June 11. Because HAME is a nonprofit entity, the City is allowed to waive the fair-market rental rate ordinarily required for use of City-owned property, after a public hearing about the waiver and Council authorization of the land lease agreement. The land lease structure would make the tax credits more viable. The developer seeks formal approval for the ground lease structure by the City Council prior to this deadline, and Council action is tentatively scheduled for June 4. ➢Straw polls listed in the Policy Questions section would be helpful to provide direction to HAME on how to frame the project in their LIHTC application, that is, as a loan or ground lease. D. The Public Benefits Analysis. 1.Legal Framework. Utah Code requires that a municipal legislative body must receive a public benefits analysis and hold a public hearing before deciding to appropriate any funds to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity. The public hearing for this item is scheduled for May 21, 2024. 2.Public Benefits Identified. In the informal Public Benefits Analysis, the Administration concluded that “the numerous community benefits provided by the Project justify the use of the City’s resources, and the Ground Lease payments, although below market-rate, will still return the City’s initial capital investment and provide a revenue stream to the City over time.” The PBA identified the following specific public benefits received in exchange for a waiver of fair-market rent for a land lease (see transmittal Attachment B). a. Geographic distribution of affordable housing for seniors near transit, healthcare, socialization opportunities, fitness centers, educational opportunities, fresh food, green space, and essential services. b. Affordable housing promotes healthy aging in communities, especially for older adults who have limited incomes. c. The project would provide rarely-available Federal funding for rental assistance for seniors, in the form of rent subsidy. d. Support for numerous goals and objectives in Housing SLC (the City’s Five-Year Housing Plan) and Thriving in Place (the City’s anti-displacement plan): new units of affordable housing, geographic distribution of affordable housing, partnerships with the HASLC, housing for seniors, long-term affordability, and access to transit. Page | 4 E. Council Priorities. The Fairmont Heights project would match several Council priorities, including transit-accessible affordable housing for seniors, and the geographic distribution of affordable housing development. The project would also apply to goals and objectives listed in Housing SLC and Thriving in Place (see section on Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals in the transmittal). F.Environmental Assessment. To comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) environmental standards the City is in the process of conducting an environmental assessment on the property. This will ensure the correct noticing and mitigation standards are met. POLICY QUESTIONS To facilitate the developers’ application for 9% LITHC consideration, the Council could consider the following straw polls: 1. Does the Council support adopting a resolution which would approve the informal public benefits analysis? 2. Has the Council determined that City assistance is appropriate for this project? 3. Does the Council authorize the Administration to negotiate the final terms of the transaction, including the decision to provide $5,633,510 for this project either through a below-market ground lease or a below-market interest rate on an acquisition loan, which would convert to a permanent loan. _________________ ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL jill love jill love (Apr 23, 2024 13:23 MDT)Date Received: 04/23/2024 Jill Remington Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 04/23/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 23, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods SUBJECT:Informal Public Benefits Analysis for the development of an approximately 110-unit affordable housing project to be located at 2257 S 1100 East in exchange for a below-market ground lease of property or below-market interest rate on an acquisition loan. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department, 385-315-3315, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution approving the final terms of the transaction with Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (HAME) in order to facilitate the construction of a ~110-unit affordable housing project. BUDGET IMPACT:N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Through the fiscal year 2024 (“FY24”) budget process, the City Council allocated $5,633,510 of dormant Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income for either the City, the RDA, and/or the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) to acquire property for the development of affordable housing. Earlier this year, the Administration entered into discussions with the HASLC regarding 0.81 acres of property located at 2257 South 1100 East (“Property”). Acquisition of the Property will facilitate the development of approximately 110 units that are targeted to seniors, and that are a mix of one and two-bedrooms, with approximately 80% of the units affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below and approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below (“Project”). This transmittal provides an overview of the Administration’s proposed funding commitment for the Project, including the potential for the Property to be acquired by the City and subsequently ground leased to the Project subject to authorization by the City Council of a below-market lease rate. 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 Development Team The Project will be developed by Fairmont Heights Apartments, LP, a Utah Limited Partnership to be owned by HAME, a 501(c)(3) affiliated with HASLC for the purposes of affordable housing development, in Partnership with Lincoln Avenue Communities (collectively the “Developer”). Funding Commitment Structure The Administration intends to contribute the CDBG funds to the Project to facilitate its financial feasibility and timely development. The funding is proposed to be structured as one of the following options: •Option 1 – Loan: The City would loan Developer, or its affiliates, the CDBG funds as an acquisition loan that converts to permanent financing. The acquisition loan would be structured with deferred payments, 0% interest that converts to 3% interest on February 1, 2026 if the loan has not converted to permanent financing by that time. Upon receipt of construction financing and tax credits through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, the City’s short- term acquisition loan would convert to permanent financing with a 40-year term, 1% interest rate, and interest-only payments from cash flow, with the outstanding principal and interest due at loan maturity. •Option 2 – City Acquisition and Ground Lease: The City would acquire the Property with the CDBG funds and subsequently ground lease the Property to Developer for a below market value (the “Ground Lease”), with the terms as further described in Exhibit A. At this time, the Administration is requesting that the City Council approve the funding assistance terms for the Project. Refer to Exhibit A for the Administration’s proposed terms for the Ground Lease, Exhibit B for an informal public benefits analysis, and Exhibit C for a resolution that, if adopted by the City Council, would approve the funding terms. Note that the project was awarded a $1,000,000 loan through the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program. To allow for flexibility, the attached resolution would permit the Administration to issue the CDBG funds as either Option 1 or Option 2. Proposed Ground Lease Terms While the Project is viable under Option 1, the Developer’s preference is Option 2 for more competitive financing applications. Since an affordable housing deed restriction will limit the Project’s value and annual generation of cash flow, the lease payment affordable to the Project is much lower than for a market-rate housing project. To balance the viability of the Project and while still providing rental income to the City, including the return of the City’s initial investment of $5,633,510, the acquisition of the Property and Ground Lease is proposed to be structured as follows: •City’s acquisition of the Property for $7,040,000 o City contributes $5,633,510 in CDBG funds. o Developer contributes $1,406,490, or the balance of the purchase price plus any closing and escrow fees. •Annual Ground Lease payments: o Year 0-20: Developer’s $1,406,490, or the final contribution to the purchase price, is consideration for the first 20 years of the Ground Lease. o Year 21-99: In year 21, the annual Ground Lease payment shall be subject to available cash flow and shall be $70,000 with a 3% escalator, compounding annually, applied each year thereafter through the end of the term. This could equate to almost $11 million dollars over years 21-99 of the term. The term of the Ground Lease shall be the earlier of 99 years or upon discontinuation of the affordable housing use; notwithstanding the affordable housing use shall remain in effect for a minimum of 50 years. Upon such termination, Developer shall have the option of acquiring the Property for the then current fair market value of the land. Reasoning for a Below-Market Ground Lease The high cost of land on the city’s east side is a deterrent to the development of affordable housing, and projects developed on high valued land are less competitive for the 9% LIHTC program or related funding. The acquisition of the Property by the City and the subsequent Ground Lease to the Developer will make the Project more financially viable and its development timelier, as the Project is pursuing a 9% LIHTC award. Projects applying to the 9% LIHTC program are scored competitively, and a lower total development cost (TDC), which is based on land costs, soft costs, and construction costs, receive a higher score. The cost of the land would not be factored into the TDC under the Ground Lease scenario, thereby making the Project more competitive for a LIHTC award. In addition to making the Project more competitive for a LIHTC award, the Ground Lease structure would further the City’s priority of land ownership and long-term participation in development projects. Public Benefits A comprehensive analysis of public benefits is provided as Exhibit B, and a summary is as follows: •Affordable housing is the key to reducing intergenerational poverty and increasing economic mobility. •An adequate supply of safe and affordable housing is essential in reducing homelessness and the associated public costs. •The location of the Project is deemed to be a “high opportunity area,” or a neighborhood that provides economic and social benefits to residents living there. The development of affordable housing is challenging in these areas due to impediments such as high land costs, lack of buildable land, and zoning restrictions. The Project will provide geographic distribution of affordable housing for seniors near transit, healthcare, socialization opportunities, fitness centers, educational opportunities, fresh food, green space, and essential services. •Affordable housing is an important social determinant of physical and mental health and well- being. •By 2050, the number of adults aged 65 years and older is expected to double in the United States. A key lever to promote healthy aging in communities is affordable housing, especially for older adults who have limited incomes. •Rental assistance for seniors in the form of rent subsidy is very rare as federal funding for such is limited. This project brings this very benefit to the public as HASLC has formally allocated and approved such subsidy for at least 15 years. In addition to the public benefits listed above, the Project supports numerous goals and objectives in Housing SLC and Thriving in Place, such as new units of affordable housing, geographic distribution of affordable housing, partnerships with the HASLC, housing for seniors, long-term affordability, and access to transit. Regulations and Environmental Compliance In order to issue the funding for either Option 1 or Option 2, the Administration is required to ensure that City and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations are met. This includes complying with the federal requirement 24 CFR 58.5 regarding HUD environmental standards. The City is in the process of conducting an environmental assessment process that will inform the correct noticing and mitigation standards are met. PUBLIC PROCESS: 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 HASLC is a special purpose government agency and HAME is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis is provided as Attachment B to provide an analysis of the public benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease. EXHIBITS: A. Ground Lease Term Sheet B. Public Benefits Analysis C. Resolution EXHIBIT A GROUND LEASE TERM SHEET FAIRMONT HEIGHTS 2257 South 1100 East GROUND LEASE TERMS Project Description:One or more affordable housing buildings, targeted to seniors, that may be developed in one or more phases, with approximately 110 units, that are a mix of one and two- bedrooms, with approximately 80% of the units affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below and approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below (“Project”). Lessee:Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (“HAME”) or its affiliates. Term:The earlier of 99 years or upon discontinuation of the affordable housing use; notwithstanding the affordable housing use shall remain in effect for a minimum of 50 years. Upon termination of the affordable housing use at or after 50 years, Lessee shall have the option to maintain ownership of the Project and to acquire the land for the current fair market value of the land, unless a discounted purchase price is approved at that time by the Salt Lake City Council. Term Commencement Date: The ground lease shall be executed upon closing on the City’s acquisition of the property. The City shall acquire the property for a price equal to $7,040,000 plus any applicable closing and escrow costs and fees, which is anticipated to be paid as follows: (i) $5,633,510 shall be paid by the City, and (ii) the balance of the purchase price plus any closing and escrow fees and costs will be paid by Lessee. Ground Lease Payment:Years 0 – 20: The amount paid by Lessee for the purchase of the property shall be credited as compensation for the first 20 years of the term. Years 21 – 99: Beginning in year 21, an annual ground lease payment of $70,000 shall be paid out of surplus cash flow, with a 3% escalator beginning in year 22 through the end of the term. If sufficient surplus cash flow is not available in a particular year, the respective ground lease payment shall be reduced accordingly. Timeliness Requirement: Lessee or an affiliate thereof shall entitle, finance, permit, and commence construction on the first phase of the Project on or before June 30, 2026. If Lessee does not commence construction on the first phase of the Project on or before June 30, 2026, and if the ground lease has been executed as of such date, the City may terminate the ground lease and, upon termination of the ground lease, shall refund Lessee for the remaining years of the term. Termination of the lease by the City shall be subject to budget approval by the Salt Lake City Council to refund any balance due for the remaining years of the term. Subordination:The ground lease may be subordinated to one or more Land Use Regulatory Agreement recorded by Utah Housing Corporation. In addition, the ground lease may be subject to standstill provisions as may be required by the Project’s tax credit investor and lenders. Affordability Requirement: Upon and after commencement of redevelopment of the property, the Project shall be developed and continuously operated as affordable housing, with a majority of the units affordable and restricted to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and below. Over the first 50 years of the term, approximately 80% of the units shall be affordable to households at 80% AMI, with approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below. After the first 50 years of the term, the affordability levels of the units may be adjusted upon approval by the City notwithstanding at least 80% of the units shall be affordable to 80% AMI and below at all times. Tenant Selection and Fair Housing: Upon and after commencement of redevelopment of the property, the Project shall comply with federal fair housing laws and tenant selection policies pursuant to the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program or its successor. Reporting Requirement:On an annual basis, Lessee will submit to City a report on the project’s financial status, including the submission of audited financial statements, and sufficient information to demonstration compliance with the City’s ground lease, containing such information a reasonably requested by City. Ground Lease Structure:It is the intent of the parties that the ground lease be structured in a manner that results in the Lessee being the owner of any and all improvements on the property for federal income tax purposes during the term of the ground lease. Project Phases If the Project is to be developed in two or more phases, the City may amend the ground lease to incorporate any changes to the development of the Project. Assignment:The ground lease may be assigned by Lessee upon the sale of the Project, provided that such assignee assumes the obligations of Lessee under the ground lease and that the Property is transferred subject to the terms and conditions of the ground lease. Note: A $1,000,000 loan was awarded through the RDA’s 2024 Affordable Housing Notice of Funding Availability to HAME’s development partner, Lincoln Avenue Communities. These funds are intended to be utilized for acquisition and construction costs for the project. EXHIBIT B INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by Fairmont Heights Apartments, LP, a Utah Limited Partnership, in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property or Below-market Interest Rate on an Acquisition Loan for the Property. INTRODUCTION Fairmont Heights Apartments, LP (collectively the “Developer”), is a limited partnership between Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (HAME), a 501(c)(3) corporation formed by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC), and Lincoln Avenue Communities. Developer has executed a purchase and sale agreement to acquire 0.81 acres of property located at 2257 South 1100 East in Salt Lake City (“Property”) for the purposes of developing an affordable housing project that will be operated by HASLC or a third party under its control. The development, which may be constructed in multiple phases, will be targeted to seniors, with approximately 110 units, that are a mix of one and two-bedrooms, with approximately 80% of the units affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below and approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below (“Project”). Through the Fiscal Year 2024 (FY 24) budget, the City Council allocated $5,633,510 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income (“Affordable Housing Funds”) for the acquisition of property to be used for the development of affordable housing. The City intends to contribute the Affordable Housing Funds to the Project to facilitate its financial feasibility and timely development. The funding is intended to be structured as one of the following: •Option 1 – Loan: The City would loan HAME, or its affiliates, the Affordable Housing Funds, with the loan structured as an acquisition loan that converts to permanent financing. The interest rates for the loan are below market interest rates. •Option 2 – City Acquisition and Ground Lease: The City would acquire the Property and subsequently ground lease the Property to HAME for a below market lease rate (the “Ground Lease”), with the terms as further described herein. While the Project is viable under Option 1, the Developer’s preference is Option 2 for more competitive financing applications. Under both options, the Administration proposes to provide a loan or lease at a below market rate (the “City Assistance”)and the Administration is requesting that the City Council approve the City Assistance for each option. Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to HAME is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2 as a non-profit corporation, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. 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 HASLC is a federally funded Special Purpose Government Agency and HAME is a non-profit corporation, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates and interest 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 or the loan at the below market interest rate. 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 as 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. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT The high cost of land on the city’s east side is a deterrent to the development of affordable housing, and projects developed on high valued land are less competitive for the 9% LIHTC program or related funding. The acquisition of the Property by the City and the subsequent Ground Lease to the Developer will make the Project more financially viable and its development timelier, as the Project is pursuing a 9% LIHTC award. Projects applying to the 9% LIHTC program are scored competitively, and a lower total development cost (TDC), which is based on land costs, soft costs, and construction costs, receive a higher score. The cost of the land would not be factored into the TDC under the Ground Lease scenario, thereby making the Project more competitive for a LIHTC award. In addition to making the Project more competitive for a LIHTC award, the Ground Lease structure would further the City’s priority of land ownership and long-term participation in development projects. TERMS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I. Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the Ground Lease scenario, the City collects rent in return for the Developer to develop and operate the Project on the Property. This allows the City to maintain long-term ownership of the land and also receive a stream of rental income. Since affordable housing deed restrictions will limit the Project’s value and annual generation of cash flow, the ground lease payment affordable to the Project is much lower than for a market-rate housing project. To balance the viability of the Project while still providing rental income to the City, including the return of the City’s initial investment of $5,633,510, the acquisition of the Property and Ground Lease is proposed to be structured as follows: •City’s acquisition of the Property for $7,040,000 o City contributes $5,633,510 in Affordable Housing Funds o Developer contributes $1,406,490, or the balance of the purchase price plus any closing and escrow fees. If possible, Developer may utilize the proceeds of the loan approved for the Project by the RDA Board to free up other capital for predevelopment costs. •Annual Ground Lease payments: o Year 0-20: Developer’s $1,406,490, or the final contribution to the purchase price, is consideration for the first 20 years of the Ground Lease. o Year 21-99: In year 21, the annual Ground Lease payment shall be subject to available cash flow and shall be $70,000 with a 3% escalator, compounding annually, applied each year thereafter through the end of the term. This could equate to almost $11 million dollars over years 21-99 of the term. The term of the Ground Lease shall be the earlier of 99 years or upon discontinuation of the affordable housing use; notwithstanding the affordable housing use shall remain in effect for a minimum of 50 years. Upon such termination, Developer shall have the option of acquiring the Property for the then current fair market value of the land unless a reduced purchase price is approved by the City Council at that time. While the proposed payments for the Ground Lease are below the value of a lease rate for a market-rate housing project, the numerous community benefits provided by the Project justify the use of the City’s resources, and the Ground Lease payments, although below market-rate, will still return the City’s initial capital investment and provide a revenue stream to the City over time. II. Terms of the Loan While not the preferred option, if the City were to provide the loan at a below market interest rate, if the Project is approved for tax credits, the City would receive a return on its investment through interest payments over the life of the loan and the Project would continue to provide public benefits as described herein. With a loan, the Project’s tax credit application is less competitive but still possible to be approved. The acquisition loan would be structured with deferred payments, 0% interest that converts to 3% interest on February 1, 2026 if the loan has not converted to permanent financing by that time. Upon receipt of construction financing and tax credits through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, the City’s short-term acquisition loan would convert to permanent financing with a 40-year term, 1% interest rate, and interest-only payments from cash flow, with the outstanding principal and interest due at loan maturity. III. Public Benefits Provided by the Project The Project as planned will provide approximately 110 units of affordable housing that will be targeted to seniors, with approximately 80% of the units affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below and approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below. A lack of affordable housing costs the City public resources, and also causes numerous negative social outcomes. Providing City Assistance to facilitate the development of affordable housing will save public resources and provide better outcomes for residents, as follows: •Housing is the key to reducing intergenerational poverty and increasing economic mobility. Research shows that increasing access to affordable housing is the most cost-effective strategy for reducing poverty and increasing economic mobility in the United States. •Unaffordable housing is the most significant contributor to homelessness. An adequate supply of safe and affordable housing is essential in reducing homelessness and the associated public costs. •The location of the Project is deemed to be a “high opportunity area,” or a neighborhood that provides economic and social benefits to residents living there. The development of affordable housing is challenging in these areas due to impediments such as high land costs, lack of buildable land, and zoning restrictions. The Project will provide geographic distribution of affordable housing for seniors near transit, healthcare, socialization opportunities, fitness centers, educational opportunities, fresh food, green space, and essential services. •Affordable housing is an important social determinant of physical and mental health and well-being. High-quality housing limits exposure to environmental toxins that impact health. Stable and affordable housing also supports mental health by limiting stressors related to financial burden or frequent moves. •By 2050, the number of adults aged 65 years and older is expected to double in the United States. Lower income adults become economically insecure older adults who do not have the resources to pay for a decent quality of life in those remaining years. A key lever to promote healthy aging in communities is affordable housing, especially for older adults who have limited incomes. •Rental assistance for seniors in the form of rent subsidy is very rare as federal funding for such is limited. This project brings this very benefit to the public as HASLC has formally allocated and approved such subsidy for at least 15 years. III. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. Through the benefits listed above, the Project aims to increase the city’s supply of affordable housing and to provide safe, stable housing for aging residents that are 62 years and older. Further, the Project will provide a high quality of life for residents by being located in a high opportunity area that is adjacent to transit and green space, and in a neighborhood that is walkable with fresh food, essential services, employment opportunities, and entertainment opportunities. Without this type of housing, the city’s senior residents may struggle with homelessness, unsafe housing, unstable housing, overcrowding, and cost burdens. IV. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. Once constructed, the Project fulfills several of the Council’s priorities, including transit- accessible affordable housing for seniors, and the geographic distribution of affordable housing development. Specifically, the Project fulfills the following goals and objectives identified in Housing SLC and Thriving in Place: •Housing SLC: 2023 - 2027 o Goal 1: Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability. o Strategy O: Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing, an entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency’s funding capacity, an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services, an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by an association of governments established by an interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act, an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing, or any other entity that applies for programs or services that promote the construction or preservation of moderate income housing. o Strategy T: Ratify a joint acquisition agreement with another local political subdivision for the purpose of combining resources to acquire property for moderate income housing. o Strategy U: Develop a moderate-income housing project for residents who are disabled or 55 years old or older. •Thriving in Place: Salt Lake City’s Anti-Displacement Strategy o Guiding Principle 3: Produce more housing, especially affordable housing. o Strategy Priority 3C: Create more diverse housing choices in all areas so that people can find housing that meets their needs in locations that work for them. o Strategy Priority 3D: Utilize publicly owned property to leverage land assets in support of long-term affordability and equitable development. o Strategy Priority 3E: Prioritize long-term affordability, integration of supportive services, and access to transit and other amenities to create stable living environments where lower income families and residents can thrive. The City Assistance is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives, as outlined above, of the City for the public purpose of affordable housing. CONCLUSION The development of the Project by Developer will be a benefit to the residents of the city. Providing the City Assistance is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve 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.” The Project helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase of affordable housing for seniors in a high opportunity area of the city that is near transit, healthcare, socialization opportunities, fitness centers, educational opportunities, fresh food, green space, and essential services. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2024 (Approving the Public Benefit Analysis for the Fairmont Heights Project located at 2257 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, Fairmont Heights Apartments, LP, a Utah limited partnership, or another special purpose entity owned or to be owned by Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (“HAME”) in partnership with Lincoln Avenue Communities (the “Developer”), desires to develop an affordable housing project that will be targeted to seniors, with approximately 110 units, that are a mix of one and two-bedrooms, with approximately 80% of the units affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below and approximately half of the units affordable to 50% AMI and below (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, Developer and the City desire to locate the Project on approximately 0.81 acres of the real property that may be acquired by HAME or the City and that is located at 2257 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City (the “Property”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Project will be low income seniors in an effort to expand the city’s affordable housing stock near transit, green space, healthcare, recreation, and services for economically insecure older adults; and WHEREAS, if the City provides assistance in the form of either a below-market lease rate or a below-market loan interest rate, the City’s assistance will ensure the financial viability and timely development of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to Developer in either the form of a 99-year below-market ground lease or an acquisition loan converting to a permanent loan at below-market interest rate (individually and together, the “City Assistance”); 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; 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 City Assistance is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms of the transaction for the purchase and ground lease of the Property or loan secured by the Property, and execute the 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 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney Item H2 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, Sam Owen, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number Five of FY2024 MOTION 1 – ADOPT SINGLE REMAINING ITEM I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document for item A-5 as shown on the motion sheet. I further move that the Council requests the Administration recommend guidance for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. The City does not have a policy to guide where roundabouts should go. Under this motion the Transportation Division would determine the best traffic control and safety improvements for the intersection and could return to the Council in a midyear budget amendment if additional funding is needed. A-5: TBD Traffic Control and Safety Improvements for the 2200 West and 2100 North Intersection ($450,000 one-time from General Fund Balance to the CIP Fund) MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Fifth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated therein. The City Council adopted certain proposed amendments at City Council meetings held on May 7, 2024, and May 21, 2024, while reserving consideration of other proposed amendments until a later date. Additional proposed amendments to the duly adopted budget, including any necessary amendments to the employment staffing document are attached hereto for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ 3 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer Date Received: 04/23/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 04/23/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 23, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT:FY24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal 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 $12,456,948.96 $39,800,222.69 AIRPORT FUND 0.00 21,933,876.00 CIP FUND 32,393,500.96 17,546,276.29 IMS FUND 3,000.00 3,000.00 CDBG FUND 0.00 (46,643.00) MISC GRANTS FUND 1,697,480.10 5,146,628.33 TOTAL $46,550,930.02 $84,383,360.31 Gregory Cleary Gregory Cleary (Apr 23, 2024 15:16 MDT) April Patterson April Patterson (Apr 23, 2024 15:20 MDT) DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 rachel otto (Apr 23, 2024 15:24 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. FY23-24 Amended Amended Variance Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget Budget New Projection Favorable/(Unfavorable) Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0 Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,465,900 (2,663,100) Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 13,273,330 925,203 Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 259,491,943 (1,737,897) Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,938,036 1,192,593 Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,571,547 2,607,446 35,899 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 Interfund Service Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,041,511 (89,702) Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,159,621 25,000 Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,438,665 4,364 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,948,012 2,966,118 18,106 Parking Meter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 Parking Tickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45) Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,487,608 42,582 Property Sale Proceeds ---0 Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 1,101,203 419,599 Gain on Property Dispositions ---0 Operating Transfers In 9,938,944 10,130,410 10,130,410 0 Total W/O Special Tax 105,331,800 105,523,266 107,171,662 1,648,396 Sales Tax Addition 1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 52,800,000 3,715,521 Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,837,585 419,463,605 3,626,020 To date, revenues are trending slightly above initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately $2.6 million, while an increase in revenue is projected in the Sales Tax Additional ½ % by an estimated $3.7 million. The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #5. Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2023 Budget Projected FY2024 Budget 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) Prior Year Encumbrances (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 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 22.79%25.00%24.85%35.49%33.36%33.42% Year End 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 Fund Balance Percent 22.79%24.46%24.37%35.49%32.72%32.86% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment -(475,000)(475,000)--- BA#1 Expense Adjustment ---(204,200)(204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment ------ BA#2 Expense Adjustment ----763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment -6,000,000 6,000,000 --- BA#3 Expense Adjustment -(6,538,000)(6,538,000)-(1,434,220)(1,434,220) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment -194,600 194,600 --- BA#4 Expense Adjustment -(7,584,328)(7,584,328)-(2,890,480)(2,890,480) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment -----12,456,949 BA#5 Expense Adjustment -(5,940,349)(5,940,349)--(39,800,223) 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 18,574,936 124,571,157 114,956,364 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%38.05%38.05%35.49%31.76%25.86% Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will adjust to 25.86 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $46,550,930.02 in revenue and $84,383,360.31 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six (6) funds, with no change to FTEs in the city. The proposal includes ten (10) initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and grant related 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 (Fifth 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 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: . 2 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form Jaysen Oldroyd Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Administration Proposed Council Approved Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Expenditure Revenue Amount Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Section A: New Items 1 Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases GF -133,250.00 One-time - 2 Police Recruitment and Retention GF -1,423,875.00 One-time - 3 2100 South Infrastructure GF -7,000,000.00 One-time - 3 2100 South Infrastructure CIP 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 One-time - 4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation GF -3,000,000.00 One-time - 4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation CIP 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time - 5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N GF -450,000.00 One-time - 5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N CIP 450,000.00 450,000.00 One-time - 6 Police Impact Fee Refunds CIP -47,592.00 One-time - 7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -(29,816.67)One-time - 7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -29,816.67 One-time - 7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -30,183.33 One-time - 8 North Temple Jordan River Bridge - Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement GF -205,500.00 One-time - 9 Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract GF -130,648.73 One-time - 10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP GF 15,000,000.00 One-time 10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP CIP 15,000,000.00 -One-time Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -IMS Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -CDBG Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -Misc Grants Correction 2 Recognize Overtime Revenue in Budget GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Rape Recovery Center)GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Housing Connect)GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Neighborhood House)GF 4 HOME Dormant Income Housing 4 HOME Dormant Income Housing 4 HOME Dormant Income Misc Grants 5 Housing Authority PILOT Check GF 6 Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport 7 Open Streets Funding Rescope GF 8 Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF 9 Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement GF and Funding Source Change 9 Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement CIP and Funding Source Change 61,191.00 - 3,000.00 - - 1,736,505.00 - - - - - - 40,000.00 - - 3,675,752.00 6,943,500.96 6,943,500.96 58,191.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 (46,643.00) (14,548.00) 1,736,505.00 (100,000.00) 27,800.00 72,200.00 (3,463,696.23) 3,463,696.23 3,463,696.23 40,000.00 21,933,876.00 - 3,675,752.00 6,943,500.96 7,018,500.96 Ongoing One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Grant Misc Grants 30,000.00 30,000.00 One-time - Section F: Donations - Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Consent Agenda #4 1 Department of Environmental Quality - State of Utah Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - Consent Agenda #5 1 2 3 4 Safe Streets for All Marathon Petroleum Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants Misc Grants Misc Grants Misc Grants 953,600.00 4,532.10 600,068.00 9,280.00 953,600.00 4,532.10 600,068.00 9,280.00 One Time One Time One Time One Time - - - - Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 46,550,930.02 84,383,360.31 --1.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved 27,343,273.73 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Expenditure Revenue Amount Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4: General Fund GF 12,456,948.96 39,800,222.69 --1.00 Airport Fund Airport -21,933,876.00 --- CIP Fund CIP 32,393,500.96 17,546,276.29 --- IMS Fund IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 --- CDBG Fund CDBG -(46,643.00)--- Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 1,697,480.10 5,146,628.33 --- Total of Budget Amendment 46,550,930.02 84,383,360.31 --1.00 - - 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget - Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 130,275.00 12,456,948.96 461,102,141.96 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 -0.00 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 230,000.00 25,470,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 -3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 33,853,855.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 9,000.00 3,000.00 36,293,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 -5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 7,349,950.66 1,697,480.10 35,870,471.55 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 1,100,000.00 33,441,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 1,415,400.00 32,393,500.96 90,122,727.21 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 10,967,534.66 46,550,930.02 1,726,268,502.72 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 2,890,480.00 39,800,222.69 492,376,602.58 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 21,933,876.00 542,372,873.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 230,000.00 28,493,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 165,793.00 3,966,178.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 48,668,629.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 406,688.00 3,000.00 43,657,942.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00)1,100,000.00 10,594,823.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 (46,643.00)5,597,762.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 7,349,950.66 5,146,628.33 39,848,392.28 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 6,133,511.00 16,345,554.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 5,777,784.00 1,100,000.00 41,772,763.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 1,545,675.00 17,546,276.29 74,504,130.54 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 21,655,006.66 84,383,360.31 1,946,591,215.60 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases – Fire Hydrant Rentals GF One-time $133,250.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen and Chief Karl Lieb Public Utilities has increased the rates the Fire Department and other municipalities must pay for fire hydrant rentals. This increase was overlooked during the annual budget creation cycle. Unfortunately, this adjustment cannot wait or be absorbed in the existing budget because of the size of the increase. Utilizing existing department funds to cover the increase would potentially delay or jeopardize public safety services. The request is for $133,250 to account for the increased expense. As part of the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, staff will factor in new rates and associated expenses. At this time, the difference between the two required payments is $133,250 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (One-Time). Public Utilities Costs (FY2023-24) Hydrant Rentals $9,000 per month, or $108,000 annually Public Utilities Costs (FY2024-25) - Ongoing Hydrant Rentals $20,104.18 per month, or $241,250 annually A-2: Police Recruitment and Retention GF One-time $1,423,875.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown In Fiscal Year 2023 the Police Department proposed a multifaceted approach to improving staffing while utilizing overtime to provide and maintain operational readiness, employing a proposed lateral hiring bonus and a retention bonus for current employees. The hiring bonus would provide additional sworn lateral staffing as a compliment to the new hire recruit classes and allow the department to bolster the staffing numbers on an accelerated timeline. Providing a retention bonus to existing sworn employees has provided incentives to retain staff at a higher level than is currently being experienced, while also providing a commitment from the city to the sworn staffing to maintain their pay at a level commensurate with their jobs and surrounding agencies. In March of 2023 the police department had 34 funded vacancies and 2 pending vacancies as well as the 20 unfunded positions. The department currently has a hiring class in May of 20 officers and 10 lateral applicants. It’s estimated that those applicants will fill all funded officer positions as well as hiring 3 officers into unfunded positions by the end of the fiscal year. An ongoing amount of $264,500 is being requested to continue lateral hiring retention bonuses in order to maintain necessary staffing levels. A-3: 2100 South Infrastructure GF One-time $7,000,000.00 CIP One-time $7,000,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, and Jill Love The Administration proposes moving $7M from General Fund Fund Balance to CIP to perform water and sewer upgrades as part of the street reconstruction project on 2100 S from 700 E to 1100 E. Funding this work would be an investment of City funds that would be reimbursed by property owners when developing the benefitted properties, with reimbursement agreements required as a condition of tying into the new infrastructure. This proposal is intended to provide a substantial public benefit, as the City would be 1 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount performing the street reconstruction and the public utilities upgrades in tandem and avoiding the need to re- open new streets for additional street construction in the next few years, and all the associated disruptions and costs that would entail. A-4: State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation GF One-time $3,000,0000 CIP One-time $3,000,000 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Amy Dorsey, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson This budget amendment is requesting approval to receive additional $3,000,000 in State appropriated funds to be spent on the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation CIP bond project. This request will permit the Summer 2024 bidding and contracting to proceed without delays for the construction of the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation project. Funding any later than June 30 may delay bidding and contracting or add cost to the project PRJ-230007 8323213 - BD Cemetery. The project is funded by three sources: City's 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (approx.$11,200,000); a state legislative appropriation ($3,000,000, this request); and by a private donor ($1,000,000, received through a donation agreement and budget amendment). Bond and donation amounts are combined in Row 20 of "Grant Information". The legislative appropriation can be given to the City in no fewer than two separate issuances once money is spent down (i.e., a reimbursement). However, the City needs the funds upfront to bid and award the construction contract. This funding will be reimbursed by the State once the City spends it (even partially) and reports on performance outcome measurements (likely FY 26/27). The funding allocation for the $3,000,000 from the state will not be recognized until the contract is complete, which is anticipated to happen by April 16th. The final “Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation” request for appropriation (RFA) from the legislature is also attached. A-5: Traffic Signal Improvement – 2200 W / 2100 N GF One-time $450,000.00 CIP One-time $450,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Jon Larsen For questions, please include Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas and Brent Beck $450,000 is being requested for a new traffic signal at the 2200 W /2100 N intersection. This is currently a 2-way stop controlled intersection in a high growth area of the City. There is a growing safety concern at this intersection that a traffic signal would address. Traffic at this intersection has increased dramatically in recent years, and drivers turning off 2200 West onto 2100 North are finding it challenging to find safe gaps in traffic. This has resulted in an increase in traffic accidents at this location. This issue is exacerbated by the relatively high speeds on 2100 North, making it harder to judge gaps in traffic, making crashes more severe. A-6: Police Impact Fee Refunds CIP One-time $47,592.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not work to be used for the police precinct. The ensuing disencumbrance of these funds has resulted in the required refund of 2 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount impact fees plus actual interest earned on the funds due to their expirationThis refund will be funded with proceeds from unappropriated Police Impact Fees. $38,464 (principal)+ Approximate Interest $9,128 = Total $47,592. A-7: Update of the Streets IFFP CIP One-time ($29,816.67) CIP One-time $29,816.67 CIP One-time $30,183.33 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson / Jordan Smith For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson The city is in the process of updating the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) for Police, Fire and Parks. Updating the Streets IFFP at the same time will not only be cost efficient but is needed for the efficient CIP planning of Streets and Transportation. The Transportation bond is nearly complete and updating the Streets IFFP will aid Capital Asset Planning (CAP) in the preparation of the CAP 10-year Plan. One hundred percent of the cost is impact fee eligible and the scope includes Streets/Transportation Study and Preparation of the IFFP. The full request of $60,000 is to be funded by a rescope of the remaining $29,816.67 from the 2020 IFFP appropriation, with the remainder to come from unallocated Streets Impact Fees. A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridge – Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement GF One-time $205,500.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Andrew Johnston / Mark Stephens For questions, please include Andrew Johnston and Mark Stephens SLC Engineering has been working with the SLC PD, HEART, and the Mayor’s Office to find an intervention to decrease the use of the riverbanks underneath the bridge to use and deal drugs and avoid law enforcement. They have a plan to work with the State and replace the current rocks lining the banks on both sides, underneath the bridge with more deterrent rocks and landscaping to deter use of that location. Due to the limited window of time in the winter to do the work, the mayor’s office has been pulling together existing funds from departments and this budget amendment allocation would mostly function to reimburse those funds. The $205,500 would be to remove silt and existing rocks that allow for the unsheltered population to congregate and camp under the bridge, and to replace with larger rocks/boulders of size and type that are ‘uninviting’ and greatly deter the activities that are currently taking place. This new rock and grading would extend 50 feet out from the edge of the bridge in both directions to assist in further deterrence and erosion control. This is something that is an industry standard for communities across the nation encountering challenges with the unsheltered population under bridges. By excavating down and putting back these new rocks/boulders, the existing cross section of the river and hydraulic capacity remain the same and won’t require extensive hydraulic studies to ensure the hydraulic capacity is not decreased. This has been discussed with the State stream alteration division staff and they are in concurrence with the approach and don’t see any major difficulties getting the permit reviewed and approved. What this also serves as is erosion control on the banks of the Jordan River as well as eliminating scour around the bridge supports. This effort would check a few other boxes in addition to the deterrence of unfavorable activities by the unsheltered population in, under, and around the N. Temple Bridge over the Jordan River. UDOT, as part of their bridge inspections every other year (on even numbered years) measures and monitors scour so this would be an additional measure that would also be beneficial for the bridge structure itself.” A-9: Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract GF One-time $130,648.73 Department: CAN Prepared By: Andrew Johnston For questions, please include Andrew Johnston SLC Homeless Engagement and Response Team administers a contract with Advantage Services (AS), a private non- profit, to provide cleaning of public streets, sidewalks and other locations, mostly in response to unsheltered homelessness. Their work includes power washing of hardscapes, cleaning of biowaste, trash pickup, coordinating with 3 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Police when they are enforcing no camping situations, and working with SL County and on Encampment Impact Mitigations and City Rapid Intervention Team on other cleanings. This fiscal year, a change that was made to the services that Advantage provides the city was to offer the police department immediate access to Clean Team services. Dedicated AS workers now accompany PD's Camp Mitigation squad as they respond to camp locations throughout the city. This change was made because the HEART team was processing an unusually high number of clean-up requests coming from the police department via SLC Mobile. PD would have camps move or would come across an abandoned camp while on patrol and would submit a cleanup request to HEART via the app, creating a duplication of efforts and delay in cleaning time that was remedied quickly by this change. Several months ago, PD requested that AS’s services be expanded to provide 7-day coverage from 5 days, to match the Camp Mitigation squads 7-day coverage. This is a key factor in the rate of spend down outpacing the awarded budget. Without additional funds, AS will need to decrease the frequency of this work from 7 to 4-5 days/week, among other potential changes to their service delivery model. In lieu of reducing service, the total amount is being requested to ensure the current level of services will continue through the end of June. A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP (One Time) GF $15,000,000 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson and Greg Cleary The Finance Department is requesting the transfer of $15 million from general fund fund balance to CIP to address capital maintenance. This item is to ensure adequate fund balance levels, while also focusing on the financial need for capital maintenance across the city, as outlined in the City Council and Mayoral goals. As the FY 2025 Capital Plan is developed, staff will return to the City Council with proposed projects and/or funding uses: for authorization of the funds. At this time, no direct expense is identified. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Adding Budget for Finance Grant Position - Correction GF Ongoing $58,191.00 GF One-time $3,000.00 IMS One-time $3,000.00 CDBG One-time ($46,643.00) Misc Grants One-time ($14,548.00) Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Randy Hillier, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson In Budget Amendment #3 of this fiscal year, budget was added to CDBG and Miscellaneous Grants funds for a Grants related position within the Finance department. However, there was a miscommunication, and the budget should not have been added to CDBG and Misc Grants. Both of those fund classes already have the maximum amount of budget added for personnel at the beginning of each fiscal year. What should have happened is the budget and FTE should have been added within the Finance department as a general fund funded FTE. The expenditures for this position would be periodically reimbursed by the CDBG and Misc Grant funds after a time-tracking report is submitted justifying a reimbursement. 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount A$3,000 amount has also been included to cover the cost of the position’s technology related needs. D-2: Recognizing Overtime Revenue in Budget GF One-time $1,736,505.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown The Police Department is requesting a budget appropriation for overtime that has associated revenues from special events, overtime staffing, contracts and task force reimbursements. The amount being requested is based on what has been received through February conservatively projected through the remainder of the fiscal year. D-3: Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds GF One-time ($100,000.00) GF One-time $27,800.00 GF One-time $72,200.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Blake Thomas On March 19, 2024, during their review of the annual HUD grant awards for FY 2025, Council asked the administration to evaluate other existing City rental assistance funding sources and return to the Council with options in relation to a funding gap for Housing Connect's HUD HOPWA program. This item provides recommendations and potential adjustments to reallocate the unused CAN CRAG funds to address Housing Connect's funding gap, and to fund another HUD applicant that was ineligible for FY 2025 HUD funds. -Housing Connect/The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County, HOPWA Program: $27,800 -Neighborhood House, Early Childhood Education Program: $72,200 Both recommendations are eligible activities per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee: Eviction Assistance & Rent Relief and Expanded Educational Opportunities. Note: Per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee, all CAN CRAG funds need to be spent by December 31, 2024. D-4: HOME Dormant Income Housing One-time ($3,463,696.23) Housing One-time $3,463,696.23 Misc Grants One-time $3,463,696.23 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson This housekeeping item moves the remaining HUD HOME dormant program income in the amount of $3,463,696.23 to the correct fund. Budget is currently posted to the Housing fund. Due to federal grant tracking purposes, as well as Finance wanting like to consolidate all grants in the grant fund, the department is requesting to move the HOME dormant program funds to the grant fund. This budget amendment would move existing budget/funds and will have a zero-sum budgetary impact. D-5: Housing Authority PILOT Check GF One-time $40,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson For question, please contact Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson 5 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount The expenditure budget in the Non-Departmental Housing cost center currently sits at $85,000 while a total of $125,000 in expenditures is expected. This amendment will increase the budget to the appropriate level. D-6: Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport One-time $21,933,876.00 Department: Airport Prepared by: Shaun Anderson For questions, please include Brian Butler, Shaun Anderson and Lorin Rollins The Airport initially budgeted $121,528,000 in interest expense based on the gross amount rather than the net value. The actual forecast amount of interest expense is $142,900,000. This will adjust the Airport’s interest expense budget to match interest in our debt service schedules rather than net debt service (interest less capitalized interest). This amendment will budget the $21,933,876 difference from the Airport fund. D-7: Open Streets Funding Rescope GF One-time $0.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt and Jacob Maxwell The Department of Economic Development is requesting a rescope of funds totaling $250,287.60 to extend the Open Streets effort into the 2024 season. This amount will be derived from three sources; The first is $57,000 remaining from $500,000 allocated in budget amendment #5 of FY 2023, which was meant for the 2023 Open Streets program. This $57,000 was remaining after the City contracted with the Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance for Open Street 2023. The second source of funding is the $69,128 that remains following the completion of the Open Streets 2023 event. The third source of funds is $124,159.60 that remains from the $250,000 budgeted in budget amendment #1 of FY 2024. The $250,000 budgeted in BA #1 was to cover costs related to the Open Streets 2023 effort. Open Streets will happen in a different business district in Salt Lake City for 2024. D-8: Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF One-time $3,675,752.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt / Greg Cleary For questions, please contact Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, and Danny Walz In late March, staff received an updated memo from the Salt Lake County Auditor. After receiving this memo (Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act”) staff are increasing the Revenues and Expenses by $3,675,752 accordingly to account for the final annual distribution. The corresponding memo is attached for additional detail. D-9: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement and Funding Source Change GF One-time $6,943,500.96 CIP One-time $7,018,500.96 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Rachel Molinari, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson This is a request for Excees Capacity Reimbursement to be paid out of Streets Impact Fees to the General Fund in the amount of $6,943,500.96. We are also requesting to transfer these funds to Streets impact Fee to change the funding source of existing CIP project appropriations from Streets Impact funded to General Fund funded CIP Projects. These changes will allow the City to comply with the Impact Fee Act, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan and to more efficiently 6 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount utilize restrictive funding sources. The result of the eligibility of these funds has been the need to refund $58,826 plus interest of ~ $16,174 from Streets Impact Fee Funds. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Grant Misc Grants $30,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Fonarow For questions, please include Tyler Fonarow, Aaron Price, Gregg Evans, Tyler Murdock The Utah Department of Natural Resources; Division of Foresetry, Fire& State Lands has rewarded the City with a grant for the Jordan River Water Trail Tree & Debris Removal project, which consists of the removal of certain trees and other organic matter and debris waste from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safe and accessible non- motorized watercraft navigation while minimizing bank erosion and strengthening bank stability. This grant was not acquired through an application but an offer of $30,000 communicated via email as it supported a previously funded project that requires ongoing maintenance. Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #4 G-1: Department of Environmental Quality – State of Utah Misc Grants $100,000.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Holly Lopez Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received $100,000 to conduct a service line inventory and produce a lead service line replacement (LSLR) plan for an estimated 13,894 water line connections in qualifying disadvantage census blocks meeting the Hardship Funding Criteria of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Act that went into effect on January 16, 2021, and has a compliance date of October 16, 2024. DPU must complete a service line inventory that includes publicly owned and customer-owned portions of the service line and develop a lead service line replacement plan between 2023 and the LCRR compliance date. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. Consent Agenda #5 G-1: Safe Streets for All Misc Grants $953,600.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Joe Taylor / Jennifer Newell The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the non- profit Children’s Media Workshop. The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting underserved populations, citizen behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment. The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways. 7 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Children’s Media Workshop and MappsLab LLC developed the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under development by Wasatch Front Regional Council. Children’s Media Workshop has committed to providing the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match, which is often required for grants. This amount is strictly for the City’s grant match, however, it will not pass through or need to be budgeted for by the City. Public Hearing was held November 7, 2023. G-2: Marathon Petroleum Misc Grants $4,532.10 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard Funding for a drone to train first responders and prepare for an emergency response. Public hearing was held January 19, 2024. G-3: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Misc Grants $600,068.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard This funding is for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force. This contract is for salaries and fringe for existing Salt Lake City PD K9 officer and Task Force Finance Manager/Grant Administrator. Funding will also support overtime for outside agencies that participate in the task force. Other expenses: travel, K9 contracts, supplies, equipment and other administrative costs. Public Hearing is scheduled to be held February 20, 2024. G-4: Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants $9,280.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application includes $9,280 for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020. Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. Section I: Council Added Items 8 Attachments A-4 Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation Edit Reguest Requester Information Legislator: Weiler, Todd D. Creation Date: 2023-01-23 Submission Date: 2023-01-23 Section 1: Request Details Description: In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a reminder of the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, religions, lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemetery is threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation system and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visit their forefathers. The City is doing everything possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including the passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from the State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource. Legislative designee contact information: •Name: Keith Van Otten •Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery •Position: Sexton Section 2: ·Funding Information How will the appropriation be used? One-time Ongoing Personnel Services In-State Travel Out-of-state Travel Supplies and Equipment Technology Purchases Infrastructure/Capital Investments 2024: $0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3/12/24. 8:01 AM Requttt for Appropri3tions • Requttts Listing Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 $0.00 Expenditure Total One-time 2024 $0.00 Funding Sources: General Fund One-time 2025 $0.00 Ongoing 2025 S0.00 •Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) S0.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) S3,000,000.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00 Revenue Total One-time 2024 $0.00 One-time 2025 $3,000,000.00 Ongoing 2025 S0.00 Should unused funding be returned to the state at the end of the fiscal year? Yes Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fund the full requested amount? Yes A short explanation describing how the project might be scaled Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the cemetery irrigation system and roadways and has a S1M donation toward design and construction documents for the roads, irrigation and other projects identified in the master plan. State funding is needed to further work on the estimated $14.1M irrigation project and S20M road project. If partially funded, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems and roadways in greatest need of repairs. Section 3: Agency Information Subjects: Agency: 710 / Cultural and Community Engagement Type of entity to receive pass-through funding •State Government Section 4: Performance Outcome Measurement Who would benefit from this request (who is the target audience)? What is this project or program intended to accomplish? The Salt Lake City Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in the United States and covers 122 acres and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will improve water efficiency, and provide better water management in drought conditions. Repairing the roadways will enhance accessibility and improve visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of character and definition. This project is in large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memories of the deceased. An investment in the SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definition by protecting our heritage and history. Investments 2025: $0.00 Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation Edit Reguest Requester Information Legislator: Weiler, Todd D. Creation Date: 2023-01-23 Submission Date: 2023-01-23 Section 1: Request Details Description: In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a remind the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Je Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, re lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemeter threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visi forefathers. The City is doing every1hing possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource. Legislative designee contact information: •Name: Keith Van Otten •Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery •Position: Sexton Section 2: Funding Information How will the appropriation be used? One-time Ongoing Personnel Services 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00 In-State Travel 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00 Out-of-state Travel 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00 Supplies and Equipment 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00 Technology Purchases 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00 Infrastructure/Capital 2024: $0.00 $0.00 3/ 2124. 8:01 Request for Appropriations - ◄ Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: 0.00 2025: 0.00 Expenditure Total One-·me 2024 $0.00 Funding Sources: General Fund One-time 2025 $0.00 Ongoing 20 0.00 ler- of :!:SUS iligiol'ls. yis 1 syst,em •Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) 0.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) 3,000,000.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00 Revenue Total it their ttie 11:he One-·me 2024 $0.00 One-time 2025 $3,000,000.00 Ongoing 20 0.00 Should unused funding be returned to the state at the Yes Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fun Yes A short explanation describing how the Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the road ays and has a 1M dona·on toward design and construe·or other projects iden·fled in the master plan. State funding is needei $14.1 irrigation project and 20 road project. If partially funded and roadways in greatest need of repairs_ Section 3: Agency Information Subjects: Agency: 710 / Cultural and Community Engagement Type of entity to receive pass-through funding •State Government Section 4: Performance Outcome Measu Who would benefit from this request (who is the targE What is this project or program intended to accompli The Salt Lake Ci Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in t and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will impri ........ ------------♦·--,I.--. .._....... ------.....1·..; □---·-·--- - ,,a• ._.._... waier managemem in arougm conamons. Kepa1r111g me roaaways visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of char. large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memori, SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definitio1 equests Listing $0.00 125 125 ! end of the fiscal year? d the full requested amount? project might be scaled ! cemetery irrigation system and 1 documents for the roads, irrigation and d to further work on the estimated I, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems irement wmennance access10111ry ana improve acter and definition. This project is in es of the deceased. An investment in the , by protecting our heritage and history. Attachments D-8 CHRIS HARDING CPA, CFE, CIA Salt Lake County Auditor RICHARD JAUSSI Chief Deputy Auditor ROSWELL ROGERS Policy Advisor OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY AUDITOR 2001 S State Street, N3-300 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575 385- 468-7200 | TTY 711 RMarch 31, 2024 Salt Lake City Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer 451 South State Street Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Mary Beth Thompson, Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act,” the Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor has prepared the enclosed reports which include: [1] The total assessed property value within each project area for the previous tax year. [2] The base taxable value of each project area for the previous tax year. [3] The tax increment available to be paid to the agency for the previous tax year. [4] The tax increment requested by the agency for the previous tax year. [5] The tax increment paid to the agency for the previous tax year. [6] Sufficient detail on the calculations performed by the county auditor. For any questions or if you require further information, please reach out to Brandon Grable at bgrable@slco.org or call 385-468-7194. Sincerely, Chris Harding, CPA, CFE, CIA Salt Lake County Auditor Enclosures County Auditor Report on Community Reinvestment Agency Act Project Areas Salt Lake County Tax Year 2023 Community Reinvestment Agency Salt Lake City Project Area Assessed Property Value Base Taxable Value Available Tax Increment Tax Increment Estimate on Agency's Annual Report Tax Increment (Entitled Amount) Current Year 1 SLC CBD In 2,919,440,724 136,894,100 27,265,707 24,644,694 27,265,707 2 SLC CBD Out 926,676,340 0 0 0 0 3 Baseball Stadium 6,043,536 0 0 0 0 4 Depot District 867,431,325 27,476,425 6,071,665 5,422,435 6,071,665 5 Depot District - Non Collection Area 54,642,819 0 0 0 0 6 Granary 237,204,525 48,813,397 1,357,286 1,103,309 1,357,286 7 North Temple Viaduct Cmty Dev't 406,039,024 36,499,680 3,058,618 2,774,419 3,058,618 8 North Temple 294,046,112 84,073,572 1,513,475 1,008,715 1,513,475 9 Block 70 Cmty Dev't 329,362,729 58,757,937 2,133,992 1,829,228 2,133,992 10 Stadler Rail Cmty Dev't 59,174,218 3,710 157,991 141,298 157,991 11 State Street CRA 1,999,382,096 889,305,536 5,753,783 4,423,811 5,753,783 12 9 Line CRA 678,478,961 228,048,136 2,971,289 2,653,781 2,971,289 13 Northwest Quadrant CRA 1,104,786,297 735,791 2,451,087 1,398,548 2,451,087 14 Block 67 CRA 120,971,080 11,531,400 358,599 1 358,599 15 16 17 18 19 20 Totals 10,003,679,786 1,522,139,684 53,093,492 45,400,239 53,093,492 Report and Payment Notes: Base taxable values of inactive projects are unavailable or have not been updated Base taxable values of Community Dev't Areas vary for each participating Taxing Entity. Highest base value is shown on this report. If there is no estimated Tax Increment Financing amount for a listed project in the Agency report, $ 1 is placed for an eligible tax area or tax entity Final distributed amount determined by County Treasurer Agency & Tax Entities are responsible for monitoring performance benchmarks & rebate terms Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/18/2024 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer Date Received: 04/02/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 04/02/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 2, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT:FY24 Budget Amendment #5 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 $5,513,448.00 $32,816,721.73 AIRPORT FUND 0.00 21,933,876.00 CIP FUND 18,450,000.00 3,527,775.33 LOAN FUND 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 IMS FUND 3,000.00 3,000.00 CDBG FUND 0.00 (46,643.00) MISC GRANTS FUND 1,667,480.10 5,116,628.33 TOTAL $32,633,928.10 $70,351,358.39 Gregory Cleary Gregory Cleary (Apr 2, 2024 16:31 MDT) April Patterson April Patterson (Apr 2, 2024 17:19 MDT) DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 rachel otto (Apr 2, 2024 17:31 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. FY23-24 Amended Amended Variance Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget Budget New Projection Favorable/(Unfavorable) Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0 Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,465,900 (2,663,100) Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 13,273,330 925,203 Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 259,491,943 (1,737,897) Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,938,036 1,192,593 Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,571,547 2,607,446 35,899 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 Interfund Service Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,041,511 (89,702) Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,159,621 25,000 Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,438,665 4,364 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,948,012 2,966,118 18,106 Parking Meter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 Parking Tickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45) Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,487,608 42,582 Property Sale Proceeds ---0 Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 1,101,203 419,599 Gain on Property Dispositions ---0 Operating Transfers In 9,938,944 10,130,410 10,130,410 0 Total W/O Special Tax 105,331,800 105,523,266 107,171,662 1,648,396 Sales Tax Addition 1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 52,800,000 3,715,521 Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,837,585 419,463,605 3,626,020 To date, revenues are trending slightly above initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately $2.6 million, while an increase in revenue is projected in the Sales Tax Additional ½ % by an estimated $3.7 million. The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #5. Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2023 Budget Projected FY2024 Budget 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) Prior Year Encumbrances (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 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 22.79%25.00%24.85%35.49%33.36%33.42% Year End 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 Fund Balance Percent 22.79%24.46%24.37%35.49%32.72%32.86% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment -(475,000)(475,000)--- BA#1 Expense Adjustment ---(204,200)(204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment ------ BA#2 Expense Adjustment ----763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment -6,000,000 6,000,000 --- BA#3 Expense Adjustment -(6,538,000)(6,538,000)-(1,434,220)(1,434,220) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment -194,600 194,600 --- BA#4 Expense Adjustment -(7,584,328)(7,584,328)-(2,890,480)(2,890,480) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment -----5,513,448 BA#5 Expense Adjustment -(5,940,349)(5,940,349)--(32,816,722) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment -19,120,198 19,120,198 --- BA#6 Expense Adjustment -(11,719,731)(12,219,731)-- Change in Revenue ----10,000,000 Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase -------- Adjusted Fund Balance 21,928,113 157,840,137 178,933,386 18,574,936 124,571,157 124,996,364 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%38.05%38.05%35.49%31.76%28.12% Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will adjust to 28.12 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $32,633,928.10 in revenue and $70,351,358.39 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with no change to FTEs in the city. The proposal includes ten (10) initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and grant related 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 (Fifth 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 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: . 2 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form Jaysen Oldroyd Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Administration Proposed Council Approved umber/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Expenditure Revenue Amount Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Section A: New Items -133,250.00 One-time - -1,423,875.00 One-time - -7,000,000.00 One-time - 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 One-time -3,000,000.00 One-time - 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time - -450,000.00 One-time - 450,000.00 450,000.00 One-time - -47,592.00 One-time - -(29,816.67)One-time - -29,816.67 One-time - -30,183.33 One-time - -165,500.00 One-time - -130,648.73 One-time - 15,000,000.00 1 Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases 2 Police Recruitment and Retention 3 2100 South Infrastructure Loan 3 2100 South Infrastructure Loan 4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation 4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation 5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N 5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N 6 Police Impact Fee Refunds 7 Update of the Streets IFFP 7 Update of the Streets IFFP 7 Update of the Streets IFFP 8 North Temple Jordan River Bridge - Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement 9 Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract 10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP 10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP GF GF GF Loan Fund GF CIP GF CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP GF GF GF CIP 15,000,000.00 - Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -IMS Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -CDBG Correction 1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -Misc Grants Correction 2 Recognize Overtime Revenue in Budget GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Rape Recovery Center)GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Housing Connect)GF 3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Neighborhood House)GF 4 HOME Dormant Income Housing 4 HOME Dormant Income Housing 4 HOME Dormant Income Misc Grants 5 Housing Authority PILOT Check GF 6 Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport 7 Open Streets Funding Rescope GF 8 Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF 61,191.00 - 3,000.00 - - 1,736,505.00 - - - - - - 40,000.00 - - 3,675,752.00 58,191.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 (46,643.00) (14,548.00) 1,736,505.00 (100,000.00) 27,800.00 72,200.00 (3,463,696.23) 3,463,696.23 3,463,696.23 40,000.00 21,933,876.00 - 3,675,752.00 Ongoing One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time One-time - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations - 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Consent Agenda #4 1 Department of Environmental Quality - State of Utah Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - Consent Agenda #5 1 2 3 4 Safe Streets for All Marathon Petroleum Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants Misc Grants Misc Grants Misc Grants 953,600.00 4,532.10 600,068.00 9,280.00 953,600.00 4,532.10 600,068.00 9,280.00 One Time One Time One Time One Time - - - - Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 32,633,928.10 70,351,358.39 --- Administration Proposed Council Approved 27,303,273.73 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Expenditure Revenue Amount Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4: General Fund GF 5,513,448.00 32,816,721.73 --- Airport Fund Airport -21,933,876.00 --- CIP Fund CIP 18,450,000.00 3,527,775.33 --- Loan Fund Loan Fund 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 --- IMS Fund IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 --- CDBG Fund CDBG -(46,643.00)--- Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 1,667,480.10 5,116,628.33 --- Total of Budget Amendment 32,633,928.10 70,351,358.39 --- - - 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget - Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 130,275.00 5,513,448.00 454,158,641.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 -0.00 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 230,000.00 25,470,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 -3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 33,853,855.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 9,000.00 3,000.00 36,293,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 -5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 7,349,950.66 1,667,480.10 35,840,471.55 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 1,100,000.00 33,441,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 1,415,400.00 18,450,000.00 76,179,226.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Loan Fund -7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 10,967,534.66 32,633,928.10 1,712,351,500.80 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 2,890,480.00 32,816,721.73 485,393,101.62 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 21,933,876.00 542,372,873.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 230,000.00 28,493,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 165,793.00 3,966,178.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 48,668,629.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 406,688.00 3,000.00 43,657,942.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00)1,100,000.00 10,594,823.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 (46,643.00)5,597,762.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 7,349,950.66 5,116,628.33 39,818,392.28 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 6,133,511.00 16,345,554.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 5,777,784.00 1,100,000.00 41,772,763.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 1,545,675.00 3,527,775.33 60,485,629.58 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 Loan Fund -7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 21,655,006.66 70,351,358.39 1,932,559,213.68 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases – Fire Hydrant Rentals GF One-time $133,250.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen and Chief Karl Lieb Public Utilities has increased the rates the Fire Department and other municipalities must pay for fire hydrant rentals. This increase was overlooked during the annual budget creation cycle. Unfortunately, this adjustment cannot wait or be absorbed in the existing budget because of the size of the increase. Utilizing existing department funds to cover the increase would potentially delay or jeopardize public safety services. The request is for $133,250 to account for the increased expense. As part of the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, staff will factor in new rates and associated expenses. At this time, the difference between the two required payments is $133,250 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (One-Time). Public Utilities Costs (FY2023-24) Hydrant Rentals $9,000 per month, or $108,000 annually Public Utilities Costs (FY2024-25) - Ongoing Hydrant Rentals $20,104.18 per month, or $241,250 annually A-2: Police Recruitment and Retention GF One-time $1,423,875.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown In Fiscal Year 2023 the Police Department proposed a multifaceted approach to improving staffing while utilizing overtime to provide and maintain operational readiness, employing a proposed lateral hiring bonus and a retention bonus for current employees. The hiring bonus would provide additional sworn lateral staffing as a compliment to the new hire recruit classes and allow the department to bolster the staffing numbers on an accelerated timeline. Providing a retention bonus to existing sworn employees has provided incentives to retain staff at a higher level than is currently being experienced, while also providing a commitment from the city to the sworn staffing to maintain their pay at a level commensurate with their jobs and surrounding agencies. In March of 2023 the police department had 34 funded vacancies and 2 pending vacancies as well as the 20 unfunded positions. The department currently has a hiring class in May of 20 officers and 10 lateral applicants. It’s estimated that those applicants will fill all funded officer positions as well as hiring 3 officers into unfunded positions by the end of the fiscal year. An ongoing amount of $264,500 is being requested to continue lateral hiring retention bonuses in order to maintain necessary staffing levels. A-3: 2100 South Infrastructure Loan GF One-time $7,000,000 Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, and Jill Love In order to facilitate a faster, less disruptive, and less costly reconstruction of 2100 S from 700 E to 1100 E, the Administration proposes negotiating a market-rate loan of up to $7 million to The Thackeray Co. as the representative of several entities in the area that are or will be developing property adjacent to 2100 S. This funding would be put toward needed water and sewer upgrades in Sugarhouse, and allow the City’s contractor to replace the infrastructure in conjunction with the road upgrades instead of in subsequent phases that would necessitate re-opening the road over the next several years. Release of the funds will be contingent on the City negotiating a loan agreement with the developer that would include a market-rate interest rate and adequate collateral. 1 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Additional information and a fact sheet will be shared with the council in the coming days. A-4: State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation GF One-time $3,000,0000 CIP One-time $3,000,000 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Amy Dorsey, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson This budget amendment is requesting approval to receive additional $3,000,000 in State appropriated funds to be spent on the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation CIP bond project. This request will permit the Summer 2024 bidding and contracting to proceed without delays for the construction of the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation project. Funding any later than June 30 may delay bidding and contracting or add cost to the project PRJ-230007 8323213 - BD Cemetery. The project is funded by three sources: City's 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (approx.$11,200,000); a state legislative appropriation ($3,000,000, this request); and by a private donor ($1,000,000, received through a donation agreement and budget amendment). Bond and donation amounts are combined in Row 20 of "Grant Information". The legislative appropriation can be given to the City in no fewer than two separate issuances once money is spent down (i.e., a reimbursement). However, the City needs the funds upfront to bid and award the construction contract. This funding will be reimbursed by the State once the City spends it (even partially) and reports on performance outcome measurements (likely FY 26/27). The funding allocation for the $3,000,000 from the state will not be recognized until the contract is complete, which is anticipated to happen by April 16th. The final “Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation” request for appropriation (RFA) from the legislature is also attached. A-5: Traffic Signal Improvement – 2200 W / 2100 N GF One-time $450,000.00 CIP One-time $450,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Jon Larsen For questions, please include Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas and Brent Beck $450,000 is being requested for a new traffic signal at the 2200 W /2100 N intersection. This is currently a 2-way stop controlled intersection in a high growth area of the City. There is a growing safety concern at this intersection that a traffic signal would address. Traffic at this intersection has increased dramatically in recent years, and drivers turning off 2200 West onto 2100 North are finding it challenging to find safe gaps in traffic. This has resulted in an increase in traffic accidents at this location. This issue is exacerbated by the relatively high speeds on 2100 North, making it harder to judge gaps in traffic, making crashes more severe. A-6: Police Impact Fee Refunds CIP One-time $47,592.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not work to be used for the police precinct. The ensuing disencumbrance of these funds has resulted in the required refund of 2 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount impact fees plus actual interest earned on the funds due to their expirationThis refund will be funded with proceeds from unappropriated Police Impact Fees. $38,464 (principal)+ Approximate Interest $9,128 = Total $47,592. A-7: Update of the Streets IFFP CIP One-time ($29,816.67) CIP One-time $29,816.67 CIP One-time $30,183.33 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson The city is in the process of updating the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) for Police, Fire and Parks. Updating the Streets IFFP at the same time will not only be cost efficient but is needed for the efficient CIP planning of Streets and Transportation. The Transportation bond is nearly complete and updating the Streets IFFP will aid Capital Asset Planning (CAP) in the preparation of the CAP 10-year Plan. One hundred percent of the cost is impact fee eligible and the scope includes Streets/Transportation Study and Preparation of the IFFP. The full request of $60,000 is to be funded by a rescope of the remaining $29,816.67 from the 2020 IFFP appropriation, with the remainder to come from unallocated Streets Impact Fees. A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridge – Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement GF One-time $165,500.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Andrew Johnston / Mark Stephens For questions, please include Andrew Johnston and Mark Stephens SLC Engineering has been working with the SLC PD, HEART, and the Mayor’s Office to find an intervention to decrease the use of the riverbanks underneath the bridge to use and deal drugs and avoid law enforcement. They have a plan to work with the State and replace the current rocks lining the banks on both sides, underneath the bridge with more deterrent rocks and landscaping to deter use of that location. Due to the limited window of time in the winter to do the work, the mayor’s office has been pulling together existing funds from departments and this budget amendment allocation would mostly function to reimburse those funds. The $165,500 would be to remove silt and existing rocks that allow for the unsheltered population to congregate and camp under the bridge, and to replace with larger rocks/boulders of size and type that are ‘uninviting’ and greatly deter the activities that are currently taking place. This is something that is an industry standard for communities across the nation encountering challenges with the unsheltered population under bridges. By excavating down and putting back these new rocks/boulders, the existing cross section of the river and hydraulic capacity remain the same and won’t require extensive hydraulic studies to ensure the hydraulic capacity is not decreased. This has been discussed with the State stream alteration division staff and they are in concurrence with the approach and don’t see any major difficulties getting the permit reviewed and approved. What this also serves as is erosion control on the banks of the Jordan River as well as eliminating scour around the bridge supports. This effort would check a few other boxes in addition to the deterrence of unfavorable activities by the unsheltered population in, under, and around the N. Temple Bridge over the Jordan River. UDOT, as part of their bridge inspections every other year (on even numbered years) measures and monitors scour so this would be an additional measure that would also be beneficial for the bridge structure itself.” A-9: Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract GF One-time $130,648.73 Department: CAN Prepared By: Andrew Johnston For questions, please include Andrew Johnston SLC Homeless Engagement and Response Team administers a contract with Advantage Services (AS), a private non- profit, to provide cleaning of public streets, sidewalks and other locations, mostly in response to unsheltered homelessness. Their work includes power washing of hardscapes, cleaning of biowaste, trash pickup, coordinating with 3 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Police when they are enforcing no camping situations, and working with SL County and on Encampment Impact Mitigations and City Rapid Intervention Team on other cleanings. This fiscal year, a change that was made to the services that Advantage provides the city was to offer the police department immediate access to Clean Team services. Dedicated AS workers now accompany PD's Camp Mitigation squad as they respond to camp locations throughout the city. This change was made because the HEART team was processing an unusually high number of clean-up requests coming from the police department via SLC Mobile. PD would have camps move or would come across an abandoned camp while on patrol and would submit a cleanup request to HEART via the app, creating a duplication of efforts and delay in cleaning time that was remedied quickly by this change. Several months ago, PD requested that AS’s services be expanded to provide 7-day coverage from 5 days, to match the Camp Mitigation squads 7-day coverage. This is a key factor in the rate of spend down outpacing the awarded budget. Without additional funds, AS will need to decrease the frequency of this work from 7 to 4-5 days/week, among other potential changes to their service delivery model. In lieu of reducing service, the total amount is being requested to ensure the current level of services will continue through the end of June. A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP (One Time) GF $15,000,000 CIP $15,000,000 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson and Greg Cleary The Finance Department is requesting the transfer of $15 million from general fund fund balance to CIP to address capital maintenance. This item is to ensure adequate fund balance levels, while also focusing on the financial need for capital maintenance across the city, as outlined in the City Council and Mayoral goals. As the FY 2025 Capital Plan is developed, staff will return to the City Council with proposed projects and/or funding uses: for authorization of the funds. At this time, no direct expense is identified. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Adding Budget for Finance Grant Position - Correction GF Ongoing $58,191.00 GF One-time $3,000.00 IMS One-time $3,000.00 CDBG One-time ($46,643.00) Misc Grants One-time ($14,548.00) Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Randy Hillier, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson In Budget Amendment #3 of this fiscal year, budget was added to CDBG and Miscellaneous Grants funds for a Grants related position within the Finance department. However, there was a miscommunication, and the budget should not have been added to CDBG and Misc Grants. Both of those fund classes already have the maximum amount of budget added for personnel at the beginning of each fiscal year. What should have happened is the budget and FTE should have been added within the Finance department as a general fund funded FTE. The expenditures for this position would be periodically reimbursed by the CDBG and Misc Grant funds after a time-tracking report is submitted justifying a reimbursement. 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount A$3,000 amount has also been included to cover the cost of the position’s technology related needs. D-2: Recognizing Overtime Revenue in Budget GF One-time $1,736,505.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown The Police Department is requesting a budget appropriation for overtime that has associated revenues from special events, overtime staffing, contracts and task force reimbursements. The amount being requested is based on what has been received through February conservatively projected through the remainder of the fiscal year. D-3: Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds GF One-time ($100,000.00) GF One-time $27,800.00 GF One-time $72,200.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Blake Thomas On March 19, 2024, during their review of the annual HUD grant awards for FY 2025, Council asked the administration to evaluate other existing City rental assistance funding sources and return to the Council with options in relation to a funding gap for Housing Connect's HUD HOPWA program. This item provides recommendations and potential adjustments to reallocate the unused CAN CRAG funds to address Housing Connect's funding gap, and to fund another HUD applicant that was ineligible for FY 2025 HUD funds. -Housing Connect/The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County, HOPWA Program: $27,800 -Neighborhood House, Early Childhood Education Program: $72,200 Both recommendations are eligible activities per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee: Eviction Assistance & Rent Relief and Expanded Educational Opportunities. Note: Per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee, all CAN CRAG funds need to be spent by December 31, 2024. D-4: HOME Dormant Income Housing One-time ($3,463,696.23) Housing One-time $3,463,696.23 Misc Grants One-time $3,463,696.23 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson This housekeeping item moves the remaining HUD HOME dormant program income in the amount of $3,463,696.23 to the correct fund. Budget is currently posted to the Housing fund. Due to federal grant tracking purposes, as well as Finance wanting like to consolidate all grants in the grant fund, the department is requesting to move the HOME dormant program funds to the grant fund. This budget amendment would move existing budget/funds and will have a zero-sum budgetary impact. D-5: Housing Authority PILOT Check GF One-time $40,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson 5 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount For question, please contact Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson The expenditure budget in the Non-Departmental Housing cost center currently sits at $85,000 while a total of $125,000 in expenditures is expected. This amendment will increase the budget to the appropriate level. D-6: Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport One-time $21,933,876.00 Department: Airport Prepared by: Shaun Anderson For questions, please include Brian Butler, Shaun Anderson and Lorin Rollins The Airport initially budgeted $121,528,000 in interest expense based on the gross amount rather than the net value. The actual forecast amount of interest expense is $142,900,000. This will adjust the Airport’s interest expense budget to match interest in our debt service schedules rather than net debt service (interest less capitalized interest). This amendment will budget the $21,933,876 difference from the Airport fund. D-7: Open Streets Funding Rescope GF One-time $0.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt and Jacob Maxwell The Department of Economic Development is requesting a rescope of funds totaling $250,287.60 to extend the Open Streets effort into the 2024 season. This amount will be derived from three sources; The first is $57,000 remaining from $500,000 allocated in budget amendment #5 of FY 2023, which was meant for the 2023 Open Streets program. This $57,000 was remaining after the City contracted with the Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance for Open Street 2023. The second source of funding is the $69,128 that remains following the completion of the Open Streets 2023 event. The third source of funds is $124,159.60 that remains from the $250,000 budgeted in budget amendment #1 of FY 2024. The $250,000 budgeted in BA #1 was to cover costs related to the Open Streets 2023 effort. D-8: Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF One-time $3,675,752.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt / Greg Cleary For questions, please contact Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, and Danny Walz In late March, staff received an updated memo from the Salt Lake County Auditor. After receiving this memo (Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act”) staff are increasing the Revenues and Expenses by $3,675,752 accordingly to account for the final annual distribution. The corresponding memo is attached for additional detail. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations 6 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #4 G-1: Department of Environmental Quality – State of Utah Misc Grants $100,000.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Holly Lopez Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received $100,000 to conduct a service line inventory and produce a lead service line replacement (LSLR) plan for an estimated 13,894 water line connections in qualifying disadvantage census blocks meeting the Hardship Funding Criteria of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Act that went into effect on January 16, 2021, and has a compliance date of October 16, 2024. DPU must complete a service line inventory that includes publicly owned and customer-owned portions of the service line and develop a lead service line replacement plan between 2023 and the LCRR compliance date. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. Consent Agenda #5 G-1: Safe Streets for All Misc Grants $953,600.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Joe Taylor / Jennifer Newell The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the non- profit Children’s Media Workshop. The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting underserved populations, citizen behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment. The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways. Children’s Media Workshop and MappsLab LLC developed the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under development by Wasatch Front Regional Council. Children’s Media Workshop has committed to providing the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match, which is often required for grants. This amount is strictly for the City’s grant match, however, it will not pass through or need to be budgeted for by the City. Public Hearing was held November 7, 2023. G-2: Marathon Petroleum Misc Grants $4,532.10 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard Funding for a drone to train first responders and prepare for an emergency response. Public hearing was held January 19, 2024. G-3: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Misc Grants $600,068.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard This funding is for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force. This contract is for salaries and fringe for existing Salt Lake City PD K9 officer and Task Force Finance Manager/Grant Administrator. Funding will also support overtime for outside agencies that participate in the task force. Other expenses: travel, K9 contracts, supplies, equipment and other administrative costs. Public Hearing is scheduled to be held February 20, 2024. 7 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount G-4: Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants $9,280.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application includes $9,280 for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020. Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. Section I: Council Added Items 8 Attachments A-4 Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation Edit Reguest Requester Information Legislator: Weiler, Todd D. Creation Date: 2023-01-23 Submission Date: 2023-01-23 Section 1: Request Details Description: In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a reminder of the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, religions, lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemetery is threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation system and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visit their forefathers. The City is doing everything possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including the passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from the State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource. Legislative designee contact information: •Name: Keith Van Otten •Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery •Position: Sexton Section 2: ·Funding Information How will the appropriation be used? One-time Ongoing Personnel Services In-State Travel Out-of-state Travel Supplies and Equipment Technology Purchases Infrastructure/Capital Investments 2024: $0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3/12/24. 8:01 AM Requttt for Appropri3tions • Requttts Listing Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: S0.00 2025: S0.00 $0.00 Expenditure Total One-time 2024 $0.00 Funding Sources: General Fund One-time 2025 $0.00 Ongoing 2025 S0.00 •Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) S0.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) S3,000,000.00 •Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00 Revenue Total One-time 2024 $0.00 One-time 2025 $3,000,000.00 Ongoing 2025 S0.00 Should unused funding be returned to the state at the end of the fiscal year? Yes Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fund the full requested amount? Yes A short explanation describing how the project might be scaled Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the cemetery irrigation system and roadways and has a S1M donation toward design and construction documents for the roads, irrigation and other projects identified in the master plan. State funding is needed to further work on the estimated $14.1M irrigation project and S20M road project. If partially funded, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems and roadways in greatest need of repairs. Section 3: Agency Information Subjects: Agency: 710 / Cultural and Community Engagement Type of entity to receive pass-through funding •State Government Section 4: Performance Outcome Measurement Who would benefit from this request (who is the target audience)? What is this project or program intended to accomplish? The Salt Lake City Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in the United States and covers 122 acres and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will improve water efficiency, and provide better water management in drought conditions. Repairing the roadways will enhance accessibility and improve visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of character and definition. This project is in large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memories of the deceased. An investment in the SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definition by protecting our heritage and history. Attachments D-8 CHRIS HARDING CPA, CFE, CIA Salt Lake County Auditor RICHARD JAUSSI Chief Deputy Auditor ROSWELL ROGERS Policy Advisor OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY AUDITOR 2001 S State Street, N3-300 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575 385- 468-7200 | TTY 711 RMarch 31, 2024 Salt Lake City Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer 451 South State Street Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Mary Beth Thompson, Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act,” the Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor has prepared the enclosed reports which include: [1] The total assessed property value within each project area for the previous tax year. [2] The base taxable value of each project area for the previous tax year. [3] The tax increment available to be paid to the agency for the previous tax year. [4] The tax increment requested by the agency for the previous tax year. [5] The tax increment paid to the agency for the previous tax year. [6] Sufficient detail on the calculations performed by the county auditor. For any questions or if you require further information, please reach out to Brandon Grable at bgrable@slco.org or call 385-468-7194. Sincerely, Chris Harding, CPA, CFE, CIA Salt Lake County Auditor Enclosures County Auditor Report on Community Reinvestment Agency Act Project Areas Salt Lake County Tax Year 2023 Community Reinvestment Agency Salt Lake City Project Area Assessed Property Value Base Taxable Value Available Tax Increment Tax Increment Estimate on Agency's Annual Report Tax Increment (Entitled Amount) Current Year 1 SLC CBD In 2,919,440,724 136,894,100 27,265,707 24,644,694 27,265,707 2 SLC CBD Out 926,676,340 0 0 0 0 3 Baseball Stadium 6,043,536 0 0 0 0 4 Depot District 867,431,325 27,476,425 6,071,665 5,422,435 6,071,665 5 Depot District - Non Collection Area 54,642,819 0 0 0 0 6 Granary 237,204,525 48,813,397 1,357,286 1,103,309 1,357,286 7 North Temple Viaduct Cmty Dev't 406,039,024 36,499,680 3,058,618 2,774,419 3,058,618 8 North Temple 294,046,112 84,073,572 1,513,475 1,008,715 1,513,475 9 Block 70 Cmty Dev't 329,362,729 58,757,937 2,133,992 1,829,228 2,133,992 10 Stadler Rail Cmty Dev't 59,174,218 3,710 157,991 141,298 157,991 11 State Street CRA 1,999,382,096 889,305,536 5,753,783 4,423,811 5,753,783 12 9 Line CRA 678,478,961 228,048,136 2,971,289 2,653,781 2,971,289 13 Northwest Quadrant CRA 1,104,786,297 735,791 2,451,087 1,398,548 2,451,087 14 Block 67 CRA 120,971,080 11,531,400 358,599 1 358,599 15 16 17 18 19 20 Totals 10,003,679,786 1,522,139,684 53,093,492 45,400,239 53,093,492 Report and Payment Notes: Base taxable values of inactive projects are unavailable or have not been updated Base taxable values of Community Dev't Areas vary for each participating Taxing Entity. Highest base value is shown on this report. If there is no estimated Tax Increment Financing amount for a listed project in the Agency report, $ 1 is placed for an eligible tax area or tax entity Final distributed amount determined by County Treasurer Agency & Tax Entities are responsible for monitoring performance benchmarks & rebate terms Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/18/2024 Item K1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO SHADES OF PALE, INC., AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $350,000 loan for Shades of Pale, Inc., from the Economic Development Loan Fund. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:June 4, 2024 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO SHADES OF PALE, INC., AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a business called Shades of Pale, Inc., at 1388 South 300 West. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $350,000 loan at a 10.5% fixed interest rate over seven years to this business in the Expansion category. This loan will assist in the creation of 10 new jobs in the next year, and retention of 11 existing jobs. The loan amount is larger than most EDLP start-up loans—more than triple the standard $100,000 limit. Program rules allow this threshold to be exceeded by business owners who have three or more years of experience in a comparable industry. Shades of Pale has been operating since June 2009, and the applicant as part of the company’s ownership team. The relatively high interest rate reflects the 8.5% prime rate at the time of the application plus the standard EDLF four percentage points, though the project did qualify for a 2% reduction based on being located in a Priority Area and being owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual (see section B below). The EDLP Loan Committee recommended this business for loan funding. Council staff reminder: EDLF loans will now be scheduled to be voted on the same day as the briefing, so this is scheduled for action on the June 4 agenda. Item Schedule: Briefing: June 4, 2024 Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: June 11, 2024 Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $350,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a business called Shades of Pale, Inc. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates for the fourth quarter of 2023 (the most recent data available), were 7.98% for fixed-rate loans at urban banks, and 8.86% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business Lending Survey.i In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors. Loan interest rates have ranged from 7.25% to 11.00% since the beginning of 2022, with most at 7.25%. B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows: 1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement) target area. 2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51% of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual. 3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average median income (AMI) as defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 4.Sustainability: Either, a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to wind and solar, heat pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency. C.Goals: The application from Shades of Pale, Inc., meets the following EDLF program goals: •Increases employment opportunities; •Stimulates business development and expansion; •Encourages private investment; •Enhances neighborhood vitality; and, •Boosts commercial enterprise. D.Program. The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the goals of the program. Each loan application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval. E.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s available balance was $6,700,000 in April 2024. Outstanding loans totaled $3,240,985 as of May 6, 2024. Page | 3 F.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the EDLF Committee as follows: City Employees Community Volunteers 1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department 2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker 5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender 7. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability 8. Business mentor 9. Director, Department of Economic Development 10. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by the City from this and other loan funds, and whether it makes sense to re-evaluate how interest rates are determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort. 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.? 3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding? 4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc. i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, Small Business Lending Demand Continues to Decline. Consulted on May 28, 2024, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending- Page | 4 survey/new-small-business-lending-increases-despite-continued-constraints/. ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LORENA RIFFO-JENSON DIRECTOR Jill Love CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received:05/23/2024 Jill Love (May 23, 2024 16:20 MDT) Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/23/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT:Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Shades of Pale, Inc. STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com Project Manager, Will Wright, William.wright@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $350,000 loan to Shades of Pale. BUDGET IMPACT: $350,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On May 9, 2024, a loan request from Shades of Pale was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Shades of Pale is a local microbrewer with a regional distribution. Basic Loan request Business Name: Shades of Pale Address: 1388 South 300 West Loan Amount Requested: $350,000 Loan Term: 7 years. Interest Rate: 10.5% Use of Funds: Remodel, Equipment, Working Capital Loan Type: (Expansion) Council District: District 5 Reasoning behind staff recommendation Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis, and economic impact statement. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes is the loan recommended to be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon a thorough review of the Loan Committee members, a recommendation is made before the loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Open Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the public process is followed. In addition, the EDLF loans meets the following goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. •Increasing employment opportunities. •Stimulating business development. •Encouraging private investment. •Enhancing neighborhood vitality. •Boosting commercial enterprise. This loan will assist in the creation of 10 new jobs in the next year and retention of 11 current jobs. This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval. EDLF Loan Balances 1. As reported by The Finance Department on April 2024, the EDLF available fund balance is approximately: $6,700,000. 2. As of May 6, 2024, the amount of outstanding loans total is: $3,240,998. EDLF Loan Committee There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members. City Employees: 1. Community and Neighborhoods Finance 2. Mayor’s Office 3. Employee at large 4. Housing Stability 5. Economic Development Community Volunteers: 6. Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 7. Banker 8. Community lender 9. Business mentor Attachments: Terms Sheet and Ordinance LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant: Shades of Pale, Inc. Address: 1388 South 300 West Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $350,000 Loan Term: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 8.5% (at the time of application on October 30, 2023). Plus EDLF Charge: 4% Less Discount: 1% for each •Priority Area (RDA State Street Project Area) •Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI), woman owned, Latina owned. Final Interest Rate: 10.5% Use of Funds: Renovation, Machinery, Equipment, Working Capital Business Type: Existing Collateral: Equipment Personal Guarantees: Jennifer Alexandra Ortiz Conditions for Closing •Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Ordinance approving a $350,000 loan for Shades of Pale, Inc., at 1388 South 300 West from the Economic Development Loan Fund) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund (“EDLF”) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan Committee. WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached loan term sheet for a $350,000 loan to Shades of Pale, Inc., a local business located at 1388 South 300 West. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024. Date: May 14, 2024 Sara Montoya, City Attorney Victoria Petro, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2024. Published: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 5/23/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 5/23/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/23/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation Use Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson april.patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation Use Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Karen Ferguson as a member of the City and County Building Conservation Use Committee for an at-large position. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 May 24, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the City and County Building Conservation Use Committee Karen Ferguson to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, July 17, 2028. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 5/20/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 5/20/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/20/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson april.patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Talula Pontuti as a member of the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board from at-large position to a board member representiving District 3. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 May 20, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership re-appointment for the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board. Talula Pontuti to be re-appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. Talula will be serving District 3 instead of her current at-large position on the Board. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 5/16/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 5/16/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/16/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson april.patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment: Art Design Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Tiffini Porter as a member of the Art Design Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 May 16, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership re-appointment for the Art Design Board. Tiffini Porter to be re-appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 9:06 Nancy Boskoff "Downtown Revitalization District'' Salt Lake City Council Member Petro, Chair — I’m writing to you this morning, rather than making a public comment at your Council meeting tomorrow evening. I attended the work session on this topic last week and I appreciated all of your comments. Of course, Salt Lake City has more than a significant stake in this issue. I do not see the SEG proposal as an opportunity to uproot and redesign the heart of downtown Salt Lake. It is of interest to me that the phrase "reactivate downtown" has been used in discussions about this idea. Downtown Salt Lake — thanks in great part to the cultural facilities, Pioneer Park, Salt Palace, Gallivan Center, Delta Center, restaurants, clubs and retail — is already "activated." I live near downtown, go there regularly for sports events, cultural events, shopping and dining. I don't complain about parking because I have learned to navigate that issue successfully. Please be an advocate for saving what already works and for rejecting change for the sake of change. As a postscript, as a voting citizen I was not pleased to hear that much of the discussion was held in secret, away from the public, and that the concept is moving forward quickly with no details for the plan. Be the great Council member that you are and continue to keep the best principles of public stewardship at the forefront. Thank you, Nancy Boskoff 5/22/2024 11:45 Justin Roberson Phone call to City Council The Salt Lake Buddhist Temple would be affected by this action being passed and there is much culture that dates back decades that could be negatively impacted. Much of our historical Japantown has already been taken so we want to preserve what's left. Allow our City to maintain one of its many rich and beautiful cultures. 5/22/2024 11:55 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Voicemail - I am concerned about the increase in sales tax being used to fund a private company. I don't think taxpayer dollars should be given to the rich. Taxes are supposed to be for public benefit and I don't believe that a private company is part of that public benefit. 5/22/2024 11:55 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council Please - no sales tax-increase. The majority of our population can not support the tax creep. The entertainment district is for the wealthiest of our population. Any sales tax increase could be spent on so many things that could better benefit our broader community 5/22/2024 11:59 Jaycee Miller Mayoral Office Salary Increase Vote Dear Councilman Chris Wharton, I’m writing to you as a resident in your district. I live in the lower avenues. I’m writing to you to urge you to not vote in favor of the proposal to increase the Mayor’s salary. The mayor has been receiving increases throughout her tenure, and with all SLC employees slated to only receive a 5% raise this year, it would be a slap in the face to working class people to increase the Mayor’s by 26%. Please respond with your assessment of the mayor’s salary increase proposal, and how you plan to address this as a member of the city council. Thank you for your consideration, Jaycee Miller 5/22/2024 12:00 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council The popular thought is that downtown Salt Lake needs a sports zone but we already have a culture zone and I would really appreciate it if you respected that and respect the needs and the wants of the people who supply and grow the talent and attend the concerts. That is our cultural zone, don't take it away. A lot of things happened in the 70's that are not out of sate, including me. 5/22/2024 12:02 Alan Sernholt Proposed Rate Increases Residential Garbage.Dear SLC Council Comments, We are writing to you today in objection to the proposed residential garbage rate increase. SLC raised this very subject last year and increased garbage rates regardless of sky-high inflation and not bettering our service after the fact. Often times, we don't put out our 40 gallon can each week as it's not completely full. We should not have to pay more because of our efficiencies. Additionally, our property taxes were increased due to the "Parks Bill" on last years ballot. Give the SLC residents a break. Regards, Alan & Carla Sernholt Area-4 Resident Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:02 Barb Hansen Phone call to City Council It's a shame we can't keep anything older then 50 yrs old. The City already looks like we never had a masterplan. Buildings go in miss matched fashion which really means at the whim of the latest rich guy who wants things changed so it will best benefit them financially. Echo of allowing anything someone wants as along as they say it is "low cost housing" which it never is or 1 unit of 500 units allowed is low cost. Abravanel hall should be cherished not dismantled to cater to the latest billionaire. Our City is turning into a mess instead of beautifully organized place to live. 5/22/2024 12:03 Frederick Jenny Comment to the Council about the SEG Venue Members of the City Council, I wish I could have made this comment in person but am unavailable due to scheduling conflicts. I wanted to make a few requests of the council and of the Smith Entertainment Group. If we are to have a revitalized downtown with a beautiful new arena and entertainment district, then we need to have a way to bring people into downtown. I cannot think of a better way than the Rio Grande Plan. Giving us a nicer central train station closer to downtown and only a five-to-ten-minute walk to the Delta Center. This will prevent the large-scale gridlock that will occur when cars come downtown and the possibility of drunk drivers getting on our freeways. The central train station will also allow for the Smith Entertainment Group to get more fans from the region rather than just the suburbs of Salt Lake County. I once again want to emphasize the importance of having the Rio Grande Plan Volunteers present to the City Council, the Mayor, the Miller’s, the Smith Entertainment Company, and/or the Olympic Committees. We cannot revitalize downtown or break down barriers as long as the rail lines continue to cut the city in two. Thank you and I look forward to your response. Frederick M Jenny. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:05 Mercedes Smith 1/2 List of Questions re sales tax Dear Chris, You were all amazing listeners last night, thank you! I have no comments on the tax proposal, only a long list of questions. I understand if you cannot answer everything. I have sent the entire list of questions to each of you on the City Council, but the first 10 questions are different for each of you. If you only have time to answer a few questions, could it be the first 10 in this email? I'm not expecting long answers, many of these questions have yes or no answers. I know some of the questions seem to be related to the county, but I would still like to know your perspective. I want to acknowledge the enormous pressure you are all under and I am grateful for any transparency you can provide. Thank you in advance. • Could Salt Palace reduce in size to the south portion only? / Plan to build a second story on top of south SP? • Any possibility of the city saying $0 can go directly to the arena? • Re: the difference between the 4 primary blocks of the SECC and the total project area.... is the larger project area really just for the zoning, signs to advertise his stuff and increasing building heights which help to increase the TIF? • What is the public infrastructure district mentioned in the SEG proposal and how would that be funded? • Why does SEG need to lease Abravanel Hall /umoca land? • Could they lease just the one block between us? • Is the Arena itself likely to get Olympic funds? How much? • If, for example, the Japanese Church of Christ is not touched at all, would they still be compensated in some way for the construction and inconvenience? • Could tax money go toward building a second lobby onto the South West side of Abravanel? (No need to spend another $50M to regrade the entire floor of Abravanel for ADA purposes if you take this route.) • USUO board is supportive of this because they think USUO will only get money for a new build -is that true? Seems more like there's no money for renovation and no money for a new build regardless of whether the tax passes. Perhaps they support this because they were promised something that never existed? • Re: the larger map shown on the zoning/ planning commission site, is that the Project Area? Why isn't it the full 100 acres? Is it because the Gateway is going to be added into the Project Area? • Do you think the project area boundaries could be better/different blocks? • Does Smith's deal in any way tie in with the baseball deal? • If this is an opportunity to 'correct an urban planning sin'.... will there still be commercial properties facing South Temple and 100 S, etc? • I understand that the city and county describe themselves as 'terrible developers' but what evidence do we have that SEG is experienced and good at development? • Studies show that arenas just transfer spending, if the jazz leave, what do you think will happen to downtown? • Is there debt on Delta Center, do they owe money? • The County's audit says they have $1.2B net position, yet they have no revenue stream for Abravanel. Elaborate? • Can the sales tax be used to reimburse SEG after they have paid for stuff with their own money? • What actual facilities of the sports and entertainment center will fulfill real needs for the Olympics? • How is this not a direct subsidy as required in SB 272? • Are they really trying to connect to City Creek Mall? Seems like they would do better by having Abravanel Hall, and UMOCA blocking the way, that way more people stay in their district. • Would the proposal change if they succeed in buying Gateway? • Is a lot of this proposal related to general development stalling out due to high interest rates? • Any idea how much they would get in TIF? • Any chance for us to see the public asset plan? • What are the motives for passing the sales tax NOW?, since the sports and entertainment center plan is obscure and requires a risky, unknowable commitment for the city and county and Ryan Smith has already secured the NHL team. Original motive for the tax was to help him dazzle the NHL so they would give him an expansion team. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:05 Mercedes Smit2/2 CONTINUED!!! List of Questions re sales tax • How does the city council square this proposed plan with other downtown plans like the high density State and Main corridors?, Main Street plaza, and the green loop? • Can the income from the bond be specifically directed ONLY to public priorities by agreement with the participant? We know that public investment in sports facilities does not pay back in economic terms, not nearly as much as investing in transit, infrastructure, parks, culture, etc. For example $100 million for historic Abravanel Hall, $150 million for affordable housing construction, $25 million for Main Street plaza and other green priorities, $15 million for desperately needed building repairs to the Leonardo, $0 for demolition or private real estate development? • Why not return to the legislature and get the bill that we want to fund some improvements to the arena, but also to other public needs which are greater economic engines? • How much money is going to improve the Delta Center vs other costs? What counts as improvements to the Delta Center? Large parking garages on other blocks? • If stand alone parking garages are going to be a permitted use in all downtown zones, how does that align with the Downtown Plan and Plan Salt Lake, that call for higher density residential downtown (without parking), more pedestrian activity, more transit, less pollution, ground floor activation, and fewer cars? • Why should any of the funding from the bond go to finance private investment in real estate development (hotels, luxury condos, helipads, glamorous private clubs, restaurants, sports bars) if the Participant is essentially given almost 18 acres of private downtown land carte blanche, isn’t that enough public subsidy? • I understand that SEG is threatening to move to Sandy. How real is that threat? • Has the city of Sandy indicated that they would pass a tax or bond? • How would it be financially advantageous or even viable for SEG to move to Sandy? • How long are the leases at Sandy Mall? Won't it take years before SEG can even start building the substructure for a new arena? • Can we forbid an arena in Sandy from being used in the Olympics? • Is SLC the only first class city in a first class county in the state? Sandy is getting close at around 95k population, is it possible SB272 can be used in Sandy? • Is there any guarantee that the tax will make more than $900M available? • How quickly will that $900M become available? 2 years? over 5 years? longer? • Is SEG being required to invest a certain amount? • If so, is there a time period that requires SEG to put their $$$ in sooner than later? (all $3B in the first 5 years?) • Could/will the county charge SEG market rate for the lease of the land? • Will there be a requirement that both the Jazz AND Hockey stay? Or at least the Jazz? • Is SEG not actually investing its own money, but instead just using the $900M to leverage a $3B loan? • Have amendments been proposed such as, for every $1 that goes into the arena itself, $0.25 goes to homeless services? • SEG Proposal specifically says funds go to participant, admin fee, and county's renovation of the convention center, is UMOCA, Abravanel included in 'Convention Center'? • Mike said the $900M only goes to the arena and stuff he personally wants to build like bars, hotel, etc., but related to the above question, does the convention center get part of the $900M or just the possible surplus over the 900? • In the proposal's current form, does the city get ANYTHING other than the 1% admin fee? • Is the West Salt Palace definitely coming down? • How is it possible that, according to Mayor Wilson, 'the least expensive option' is to have exhibit halls underground -under the Abravanel Hall Block? • Building underground is the most expensive way to build, can the city forbid funds for this nonsense? Onward, Mercedes Smith Principal Flute, Utah Symphony 5/22/2024 12:06 Sam Thomas Phone call to City Council As part of the proposed Capital City Revitalization Zone, I urge the City to consider the citizen-created Rio Grande Plan, burying the rails that divide our East and West sides and revitalizing the historic Rio Grand Depot. This depot, if restored, would serve as a proud gateway to our City, and in closing the divide between East and West, the RGP would substantially improve equitable access to opportunities through SLC Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:10 Evelyn Linford Public comment: support the Rio Grande Plan My name is Evelyn. I'm a resident of Fairpark. First I'd like to say thank you for the service you all are doing for our city. I appreciate the work that you do. I want to comment on trains. Every day I am impacted by the freight trains and Front Runner lines that run next to my apartment building. I have witnessed people almost get hit by trains, homeless peoples belongings get crushed, and personally had delays in emergency response and police response because of the trains. Aside from safety concerns the trains make it almost impossible for me to walk to the East Side. My partner and I share a vehicle and I do not have access to it nights and weekends as he is a professional musician and giging constantly. This means I have to Uber, which is outside my means. I have several chronic health conditions which prevent me from walking more than a couple blocks at a time. I don't get to enjoy Salt Lake and everything it has to offer. The way the rail line is set up is dangerous, costly, and makes it so I can't access the East Side. I can't access the malls. I can't access the restaurants. I can't access the stores or art galleries. I know that I'm not the only resident in my neighborhood who is impacted like this. The Rio Grande Plan provides the best solution for these issues. By building the train box 8 dangerous crossings will be removed, the East and West sides will be united, and the plan will PAY FOR ITSELF. It frees up 74 acres of land for development. Other cities have done the same like Denver, who saw a 700% return on investment. Additionally there are billions of dollars available from President Biden's infrastructure plan that could be allocated to us for this. The plan is expensive however so is adding lanes to the highway, even more so. Adding lanes doesn't fix the problem (look at LA). making the trains more usable and accessable with the Rio Grande Plan will fix it. This is doable and this would help provide better infrastructure for the Olympics which will be here sooner than we realize. As a resident and constituent I urge you to support this plan. It saves lives and will save the economy on the West Side. I want to see the Fairpark neighborhood thrive. And that's just not possible if we're being cut up by the train. Thank you for you time Councilpersons. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:12 Jonathan Jensen SEG NHL Hockey proposal I wanted to voice my opposition to the proposal for the downtown entertainment and sports district that is being forced on Salt Lake City. This proposal and process go against everything I feel is important in local government: transparency, fairness, and citizen input. The state legislature enabled this situation in a manipulative and unfair manner. SEG seeks control of the center of downtown, when we were first considering just an arena expansion, with no public input or control. A highly regressive and unfair sales tax is about to be imposed on the city to finance a for-profit, private enterprise. And city taxpayers have to swallow this under the threat of losing the Utah Jazz, and now the Salt Palace Convention Center and Abravanel Hall and the Utah Symphony. This situation just stinks to me, and I can't stand the thought of this plan being carried out. Tax issues in Salt Lake City to finance new projects are usually brought before voters as a bond issue. Just recently, city voters have voted for new park construction bonds, road construction bonds, and bonds to pay for a Main Street theater. Property tax is raised to pay for these bonds, passing on the cost to property owners and wealthier citizens in the city. A sales tax on the other hand is a regressive tax, payed for disproportionally by people of lower income. A sales tax increase to finance new projects for a private enterprise is extremely unfair. In addition to funds to expand the Delta Center, SEG seeks complete control of three blocks currently under the control of Salt Lake County, where our convention center and symphony hall are located. These facilities have been strategically managed and expanded over many years, and I feel the city should be proud of having great facilities here. But suddenly we are told these facilities are all wrong, and the events that take place there are in jeopardy. The Salt Palace Convention Center is too large now, after years of pushing for larger space. Abravanel Hall suddenly needs $200 million in renovations, conveniently announced as part of the SEG scheme. Why should Salt Lake City residents be paying for upgrades for Salt Lake County facilities?? Should this not be a bond issue put before county voters? And why are we to trust SEG with complete control of all these facilities? The Salt Palace and Abravanel Hall work, they are good facilities, they are managed well. If SEG can create an entertainment district, why don't they turn their attention across the street in the other direction, the Gateway Mall is practically a blank canvas ready for their fantastic vision. Why don't we look immediately to the northeast of the Delta Center at the 15 acres or more of surface parking lot the LDS church keeps vacant and empty, for this visionary entertainment district? If SEG wants to control downtown, it should start buying property. But SEG is a private enterprise, being run to make a profit, they shouldn't be handed tax money to take over downtown Salt Lake City. I could have almost swallowed the issue when it seemed like we would just be asked to expand the Delta Center, but I really feel SEG has asked for far, far too much. I am a devoted patron of the Utah Symphony, but unfortunately I can't say the same for the Jazz, and I know who I'd rather keep if it came time to choose. It is utterly insane that we have been forced to this point. I'm sorry that the state legislature has figured out another way to be unfair to Salt Lake City, essentially blackmailing us to keep the Jazz downtown. But this plan as presented is unfair and opaque. I urge the Mayor and the City Council to stop this plan as presented and find another way forward. Thank you, Jonathan Jensen 5/22/2024 12:13 Pam Littig Pay Raise Hi, Chris.... I am totally opposed to the Mayor or Salt Lake City Council receiving raises. You are selling us out constantly (Abravanel Hall and tax increases...). Vote NO for the raises. 5/22/2024 12:14 Yuki MacQueen Phone call to City Council I joined the Utah Symphony in June 2000. The acoustics of Abravanel Hall are wonderful. It was designed for amplified, symphonic music, it does this exceptionally well even compared to the concert halls of North and South America, Europe and Japan, in which I have had the privilege to perform. Granted, there are certain maintenance updates that cannot be ignored like the HVAC system. However, renovation estimates have been artificially inflated it being an exhaustive wish list of all the things that could be done to make the audience experience better + making it more convenient et. the $200 million plush estimates should not be held as equivalent to the dramatic underestimation of a new build. I find it offensive that Mr. Maughan considers Abravanel Hall as a "wall" or impediment in the flow of a direct line from the delta center to the Nordstrom building. 5/22/2024 12:16 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council There should be a ballot initiative to approve the tax for this purpose (Capital Revitalization) Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:18 Nathan PETERS Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District Hi Team, I'm writing to provide feedback on the proposed 0.5% sales tax increase to fund the development around the Delta Center. This seems unreasonable given that sales tax in the city is already too high (including an absurd tax on groceries). A billionaire bought the Coyotes, and we have the largest 'non-profit' in the world headquartered in SLC. I would advocate that the city needs to partner with the church to support any development, along with doing more to clean up our city and address the homeless issues. These organizations have superfluous amounts of money and they need to contribute instead of putting the burden squarely on the shoulders of citizens. Thanks, Nathan 5/22/2024 12:20 Ng Starks Phone call to City Council The Council needs to save our history. Let us vote! 5/22/2024 12:21 Emily Sloan-Pace SECC District ** Attachment 1 - 3 pages Good evening. Would appreciate having these comments (attached) included in the record. Best, Emily Sloan- Pace 5/22/2024 12:22 Rj Walker G20 Public comment text submission From RJ Walker of District 5 I am here today to speak on behalf of Salt Lake City’s DIY arts community. I work with a nonprofit called AAMP Utah, Our mission is to support Utah’s independent artists. SLC artists are starved of infrastructure compared to our sister cities. For example, Salt Lake does not have a poet laureate program like our neighbors do. Still, despite a lack of institutional support Salt Lake Artists still find ways to be excellent. For example, a Salt City Slam poet won the Women of the World poetry slam competition this year, beating hundreds of other representatives from cities around the world. Don’t get me wrong, I love the arts programming the city provides. We just had the living traditions festival this weekend and it was as excellent as always. But artists require year round support. What is truly needed is space. Free and affordable rehearsal and performance space in which people can refine their craft and connect with their community. The Utah Arts Alliance has just lost their arts space at the south towne mall for the sake of a hockey practice rink and it’s likely they’ll lose the Utah Arts Hub for the sake of hockey as well. The loss of that space will displace hundreds of artists. We must also recognize that casual artists are critical to a healthy society. Salt Lakers require places to express themselves and connect with other people in their community. Open Mic Nights, Sketch Cabarets, and Dance Cyphers are critical to the mental and social wellbeing of the city. Art isn’t about making money it’s about expression and a community that does not have avenues for expression is a dangerous one. I know this because I teach creative writing in the state prison, And what I’m doing there is damage control but what I do at the open mic night is prevention. What I have also found is that artists will build this infrastructure on their own but the moment it becomes popular and the community improves the interests of the wealthy displace them to profit from the value the artists have created.. We’ve seen what can happen when DIY spaces are allowed to exist consistently Kilby Court is the oldest DIY venue in town Now Kilby Block Party has become THE music festival to attend in the Mountain West. When discussing the plans for this new district, I am asking for your commitment to make space for the artists at the beginning of their careers. Spaces that are free and accessible for everyone. You can’t poison the well for the sake of building a drinking fountain. Thank you. DCC Entertainment District Public Comment Dear City Council and Staff, We appreciate the opportunity to share our input on the sports, entertainment, cultural, and convention district. One of the most significant changes Downtown, since the 1995 completion of the Salt Palace, is the substantial growth of our residential community. We, the Downtown Community Council, do our best to represent the residential voice in public policy discussions and we emphasize the goal of building a liveable city in decisions regarding the proposed Entertainment District. We have 7 major comments that we hope will inform your deliberations—both today and over the next few months. And while we are disappointed that the catalyzing legislation came together with practically no public input, it is with the assumption that a sales tax is a foregone conclusion that we make the following comments with one overarching sentiment: public dollars should be spent to achieve direct public benefit. 1. Salt Lake City needs to have a contingency plan in the event private funding is ever jeopardized 2. The entertainment district should be a catalyst for enhanced public transit for workers, residents, and visitors 3. The opportunity to restore and enlarge Japantown merits substantial public financial support 4. Residential housing for workers (and other groups) should be a key component of this project 5. A public recreational facility should accompany a billion dollar investment in professional sports 6. A reconfiguration of the Delta Center should be conducive to an 18-hour district 7. Development decisions regarding Abravanel Hall should not be based solely on financial considerations Explanations for each statement can be found below. 1. While we are very aware of the shortcomings in the current configuration of Block #77 and #78 (i.e., the western extension of the Salt Palace), we are concerned that the demolition of taxable structures could take place without a guarantee of replacement with equal or improved structures. An unfortunate reality of a free market economy is that even well capitalized tech companies can lose value and go out of business almost Attachment 1 - page 1 overnight. We strongly encourage the City to ensure that money for a detailed and feasible construction plan is in place before any demolition takes place. Moreover, we encourage the City to have a contingency plan in place for a scenario where (for whatever reason) private funding is no longer available for the project. Compounding the precariousness of the situation is the near certainty that we will be hosting the Olympics in ten years. We simply cannot risk having a block of undeveloped land at the heart of our Olympic operations. 2. We are concerned that current deliberations have featured no discussion of the impact on the service workers, local residents, and visitors as it relates to public transportation. It is a well known issue that workers at the Delta Center are forced to commute by car because Trax service shuts down before they are done with their shifts supporting the many concerts and sporting events. The development of this area should be a catalyst for enhanced public transportation to support non-car transportation. An 18-hour district needs 20-hour transit. 3. We cannot overstate our support for the restoration of Japantown. The opportunity to bring back a community that was so central to the development of this City and State requires a strong commitment of public and private dollars. We encourage the City and SEG to partner with the Japanese community to build in such a way to re-establish a vibrant Japanese business and residential space. We welcome this community back to the area not just as business owners but as neighbors . We are familiar with the work of GBSB, and consider it a bare minimum. We encourage SEG and the City to think bigger. 4. We have been encouraged to hear from our elected officials that public dollars spent in support of the SECC will be allocated solely for public amenities with broader public benefit. In the spirit of a win-win mindset, we strongly encourage the development of substantial housing for the growing group of service workers required to operate the SECC district. Given the City and State’s housing crisis, this is an obvious opportunity for us to do our part in building upward to provide more housing opportunities. Incidentally, this will ease the need for additional parking that would take up previous space in our urban core that could find much more productive economic uses. 5. Given that the largest element of this $3 billion dollar investment is supporting a pair of professional sports teams, we think it is appropriate that this project incorporate an investment in an amenity for public sports participation. Downtown needs a County recreation center/natatorium for the growing number of residents. The Mayor has made the idea of a family-friendly city a key item of her agenda; there is no better way to do so than to create a public space for residents of all ages to engage year-round in sports and physical activities. Stack an affordable housing tower on top of the recreation center and you have a recipe for local, sports-crazed citizens that are healthy and happy. This is a slam dunk and hat trick opportunity. Attachment 1 - page 2 6. With the potential commitment of public dollars to this project, we believe there should be a corresponding commitment to greater street activation for the entire project area. Specifically, this area should evolve to support an 18-hour district which would mean all-day activation - not simply during evening events. As great as the Delta Center is, it does not create much day-time activation as currently configured. We encourage the City and SEG to bake this principle into the master plan for not only the new project area, but also the Delta Center block. 7. We are concerned that the decision to demolish or renovate the Abravanel Hall is being made on a one dimensional financial basis. We are not categorically opposed to demolition of the structure, but we ask the City to keep in mind the cultural and historical significance of the structure. We can’t imagine a Salt Lake City where a structure like the LDS Temple is razed simply because it is cheaper to build a newer and bigger building; we ask that City to take an equally measured approach to the future of Abravanel. We have lost too much of this City to development attitudes that make contemporary judgments about the beauty of structure or usefulness based on momentary needs. We realize this decision is ultimately up to the County but we strongly encourage the City to use its voice to ensure a thoughtful decision is made based on more than just dollars and cents. Respectfully, The Downtown Community Council Attachment 1 - page 3 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:23 Keith Widdison Waste fee hikes I lived in the bay area in Ca for a few years and our waste was contracted , not city utility. They charged by the can, not by the week or month. If you put out a can, full or empty, the fee was charged. No can, no charge. I do not know the details of their billing, but it worked. SLC could maybe benefit from a similar approach. We have the smallest can and it usually takes a month for us to fill it, so it goes to the curb one-forth as many times as our neighbors, but we pay as much as they do. How can that be fair, how does it encourage them to be more careful about filling the landfill? I the cost of the wear and tear, and fuel costs for our trash trucks is calculated for a stop and collect cycle vs just driving by, I believe there is added merit to counting and charging for cans collected, rewarding those who are not needing the refuse service as often, and filling the landfill. kw 5/22/2024 12:24 Holly Grainger Waste and Recycling Salt Lake City Council, I am responding to the information flyer concerning proposed rate increases from the Sustainability Department. The flyer arrived in yesterday’s mail (May 21) too late to attend that day’s public hearing. A week ahead would have been nice. I do not disagree with the need to increase fees but I think they can be done in a better way to reduce waste in an equitable fashion. Garbage container size should be rewarded for decreasing waste. At present the can sizes are not truly rewarded for their significantly different volume. A 40 gallon bin pays $21.90 a month and 90 gallon $33.20. The larger is 2.25x the size and yet little more than 1.5x the fee. Now a proposed rate increase of $2.00 and $3.00 respectively continues this pattern. Why not reward those who are trying to limit their garbage production? Thank you, Holly Grainger 5/22/2024 12:26 Chris Storbeck Proposed Pay Increase Mr. Dugan, We are strongly opposed to the proposed increase to Mayor Mendenhall’s salary and to the nearly 26% salary increase for City Council members. Elected positions are public service positions. If the individuals running for office think the salary is inadequate, they should either forgo running for election, or make a pay increase part of their political platform. Less than a year ago, Mayor Mendenhall was re-elected with 58% of the vote. While this number is a majority, it can also be viewed as a 42% disapproval rating! It is noteworthy that this increase in pay was not put to the voters, but is instead being proposed when the public does not have the ability to reject it. The Mayor and Council have consistently sided with “moneyed interests” in city development projects. The proposed sales tax increase to primarily benefit the wealthy owners of the local professional sports franchises, the leasing of public land in Sunnyside Park to the University, and decisions that benefit property developers are all examples of putting private interests ahead of the publics. Similarly, the Mayor’s focus on projects that come to fruition in future decades, if at all, shows a shocking lack of attention to everyday problems. The streets and roads are in the worst condition I’ve seen in the many years my wife and I have lived in Salt Lake City. Similarly, the Mayor’s “feel good” projects like the gas leaf blower exchange, or tree planting in public spaces without plans to care for them, are ineffectual initiatives that waste public funds. The population of Salt Lake City is increasing at the rate of 1% per year. Such slow growth does not justify large increases in the salaries of city administrators. In general, the city’s population faces steady increases in fees for garbage collection, water, and other city services, while congestion and quality of life in areas like Sugarhouse and Guardsman Way get worse. If the Council wishes to approve a pay raise for itself and the mayor, that pay raise should be identical to pay increases for all city employees, and should approximate the rate of inflation. A performance or “market based” pay increase is unjustified and, in fact, ludicrous. Chris and Jeri Storbeck Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 12:29 Paul Grant 05-21-24 meeting Dear Council, I listened to the meeting last night and the people in support of the .5% sales tax increase were businesses or groups that will directly benefit from increased traffic flow revenues that come from the expansion of the district. It also appears that the active negotiation you are involved in with the Smith group means that the council intends to agree to some of Smith's proposals. I urge the Council to agree to a sales tax increase that is limited to the proposed entertainment district itself. It's inequitable to tax the city's population as a whole for amenities and attractions that we won't use. I personally seldom go to basketball or hockey games, the symphony, the art space or the restaurants in that area. The parking and traffic are a deterrent and I know many other SLC citizens feel the same. In addition, spectator sports, restaurants and bars frankly don't interest me much. Furthermore, many people can't afford to participate in those activities. The tax increase should be limited to the proposed entertainment district and borne by the people who use the district and benefit from it. That is the fair solution and I hope you have the fortitude to represent all your constituents. Paul M. Grant 5/22/2024 12:31 Richard Goers Garbage rate increase.Salt Lake City Council, According to your fancy and expensive flyer both in English and Spanish, I am informed of proposed garbage increases amounting to about 10% for the 2024-2025 year. I am totally opposed to such an increase because my Social Security does not justify any an increase. However, you, at the City Council, have no worries because you get paid plenty. If you truly represent the Salt Lake City public, do away with this proposed increase altogether and realize that most of the population in this city barely live from check to check. By the way, if you vote to have Abravanel Hall demolished to favor a private business deal and increase our already much too high taxes, you need to have your heads examined. This is an issue that the public needs to vote on, NOT just by your decision. Disgusted with Salt Lake City's corruption, I am, Richard F. Goers 5/22/2024 12:31 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council Regarding the desire for economic growth as one outcome for the "revitalization" of downtown how could the issue of permanently altering Abravanel impact said economic growth? For example, many restaurants and venues are supported largely by citizens making a night of viewing the arts (in particular the symphony, opera, ballet, etc), so how would that be affected by the proposed changes? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 13:14 Dan Hilker Cautiously supportive Hi there, I'm an SLC resident of 4 years, and Utah resident for most of the last 20 years, but I grew up in the midwest outside of Chicago. I'm a diehard sports fan and Utah Jazz season ticket holder. I'm also a supporter of the arts, with season tickets to Broadway at the Eccles. My wife and I love to dine out and support local restaurants. We can, and sometimes do, bike or walk to downtown. I am very excited about getting the NHL in SLC. We are Ryan Smith's target. That being said, I'm under no illusion that the entertainment district is going to make the whole city more wealthy, nor more affordable. Also recognize that these kinds of projects come with issues as well. The 16th street mall in Denver, while not a sports and entertainment district IS a district of restaurants and shops, and its largely closed up and dirty. I am supportive of high density housing and don't particularly care how tall Ryan builds, but I am not an expert in how high is too high for safety reasons. But there should be housing in these buildings. Hotels and homes. Rentals and units for sale. Subsidized and otherwise. Maintaining Abravanel and UMOCA is important to me though. They surely need renovation, but no need to replace perfectly good centers of arts. I love the idea of more restaurants and bars in the city, but can we stipulate that they NOT be national chains. I NEVER go to dinner at City Creek because I'd rather support our local chefs and entrepreneurs on Main Street at the Gateway. And, speaking of the Gateway, can we find a way to make it such that this does not damage the already struggling Gateway? It's made some great strides in the last couple years, and I worry this may hinder its revitalization. At minimum, while I'm supportive of this idea in the abstract, there's a lot of details that need to be discussed and hammered out. And, if Ryan Smith is going to end up essentially owning 3 blocks of downtown SLC, at minimum he should be required to live in SLC and pay taxes towards our public schools. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 13:16 Natalie Brooks Oppose Tax Increase for Ryan Smith / D5 I am a resident of Liberty Wells and district 5. Thank you for representing us. I am curious about how you plan to advocate for our district in regards to Ryan Smith’s proposal? I want to voice my opposition to using our tax dollars to subsidize Ryan Smith's proposal. TLDR: I am not generally opposed to tax increases. I am not fundamentally opposed to pro sports in our city. I am strongly opposed to a tax increase to subsidize billionaire Ryan Smith’s downtown as it is not a good return on investment per multiple economic evidence in other cities. We are already a desirable city offering economic opportunity for business, even pro-sports, and we don’t need to desperately pander to billionaires and their business plans. Economists agree it does not benefit cities to subsidize projects like this. Here are some sources: Weber State Dr. Gavin Roberts: https://kutv.com/newsletter-daily/professor- questions-long-term-economic-impact-of-tax-funded-sports-arenas https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities/ https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/01/15/cities-should-not-pay-for-new-stadiums/ My own thoughts: Salt Lake City is a beautiful city with a lot of infrastructure and skilled workers to offer businesses. These sports businesses need us more than we need them. My gut tells me it does not make sense to subsidize a plan like this by increasing taxes. I would rather our taxes go to things like parks, transportation, and people (whether that be housing or education) which ultimately make us a desirable place for business to want to exist. For example, I live right by Hawthorn Elementary which is closing in a couple weeks, yet our city council is entertaining the idea of increasing taxes to support a pro-sports business. I would have been much happier supporting our local children, teachers, and families who are the future of this city. I do not trust large corporations and billionaires to give back to the community nor can we expect any economic benefits corporations make to trickle back down to our community. As a nurse I hold myself to a standard of providing evidence based practice at my job. When it comes to economics, I defer to the experts for what the evidence says, and it sounds like economists consistently agree that subsidizing pro-sports teams does not benefit cities economically. If Salt Lake City were a friend, I would tell SLC it does not need to be so desperate and thirsty begging to subsidize something like a big pro-sports business, when in reality they are looking for a city like us more than we need their commercialized downtown proposal. We should be the ones demanding from the business to give back to us for benefiting all of our public goods and infrastructure and being a desirable place to run a business. We offer businesses a safe downtown, a beautiful city, with trax lines to move customers etc. Let us focus on making SLC a more desirable city and make those billionaires feel lucky to run a business here. Thank you, Natalie 5/22/2024 14:23 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council Caller states: Hello I am a D6 resident and I would like to comment on the Mayor including a raise for herself in the budget. I understand she is comparing herself to her peers but there are other City workers who make less than their peers. She should lead by example for everyone. I think the Council Members make PT pay and do FT work. She shouldn't need more money. 5/22/2024 14:33 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Voicemail: I think it might be a bad item for most people to have a rate increase on waste and recycling. I know for me I have been struggling and able to get subsidized so I can afford the services. If they are going to provide that to people with special needs, people who don't have incomes but for some people it would be a real difficult for them to come up with more money. especially based on how everything else has gone up now with inflation. 5/22/2024 14:35 Edie Morgan Rate increase I am not in favor of a rate increase. Everyone is increasing their rates and pushing us out of the neighborhood. Please don't raise them. A couple of years ago I down sized my garbage can but with your rate increase, I am right back to where I started. Enough is enough. Thanks Edie Morgan Resident 24 years Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/22/2024 16:43 Anonymous Constituent Waste and recycling rate increases If you raise our rates again, you should give the actual service providers raises. 5/22/2024 20:45 Dakotah Reyes Erin's proposed 44 thousand dollar raise I think Erin's requesting an additional $44,000 salary raise when many of her own constituents can't afford rent on SLC's minimum wage! Maybe make efforts towards raising that. Until then, deal with your "low" salary like the rest of us. 5/22/2024 23:17 Joe Dygert city's budget, officials' income we are all humans with the same needs and if we more evenly split the government's money between us all, more needs would be met. 5/23/2024 10:25 Jordan Kohl Input Regarding Sales Tax Increase Councilman Mano, I'm very disappointed to hear of your support for raising a regressive tax that will take over a generation to pay off, in order to subsidize Smith Entertainment Group's business venture. I am a huge fan of what businesses and economic growth can do for a city and society, but if the city steps in to pick winners and losers like this it is 1) not fair and 2) inefficient. From Brookings: No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/ I know the sales tax increase has already passed, but it's a huge mistake. Please don't compound it by letting it get spent on a dubious investment that helps a few while taking from most. I understand your desire to possibly compensate victims of past urban renewal and the destruction of Salt Lake's Japantown. That is a worthy goal! But I will be shocked if more than an extremely small amount of the funds goes to that, making it an incredibly inefficient way to achieve justice. Thank you for your time, Jordan Kohl 5/23/2024 12:59 Bob Gorelik New Sports District I am in full support of a new sports district! People need to realize change is the only constant in the Universe. Time for a BIG change downtown!!! I am in full support of a tax increase too! People that love Abravanel Hall (like myself) need to just grieve and move on… TIME FOR A CHANGE!! Mr. Gorelik 5/23/2024 15:04 Anonymous Constituent Downtown revitalization I oppose any changes to the Salt Palace. I oppose raising the sales tax at all. If it must be raised, 0.5% is too much, and it should be raised half of that at most. I oppose allowing SEG to lease the land now owned by Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City and Country should retain possession. SEG should not be allowed to profit from any use of the Salt Palace. I insist that SEG pay the full cost of renovating the Delta Center without public money unless ownership of the Delta Center is transferred to Salt Lake City or County. Renovations to Abravanel Hall, a state treasure serving many counties, should be paid for with state, county, AND city money. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/23/2024 15:54 Jared Zitnay Comment on Capital City Revitalization Zone Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I want to lend my support to the many well-articulated comments last night about the preservation of arts, cultural, and historical institutions in the region of the proposed Capital City Revitalization Zone. As someone for whom Utah Symphony performances at Abravanel Hall are the primary reason I come downtown, I found these statements powerful and many of them reflected my views and concerns about this development. I hope you found them powerful too. It is my position on this matter that the city can provide an immense amount of support to the Smith Entertainment Group (SEG) proposal through zoning changes, public infrastructure projects, and community development which benefit this proposed SEG property development and directly benefit the residents of Salt Lake City and surrounding Salt Lake County. It is not necessary for the taxpayers of Salt Lake City to provide SEG nearly $1B to fund their new project. Contrary to the statements from the council that your “hands are tied” in this matter, my understanding from the materials provided on the Capital City Revitalization Zone and the associated state legislation is that the city can choose whether to adopt the 0.5% sales tax increment. While on paper the city is doing the taxing, in effect a private entity is being given taxing powers; the city must be able to hold SEG to a set of contractual obligations such as not being allowed to move their sports franchises from Salt Lake City and the developed area without a vote from city residents and the development of affordable housing (not just in the city, but in the immediate downtown area). However, if the city is powerless about how a city-wide 0.5% sales tax that goes directly to a private entity is used, you should not adopt the tax increment. If you do not have the time to negotiate these terms with SEG, then just say no to the sales tax increment. Handing away $1B of public money is not something to be considered on a hasty timeline, without robust agreements with the benefiting private entities, and without much more than a bullet list of “guiding principles” as a plan from the developer. When you consider the pressure from SEG and the state for a speedy process, remember that Ryan Smith demonstrated on day one as the proud new owner of an NHL hockey franchise that the Delta Center is ready to host NHL hockey games immediately. You have power in this negotiation, you have the power to say no. Respectfully, Jared Zitnay District 7 resident Salt Lake City, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/23/2024 15:55 Todd Deetz Pay Raises I am very disappointed with the City Council and mayor Mendenhall for being completely tone deaf and asking for huge raises at a time when people are hurting financially. If we didn’t have homeless camps in Liberty Park, if we didn’t have drug deals taking place at Liberty Park, if we didn’t have the city streets that were nothing but patches and potholes, if we didn’t have baseball leaving the downtown area while property taxes skyrocket, I might give your pay raises serious thought. The streets have never had more traffic on them and if you’ve tried to drive anywhere in between 3 pm and 7 pm, it’s not uncommon to be caught waiting two or even three times for the same traffic light to change and the City Council is busy spending precious tax dollars on making 800 east into an obstacle course with round-a-bouts and curbs that extend far into traffic on a road that has little traffic!! This might be the most senseless waste of money I’ve ever seen! How much money was spent to turn 900 south from a 4 lane street to 2 lanes? If you truly wanted to “calm neighborhood traffic” you’d spend money to let it flow instead of building obstacles to stop it. I’ve lived in SLC since 1980 and I expect to experience some growing pains when there is the kind of population growth we’ve all seen but bad decisions on the part of the Mayor and City Council only multiply the problems. When I heard about these pay raises I asked my long time neighbor what his opinion was and his reply was “No pay raises until they do their job!”. I guess I’m not alone in my opinion. You are asking for substantial raises. The Mayor has been a failure on many things that matter deeply to me and my neighbors but she’s asking for a $44,000.00 raise!!! That is too much for a mayor with all the unsolved problems she has. Don’t insult us by congratulating yourselves with large raises while citizens are dealing with the kind of inflation that federal politicians have caused. The article that I read today claimed that these pay raises wouldn’t affect individual tax payers (or something to that effect) but the living conditions in this city continue to deteriorate while the ruling class gets wealthier. Show some understanding and fix the crime, drugs and roads BEFORE asking for huge pay raises! Todd Deetz Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/23/2024 15:58 Mitch Potter 2024 Budget Proposal Dear Mayor Mendenhall, As a constituent of yours, I have to admit I found your proposed budget with salary increase of 24% for your position to be mildly insulting as a taxpayer. As a moderate-democrat, and contributor to the Salt Lake City tax pool, I personally object to your proposal for the following reasons: The position of mayor is one that covets an esteem that shall always be used to ensure a person has access to high paying jobs when that person is no longer in office. These high paying positions are a staple of former members of congress, or any other highly visible body of government and often a soft form of maintaining the power leverage that politics yield to those inside the circle. This, coupled with the much greater benefits inclusive of a public position, warrants a significantly less dollar figure when it comes to salary. There is an unrepresented dollar figure in your compensation which would mean a salary of 212,000 would be putting you by far and away in the top earners for something that is an elected position in consideration of all your unquantified benefits. To me, this underscores a level of entitlement that is tone-deaf to the economic problems of the vast majority of Utahns. I'm sure the people in your social circle are all making large salaries, which is indicative of a larger problem at hand that, as a democrat, I would hope you would be painfully aware of. The problem I am referencing is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Utahns don't have the luxury of writing their own salary to compensate for the damage the last few years of inflationary pressures have done. All over the place, people are a few paychecks away from being financially solvent. You're a leader. A leader stays in the trenches with his/her constituents. I also believe that a leader shouldn't be insulated from the problems their constituents face, especially when they can just legislate their way out of it. . This is already exemplified by corners of our congress. I understand that city managers' salaries in comparable areas are disproportionately high, and the current Salt Lake City mayor is doing the job of both. However, I don't believe this warrants a salary increase in response, more-so we should be looking with greater scrutiny towards the city managers that are overly compensated. In closing, a modest salary increase of 3-5% is more palatable to the every day person. You are already compensated well, especially when considering the unquantified benefits I have previously mentioned. The protection of your job security, especially when considering your networking value post mayoral position, is something many Americans would yearn for. I cannot, as a citizen of Salt Lake County, in good conscience look at this proposal with any sort of favorable position. -Mitch 5/23/2024 16:03 Barbara Richmond Garbage Fee Increase Has anyone looked into the cost of changing the system to charge for every pickup instead of a flat monthly fee? I see drivers picking up 1/2 empty, and sometimes nearly empty, cans. This wastes resources. This costs money by wasting man power, wasting gas which in turn generates unnecessary air pollution, wear and tear on the trucks, etc. 5/23/2024 16:06 Cory Olsen This latest move by Mendenhall is disgusting in regards to her raise. She is not a good mayor, she rolls over for just about anyone and anything. How about we start by fixing the streets first, followed by the sidewalks. And lets get rid of Beckers concrete structures taking streets like West Temple from three lanes to one. There is plenty of room for two lanes with a bike lane. I hope you look at our poor lousy mayor and tell her NO! Ridiculous with all that needs to be done in the city. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/23/2024 16:10 Julia Rossi low income housing Mayor Mendenhall, I am writing as a homeowner in Salt Lake City, in particular, a home in the Avenues. My interests in housing resonate with yours: we must do what we can to make living in Salt Lake City as pleasant as possible, particularly for those with low incomes and the homeless. We have an idea that may be attractive to you, the Council and especially those of small or no income. LDS hospital will soon be closed, and then available for development; almost certainly for housing for the affluent. That will strengthen the idea that the Avenues are an enclave for, shall we say, “certain special people.” That is an attribute we would like to avoid: we hope the Avenues can become truly diverse; not only in terms of heritage, but also in terms of affluence. To tear down LDS hospital for developers extends a trend that we would like to see Salt Lake CIty avoid. The hospital is filled with rooms that have adequate electrical connection, more than adequate lighting, bathrooms and sinks. It also has a vast collection of other areas that can be - at minimal cost - redisgned for small familes, or areas for common use. There are facilites for the preparing and serving of food. All this is available for the city to provide housing for residents of low - or no - income. Therefore, we plead with Salt Lake City to purchase LDS hospital for this purpose - something that I believe will be attractive to IHC. It also would be something that the present Avenue residents will welcome - or at least, not resist. Sincerely, Hugo Rossi 5/23/2024 16:15 Anonymous Constituent Garbage Fee Increase Hi, I've got this flyer about the waste and garbage pick up, and I only put my garbage out for them to pick up once a month and if I'm going to be charge for $21.90 to have them pick up and I will cancel my garbage collection and I will take care of my garbage elsewhere. Bye!!! 5/23/2024 16:24 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Hello, I am calling in regarding the Utilities bills increase. I know that the county been paid these service with our Taxes Money and that's never been mentioned. I wonder if you please please please for once stop increasing these bills. Thank you! 5/23/2024 22:36 Angela Morgan Enough is Enough The Mayor is asking for a 26% salary increase for herself, which in turn will result in an increase of thousands of dollars for each Council Member. Additionally she is proposing an increase of 5% for every City Employee. Salt Lake residents are already facing financial difficulities with the high cost of rents, food. City services such as garbage, water and streets take another huge bite out of our below average median income pockets. We are suffering during these harsh economic times. It is an insult to ask the tax payers to have the added burden of increasing the Mayor, Council Members and City Employees salaries/wages in addition to the already proposed sales tax increase to bring in the MLB. You were elected to serve the people, instead, action after action, budget after budget all we are seeing is the Mayor taking care of herself and her cronies instead of assuring the well being of families, especially lower income families that are affected by irresponsible spending. Enough is enough. 5/23/2024 22:40 Dolan Pritchett Please do not fund the sports and entertainment district Stadiums have historically been poor investments. While obviously it is believed that this will be an exception I urge you not to gamble against the odds with taxpayers money. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/24/2024 16:28 Angela Morgan No, we cant afford it.The Mayor is asking for a 26% salary increase for herself, which in turn will result in an increase of thousands of dollars for each Council Member. Additionally she is proposing an increase of 5% for every City Employee. Salt Lake residents are already facing financial difficulties with the high cost of rents, food. City services such as garbage, water and streets take another huge bite out of our below average median income pockets. We are suffering during these harsh economic times. It is an insult to ask the tax payers to have the added burden of increasing the Mayor, Council Members and City Employees salaries/wages in addition to the already proposed sales tax increase to bring in the MLB. You were elected to serve the people, instead, action after action, budget after budget all we are seeing is the Mayor taking care of herself and her cronies instead of assuring the well being of families, especially lower income families that are affected by irresponsible spending. Enough is enough. 5/24/2024 16:30 John Rand Dogs - Physical Leashes vs E-Collars Good morning, Salt Lake City Council! With warmer weather on the rise, people want to take their furry friends out. This is a wonderful way to get out and be a part of your neighborhood. Straight to the issue: With the rise of e- collars, we have no clear definition of what a humane restraint is. When I/we see someone walking their companions without a physical restraint, we often turn and go the other way. We or others have no way of knowing whether a dog is under some form of restraint. If you do approach to inquire, there is no buffer, it is too late. If the dog(s) do not get along with you or your dog, an interaction is going to occur. HOPEFULLY, it is a positive one. This is doing the opposite of creating a friendly, neighborly environment. Unfortunately, we have have several dog owners with dogs off-leash that appear to be out of control. Upon speaking to them, they responded that their companion is on an e-collar. Being a long-time Rose Park resident, we are blessed with a beautiful neighborhood to walk in. Through the years, we have also dealt with several less-than-friendly dogs, some viscous or, in general, dogs at large. There is a lot of tension between the on-leash dog walkers and the unleashed dog walkers, not just in our neighborhood but all across the city. There is a lot of less than civil conversation on social platforms. It would be comforting to at least have some modernized amendments to the current city/county code. I would ask that the City come up with some clear definitions of what counts as a leash or humane animal restraint for on- leash areas of our City. If an e-collar does count as a restraint, should the owner also have a physical restraint in their possession? Thanks for your time. Kindest regards, John Rand, Linda Johansen, and Bella the dog Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/24/2024 16:32 Carolyn Kraft-Grauer Waste and recycling Dear Council members, I’m writing this email in response to a flyer I received describing the proposed rate increase for the waste and recycling program. I strongly support a rate increase to maintain and/or improve the waste and recycling program in Salt Lake City. I realize I may be in the minority in holding this viewpoint, but I also believe I may be more familiar with these issues than many constituents. I was lucky enough to participate in the Master Recycling program offered through SLC Waste and Recycling department. This program offered great insight into waste collection and management in our city. I was able to tour the landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility, and now have a greater appreciation for waste collection and disposal. Our city needs to increase our commitment to recycling. Unfortunately recycling is more expensive than dumping garbage in the landfill, but that won’t always be the case. Our landfill seems vast at this point in time, but when the landfill is full, disposing of garbage will become a lot more expensive. I support a more proactive increase that would enable SLC to maintain and or improve the waste and recycling program in order to divert waste from the landfill. I also believe that more education of SLC is necessary. If more people recycle properly, the recycling industry will become more profitable and more trash will be diverted from the landfill. I would love to see the Master Recycling Program expanded. I would be happy to discuss any of these thoughts further. Please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Carolyn Kraft- Grauer 5/24/2024 16:36 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council Hello, I'm calling in to leave a comment that my water bill alone is already over $175 every months, I'm a senior retirement that living on a budget, You are going to raise it to make it that we can't afford it. I hope that there's humanity still with you guys. Thank you 5/25/2024 18:46 Tess Love DO NOT GIVE AWAY OUR MONEY TO A BILLIONAIRE This guy appears to be a rip off artist billionaire. He left Arizona with millions in debt. He sued the city to get profits he didn’t make. I don’t want to give him money. He is not the character that Utah needs. Please don’t bring dishonest people into Utah!! 5/27/2024 11:42 Barbara LeBow You Claim That My Input Matters 1. I oppose any increase in the residential garbage fee. Your proposed monthly increase is extravagant for most residents of SLC, especially in light of the constant increase in the cost of living, with many struggling to provide nutritious food and adequate shelter for their families. 2. I oppose the proposed sales tax increase of 0.5% for the downtown district surrounding the Delta Center. 3. I have been unable to access any information on the budget for the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The state of the cemetery has gone from beautiful to disgraceful. 4. The Mayor and Council need to add to the budget ways to decrease the deficit not increase it by 5.9%. The majority of the budget goes to city employees salaries, pensions and benefits - $298.9 million, $24 million more than last year and $3.2 million going to increase the city bureaucracy by 32 new position. I propose that this part of the budget be decreased by enough to eliminate the proposed residential garbage fee increase and the 0.5% proposed sales tax increase and to go toward proper maintenance of The Salt Lake City Cemetery as well as to decrease the deficit. 5/28/2024 7:07 Alicia Scotter Raising Taxes for Entertainment District Why don't we have billionaires fund their own investments? If I'm going to be providing 30 years of monies, I'd like to be included as a shareholder in this development! 5/28/2024 9:02 Dee dee Firmage-Turpin Carolyn Abravanel's daughter Chris, Thank you for taking the time to listen to the arguments against demolishing Maurice Abravanel Hall and Plaza. I hope that you will continue to speak your voice for the hall and plaza to remain in its current location. I also wanted to reach out regarding the next SL County Council Meeting. The website is hard to follow. Thank you again, Dee Dee Firmage-Turpin About anecessaryconversation.com Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/28/2024 9:05 Ira Hinckley route 209 complaint Hi, My neighbors and I continue to have issues with the new 209 bus route in the Avenues. The buses are too large for our small streets and they shake the houses. I am constantly being awoken in the night by the noise and the shaking of the house. I'm often startled awake thinking another earthquake is happening and am very worried about damage to the structure of my 120 year old house!!!! The buses are too noisy. With their brakes, engines, announcements, hydraulics, frequency and hours it's a constant onslaught of noise and disruption. These huge buses were not meant for these little Avenues streets! We are requesting a smaller bus like the F11 or going back to the #6 bus like everyone was happy with before! Regards, Ira Hinckley 5/28/2024 9:09 Isaac Hinckley Say no to the Sports District Sophia Allen, We did not purchase a hockey team. Ryan Smith did. We will not see profits from ticket sales. Ryan Smith will. We should not bear the burden of the risk of the investment and Ryan Smith will reap the benefits. The taxpayers should not subsidize the desires and risks of the wealthy. The only way that taxpayers paying for the sports district is remotely moral is for the taxpayers to own the team, property and receive the benefits of the profits. Say like the Green Bay Packers. A no supports the people. 5/28/2024 9:13 Anna Rollins Inland Port Plan Dear Mr. Dugan, My name is Anna Rollins, and I am a student who lives in the Salt Lake City Yalecrest neighborhood. An issue I have been made aware of recently is the inland port which is in the motions of being built. In my opinion, you should not go forward with this plan. The environmental consequences will be great, and if you plan to build it near the Great Salt Lake, will undo a lot of hard work from environmentalists who are actively trying to revive the lake. Also, it will add tons of new fossil fuel pollution to our already oversaturated valley. It will also make the area more at risk of oil spills and dredging. Please rethink this plan, for the environment. Thanks, Anna 5/28/2024 9:20 Wilma Odell I'm in your district I’m adamantly opposed to the Smith’s proposal. Downtown Salt Lake City is congested enough. Symphony Hall’s acoustics are fine, the lobby is fine, more ADA amenities are all I would suggest. How about taxing hockey & baseball tix (wherever games are held)? NOT ALL RESIDENTS WHO WILL NOT EVER GO TO A GAME? All Smith’s demands will benefit affluent people (or those who choose to pay lots for tix instead of contributing to philanthropic causes. We are a great tourist town —let’s not lose our charm. Wilma Odell 5/28/2024 9:33 Julia McGonigle Mendenhall Corruption Raise Do not give that woman one more cent. The average salary in Salt Lake City is $61,000 and she wants over $200,000. This is absurd. This is not about a competitive cost of living raise. She has not earned it. My tax payer dollars should not go towards padding the pockets of developers through RDA loans or Ms. Mendenhall whose personal campaign is padded through those developers themselves. This is absurd abuse of power. Give the librarians and K-12 teachers raises first and I'll support her BS raise. Your constituent of the Ballpark Neighborhood. 5/28/2024 9:41 Ross Chambless Barricade related to PLNPCM2023-00890 - Carrigan View Phase II Planned Development F Hello Eric, I want to bring to your attention that a shoddy barricade was placed at the entrance to the public Bonneville Shoreline trail at the end of Lakeline Drive a few days ago. I am attaching some photos. It seems this was erected by the developer only a day or so after last week's Planning Commission hearing that addressed the Carrigan View Phase II Planned Development. Respectfully, Ross Ross Chambless (resident) 5/28/2024 9:57 Amal Kawar From Amal a resident in your district . Hello. I keep wondering when will the city council notice that there are older people, senior citizens, with their own needs in the area of safety of roads (such as bad drivers) and public transportation. I have been anxious to hear recognition of us and our needs, regardless of West and East sides we live within. amal Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/28/2024 12:10 Rosemary Nicholson Increasing Waste Collection Costs Hi, I would like to suggest including a smaller can size as an option as well as increasing the cost of those that use the 90 gallon cans. I feel that I pay a lot of money for this service and only fill my can ~1/ mo 5/28/2024 12:52 Anonymous Constituent bigger concerns From what I understand of research in other cities, sports-entertainment districts are generally found to only benefit the vendors directly involved and mainly only during event times. With this in mind, it does not make sense to pour community funds into such a project in SLC. I am concerned that the plan is too vague and already has been endorsed without a demand for details. Why would the city and state fund an entertainment and sports district that benefits and subsidizes the pet projects and dreams of a few already-wealthy people? Why not make a plan that clearly has funds earmarked for low-income housing? That is the main need in our city. Another need is to support small businesses, not billionaires. Look at a graphic that illustrates how much a billion really is. People with that kind of money should not ask for and should not be given a hand out. They have sufficient funds to risk part if they choose to do so. That is enough money to pay their own taxes and help fund community needs. Sports and entertainment are not needs. Housing and jobs are needs. Districts like this are not proven to provide living- wage jobs. If you want to raise taxes, it must be earmarked for the things that improve the daily lives and survival of ordinary people: affordable/free/accessible public transportation to school/work/healthcare from home, affordable housing, and living-wage jobs. Thank you 5/28/2024 15:35 Terry Marasco JRT Morning, you may have seen the emails about the Trail getting worse. This since the Mayor, Chief Brown and other officials and citizens walked the Trail. This is unacceptable. You folks are responsible for representing our interests on the West Side and need to get in front of the Mayor and make the case for addressing this problem now. You also know that the issues have spread beyond the Trail into the west side neighborhoods. Last night I called in an encampment (about 30 people) behind Carl's Jr on N Temple (at my apartment area) and it was cleared. At this moment they are back. What the people know is that after an intervention, there is plenty of time to go back before the next intervention. Best, Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, Utah 5/28/2024 16:01 Ryan Hinkins Sports Entertainment District Hello, I do believe that if Salt Lake City is going to be a major city that we need to have some pro sports franchises. I am concerned that the citizens of Salt Lake City are bearing the tax burden for a team that will represent the whole state and frankly will benefit the whole state not just Salt Lake City. The issue of the additional tax burden for this district comes when there is a sales tax on groceries. I would support this additional tax if the sales tax on food was removed One shouldn't pay tax on a necessity. I have the means to pay for the additional tax but there are other residents who don't have the means. I think Abravanel Hall is a beautiful building but it is not an historic building. With the recent cost of refurbishment it makes more sense to take the best of Abravanel Hall (the glass structure for one) and build a new building within the new sports entertainment district. Some comments saying that the owner of the NHL team should bear the cost of this district because SEG will benefit the most from this district is a little to simple. Mr. Smith has invested his own money into bringing the NHL franchise to Salt Lake City as well as buying the Utah Jazz. It seems Mr. Smith has made a huge financial commitment. I'm glad you have to make this decision and not me because there are pros and cons for both sides. Ryan Hinkins 5/28/2024 16:35 Jamie Feliz Sustainability Dept rate increases Hi my feedback for the proposed rate increases is that the 40 Gallon container should stay at the same rate, while the larger containers increase. The price difference would be an incentive to use less waste. Jamie Feliz Rose Park Resident Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/28/2024 16:36 Mary Paul A 💩 Situation -And a Solution!Dear Salt Lake City Council, As a lifelong resident, property owner, member of multiple local nonprofit organizations, and daughter of a patent attorney striving to launch a wastewater treatment company, I have learned a LOT about poop. And the truth is, we are starting to reach a crisis point with it impacting public health here in Salt Lake. We need a LOT more access to public restrooms in the downtown area, by theJordan River, and the Rio Grande. I say this with particular mindfulness about our unsheltered community members. Safe, easy access to restrooms can dramatically improve multiple health conditions, preparation for work, and prevention of disease from spreading locally. I also say this as a mother who has given birth and needs to pee all the time. Oh and did I mention I raised two kids that also ran around needing to urgently use the bathroom? We’ve attended downtown festivals and events and nearly had to find an alley multiple times because it was so difficult (even as a paying customer) to find a place to use the bathroom. I’ve also been dismayed to see many city park restrooms locked up, putting families and the unsheltered in a predicament of where to go? (Did I mention I’m also a tennis coach for children? Not a fun challenge to deal with in the middle of practice.) I'm asking for funding for multiple supervised outhouses and increased access in the areas I mentioned. Thank you for your time and tolerance of my potty humor. Truly, this is not a situation that can’t be overlooked. Sincerely, Mary Paul 5/28/2024 16:42 Lynn Pershing increased sales tax to support Sports District I do NOT support increase city wide sales tax to support the proposed Sports District. If the state wants to support the proposed “sports district” ALL cities and towns can pay for it since it serves ALL of Utah Lynn K Pershing Council district 6 5/28/2024 16:44 Celia Ward Abravanel Hall Please don’t let the Abravanel Hall be destroyed for a sports themed building. Not all of us like sports and SLC does not need the reputation of a sports oriented city. Isn’t there room in Salt Lake City for a diversity of entertainment? Many people come here, spend money downtown and appreciate the variety of musical performances. I live downtown and walk to Abravanel Hall frequently. Don’t let this happen to our city. Celia Ward 5/28/2024 16:45 Sarahann Whitbeck Fiscal Year 2024-25 feedback Hello, I hope this message finds you well. I am unable to attend the public hearing dates, but wanted to follow up on the items included in the mailer received this week. The waste and recycling services are super important - and this extremely small monthly increase is absolutely worth the benefits in my small opinion. Thank you for being thoughtful about the fiscal resources of the city and the sustainability of our region. Your team is doing a wonderful job. Thank you! Sarah SarahAnn Whitbeck Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/28/2024 16:48 S M Bushman Crime, Homelessness, Taxes, Projects,Dear Salt Lake City Council, I appreciate your hard work and efforts but much more needs to be done for the success and growth of this city. In order for this city or any community to succeed they need to address the root causes that create failure. Projects that are not addressing the real needs of the citizens will face disappointment. There are many apartment buildings going up and projects being handled but they are not effectively helping our community. Raising taxes is not the answer. Projects and taxes should be approved by the community. For our community to flourish there needs to be law and order. Individuals need a way to progress and be self sufficient. Allowing crime to go uncheck will only enable people to continue in self destruction, as well as in destroying the community they live in. Handouts is not the answer but there needs to be a way to create the means where by individuals and families can grow. The housing that is being listed as affordable is far from meeting that definition. People are in need now for opportunities to personally be able to be self sufficient. There are many citizens and non U.S. citizens that need help. This need is growing daily. It will continue to increase until we assist them in becoming self reliant by assisting them with the means and the ability to achieve, which includes a safe place to live (not a hand out but an opportunity they can afford). Sincerely, Sarah Bushman 5/28/2024 16:49 Barbara POLICH salt lake city waste + recycling rate increase OPPOSED I oppose the garbage fee increase given the proposed .5% tax increase for the entertainment district. If the new proposed sales tax is going to be imposed then all other increases must be imposed only out of dire necessity. Any change in the budget must come from the touted additional revenues to be realized the proposed district. Normally I would not oppose the proposed increase but with the proposed tax increase for the entertainment district it is too much to ask of the residents of SLC. I believe the city should be establishing a budget and taxation scheme that takes care of all its citizens and provides for their basic needs. The increase in sales tax will not fix the potholes in front of my residence or keep the cost of my basic services from going up. But I am not worried for myself. I am worried for those who truly have no extra dollars. The City is being tone deaf to the economic situation of our residents. The SL Tribune suggested the yearly increase that will be spent will be $221 per home, and that is if the calculation is correct that 60% of the sales tax burden will fall on non SLC residents. If that percentage estimate is incorrect that could be an additional increase of several hundred dollars more. I do not understand why SLC residents will bear the burden to the newly proposed entertainment district. I was intrigued by the Tribune article that indicated that user tax on tickets would be too costly. But wouldn’t that put the burden on those who will benefit most by the new district? I will not use the new district. Not everyone lives and dies by sports. I am not opposed to the district just the proposed tax burden. I was fascinated that the Governor thinks it is only fair the citizens of SLC bear the cost burden. I understand this is a legislative cram down to a large degree but don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Be practical, thoughtful and most importantly demand answers to the tough questions. To date, there is no concrete proposal or concrete numbers. A proposed tax increase being discussed when the Council wants to give generous raises seems like a lot to ask (and again normally I would not oppose such increases.) If we want the entertainment district, consider making the other necessary and serious cuts, starting with no waste increase and no salary increases, as unpalatable as that will be. Fundamentally we need to live within our means and that means not taking the easy way out by imposing a new tax increase. We are a small city and it makes no sense we are being asked to foot so much of the bill for new sports venues. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/28/2024 16:50 Aline Devaud Against .5% tax increase for downtown revitalization project Hello Council members, I am opposed to paying more tax for the proposed downtown revitalization project. I would be in favor of a smaller tax increase state- or county-wide to increase public transportation and reduce or eliminate the cost of public transportation. How about doing something that will improve the well-being for many and improve the air quality for all of us? I know that this proposal may be bigger than what the SLC Council can do but at the same time, I'm suggesting that SLC citizens also not be burdened with a tax increase to benefit the few. Thanks, Aline Devaud Dan Dugan's district 5/29/2024 10:06 Robert Williams Phone call to City Council Caller stated he is a registered voter D1 constituent who came across very respectful youth talking about wanting to have a high school on the Westside in Glendale. He agrees with the students and believes the neighborhood should have a school and the children shouldn't have to travel too far. It isn't right for them to have to travel and it is important to the kids, There are many great people on the Westside. 5/29/2024 10:35 Matthew Johnson Nobody likes hockey anyway I'm as pumped as the next guy to have the historic Phoenix Coyotes here, but please look at every-example-ever of a pro team moving to a new city after failing to extort the old city. The new city always gets ripped off! Every sport, every time. I mean, maybe developers profit... 5/29/2024 12:22 Sarah Woolsey Support for CIP: Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/ Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Dear Councilwoman Petro, I hope this finds you well. I met you at the interesting Sorenson Center meeting that had the “pitches” for funding innovative services for the homeless populations. I wanted to alert you the CIP that I submitted regarding restrooms and SLC. It is called Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/ Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design. I am a member of Friends of Fairmont Park (District 7) and we are committed to safe, accessible , open restrooms that meet the needs of our park. We have a busy, active park and need to have great bathrooms. We also think all parks should have this! I have had a support letter from Glendale Community Council (may be some of your constituents) and attached it. I know the Mayor has supported this in her funding list, and we all think a world class city inviting the world to come visit needs to have world class restrooms! I appreciate all you do, I love Rose Park (practiced there as a doctor for 20 years) and bike the Jordan River Trail all the time. I am your partner for a great city for all. I look forward to your support, Sarah Woolsey 5/29/2024 14:25 Kathryn Lindquist rezoning As you consider the redoing of downtown to accommodate the sports and culture center, please keep in mind that SLC's west side also likes to be able to see the mountains and doesn't need high-rises above the current level. I trust that you all know that Abravanel Hall is a city landmark, and anyone who allows it to be destroyed will carry that disgraceful legacy. Also, Japan Town should be accommodated for current status or expansion according to the wishes of the people who use it for the sake of respect, dignity, heritage and diversity. Thank you, Kathryn 5/29/2024 16:24 Jason Dalton Skatepark Hi. Im contacting in regards to the lack of skateparks in salt lake city. The Vans one at fairpark was a waste of money, terrible, rather drive to west valley or kearns are the only good ones in the entire valley. Please build some nearby downtown. Use whoever built west valley or kearns. Build some under the freeway somewhere with shade. Best skateparks in the country are under freeways. Pensacola FL, Boise ID, Birmingham AL. Are all excellent examples. Please build some. Thank you for your time. Jason Dalton 5/29/2024 16:26 Charles Parsons Pay raises I am opposed to the recommended pay raises for the mayor and council members, particularly when you will be raising sales taxes which have a disproportionate impact on those with a lower or fixed income and those in poverty. I guess that’s what we get for electing closeted Republican’s. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/29/2024 16:30 Richard Middleton The proposed Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District I know that it is very early in the process of developing this project, but I hope that as the project moves forward one important aspect will not be overlooked - the potential adverse impact of all this added lighting on the environment, both urban and natural I live in the Marmalade District, close to the capitol. I am already adversely impacted by the stadium lights of West High School, which are misdirected (and reach up as far as the capitol, an elevation several hundred feet higher than the school), and to a much lesser extent by the existing Delta Center billboards. My house used to enjoy magnificent views of the sunsets - now these are interrupted by glaring lights most weekdays. Unless modern standards of downward-facing lights, appropriate Kelvin values, and limits to hours of operation are required, the new district, with relaxed maximum height restrictions on buildings and more billboards (and possibly even floodlighting the various new buildings to create a "Las Vegas strip") would be a serious infringement on my property. And not only my property - most other downtown permanent residents would suffer similarly (I admit that may not concern those who envisage downtown as primarily a tourist destination devoted to the AirBnB trade). Inappropriate lighting would also of course directly conflict with Governor Cox's plea to create "dark skies". The Great Salt Lake lies on one of the greatest bird migration paths in the world, and its decline has already impacted numerous species that rely on it as a "refueling stop". Extensive research has found that excessive light at nighttime confuses migrating birds, making their journey even more perilous (of course skyscrapers also present a collision hazard during the day, especially since so many curtain walls are now made of glass). Utah as a state ought to be paying far more attention to this issue, since it is guardian to the lake, but at least in this case Salt Lake City could set a clear example of better urban design. Now that we are all thinking about the possibility of a future return of the Winter Olympics, it would be wonderful if Salt Lake City could show itself as a leader in urban environmental stewardship. Richard Middleton -- Richard Middleton, Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/29/2024 16:36 Carolyn Abravanel Hall Tuesday May 21 Council Meeting Entire Comments At the Tuesday May 21 Council Meeting, I spoke to voice my opposition to removal and/or relocating Maurice Abravanel Hall. However, I was cut off and couldn’t finish my comments. Below is my full statement. I would appreciate it if you would: 1. Confirm receipt of my email. 2. Continue to fight for Maurice Abravanel Hall to remain in its current location, and to reinvest in this historic building. Thank you for your time, Carolyn Abravanel My name is Carolyn Abravanel. I live in SL City, and I am the widow of Maurice Abravanel. I am here to voice my opposition the destruction of the Maurice Abravanel Hall, and I ask each of you to to scrutinize the “untold impacts” of voting to demolishing this Hall What are the costs to our culture, if you vote to demolish a world-class hall. For those that may not be aware, the land (where Abravanel Hall is currently located) was a gift from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They understood the value of placing the symphony in that location! What does your vote say to the world about the priorities of Utah if you are willing to: Erase the past, by demolishing this historical building, just because it seems easier & cheaper to relocate & replace? What does your vote say to the world about the values of Utah when a financial incentive is: More important that saving an iconic landmark? Which is the current home of a world renowned orchestra. Study what other cultures do! Do they replace their history? Or do they reinvest in their historical icons? They reinvest because they place value in their historical buildings and they take pride in honoring their past! As each of you cast your vote, what will your legacy illustrate to Utah and to the world? Will you be courageous enough to invest in saving this cultural, historical, and iconic building? Or Do you deem Maurice Abravanel Hall to be replaceable? Unworthy of financial investment? Willing to erase it’s 45-year contribution to society? Just one final comment… I highly doubt that NY City would ever consider demolishing the Metropolitan Opera just to make room for a hockey arena…. and I certainly hope you wouldn’t either. Thank you and good night 5/30/2024 10:10 Andy TRAN Retail Spaces @ Marmalade District Hi Council Member Wharton- Hope this email finds you well! I am reaching out in hopes of getting some help. Over the past few weeks, we have seen a significant uptick in the businesses along 600 N & 300 W either get broken into or trying to be broken into. We have videos of men breaking into the restaurants and of other men pulling and yanking super hard on the doors trying to get them opened...luckily to no avail. Hiring private security is a losing battle as we have tried this over at North Temple and the cost is overwhelming for small businesses. I am hoping maybe you can request PD to do more of a drive through in the area especially around 4-5am time as that is when we are seeing this happening. Thanks so much for what you do. Andy Tran 5/30/2024 10:15 Tyson Prettyman Rio Grande Plan Dear Chairperson Wharton, My name is Tyson Prettyman and I am a current Utah resident. I am reaching out to urge you to support the Rio Grand plan. If you are unaware of this proposal here is a link to the website https://riograndeplansaltlakecity.org/ This proposal will not only allow for a better, more connected public transport system in Salt Lake City, but it could act as a starting point to incorporate more public transit to our lovely state. This would allow for better mobility for the average citizen creating a more interconnect community. This is a great opportunity to start building a more engaged and connected state and I hope you can see the benefits it can bring. I urge you once more to truly consider this plan and the positive influence it can have. Thank you for your time. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/30/2024 11:03 Nathan Leber Refurbish, don't demolish Abravanel Hall As the Council is reviewing the proposed development plans and zoning changes around the Delta Center, It is imperative that the plans include the refurbishment, nor demolition of Abravanel Hall. The symphony hall is a unique treasure in downtown Salt Lake. Designed first and foremost for the symphony with the consultation of Dr. Cyril M. Harris, the Hall has excellent acoustics. The symphony hall has been host to scores of performances, lectures, and even comedians since it's construction. The Hall even has connections to the 2002 winter Olympics serving as the site John Williams used to recorded the “Call of the Champions.” Built in 1979, Abvaranel Hall is showing its age. The Hall is no longer new and suffering from deferred maintenance. When the estimate of cost between remodel and rebuild are relatively similar It can be tempting, as a steward of the public trust, to look at demolition as the prudent option from an up front cost perspective. However, this line of thinking does not truly take into consideration the impact the loss of the Hall will have on the community. There are several compelling reasons why refurbishment is the wise option and keeping with the public trust. 1. Abravanel Hall is a treasured building with close ties to Salt Lake City and Utah's musical community. The symbolic gesture alone of demolishing the building, even with an eventual replacement, conveys the message that the arts are not an important part of the community. 2. Demolition will require either the temporary relocation, or the cessation of symphony concerts altogether during construction. This will be very disruptive to the Utah Symphony. Although remodeling will also be disruptive, the impact can be significantly lower than demolition. Refurbishment will allow portions of the construction to be phased, allowing portions of the building to remain in use, limiting disruption compared to demolition. 3. From a sustainability standpoint, refurbishing buildings is much more efficient than tearing down the same building and replacing it. Less materials are used, less energy is expended, fewer greenhouse gasses are emitted. Buildings should not be disposable. Repairing and refurbishing Abravanel Hall so that it can stand another 50, 100, 200 years is a much wiser long term investment than throwing the existing building in the landfill and building a new concert hall. 4. New construction is just as costly or and often more costly than remodeling. While initial estimate may seem comparable, the reality is the real cost is often much higher. For example, the Elbphilharmonie (Elbe Philharmonic Hall) in Hamburg Germany was initially planned with a construction budget of 200 million Euros. The final construction cost ballooned to 866 million Euros, over four times the initial estimate. Please save Abravanel Hall 5/30/2024 12:28 Anonymous Constituent Pay increases I feel that the work has not been done as promised. The council and the mayor do not deserve a pay increase at all. There are too many other things that need fixing and attention. 5/30/2024 15:31 Anonymous Constituent Subsidizing one of the richest Utahns (Multi Billionaire) Why does the city need to add a sales tax to everyone in the city to help the owner of a billionaire? This sales tax affects people on fixed incomes, the homeless, the poor students, and the young families scraping by. 0.5% may not feel like much for people with owned homes and pensions, but for those living paycheck to paycheck that have seen their buying power cut in half over the past decade - it hurts a lot! Please stop subsidizing billionaires. Utah is great. The capital, people, and business want to be here, you don't need to pay and incentivize them to come. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/30/2024 15:50 Lori Wike SECC District/Revitalization Zone: Abravanel Hall funding allocation Dear Council Members, I am a resident of Salt Lake City District 5 and I am the Principal Bassoonist of the Utah Symphony. I am writing to request prioritization of funding allocation for the preservation and renovation of Abravanel Hall in the current SECC District negotiations. I was heartened to read, in Salt Lake Tribune reporter Andy Larsen’s 5/29 interview with Mayor Mendenhall, that “preservation and incorporation of the historic components of our downtown are also chief among those” public benefits that Mayor Mendenhall is committed to prioritizing in the current negotiations with SEG. Please preserve our historic and irreplaceable Abravanel Hall and incorporate it into this SECC district with great care and consideration. “Opened in 1979, Abravanel Hall is one of the finest concert halls in America, and is internationally recognized for its acoustics. This architectural icon in Salt Lake City has served the people of Utah for 38 years [now 45 years] and is a monument to the rich cultural heritage of our community… Abravanel Hall is revered as one of the finest concert halls in America. Patrons are continually amazed at the acoustics and beautiful finishes within the hall.” The above words are taken directly from the 2016 Abravanel Hall Master Plan for renovations and they are echoed by so many—including the 40,000 people (and counting) who have signed the change.org petition to Save Abravanel Hall. Abravanel Hall is an historic and iconic building of exceptional significance to the people of Utah. Its extraordinary acoustics are of exceptional significance and rarity and are something that everyone in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the state of Utah should treasure. Please commit to preserving Abravanel Hall and please prioritize allocating funds for its renovations as a part of the SECC District/ Revitalization Zone project. If this SEG deal is going to happen, then please prioritize public benefits within it as much as possible and make Abravanel Hall one of these prioritizations, along with commitments to Japantown, UMOCA and affordable housing. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your work as Council Members. Lori Wike 5/30/2024 15:51 Phil H Beer at the confluence I honestly do not feel that the city should be sponsoring a BEER FEST !!! Phil Hansen SLC resident 5/30/2024 16:00 Catherine Lukes property tax increase This added property tax is absolutely despicable and abuse of SLC taxpayers. 5/30/2024 16:54 Yuki MacQueen G20 - Abravanel Hall I joined the Utah Symphony in June 2000. The acoustics of Abravanel Hall are wonderful. It was designed for unamplified, symphonic music, and it does this exceptionally well even compared to the concrete halls of North and South America, Europe, and Japan, in which I have had the privilege with to perform. Granted, there are certain maintenance updates that cannot be ignored, like the HVAC system. However, renovation estimates have been artificially inflated, it being an exhaustive wish list/of all the things that could be done to make the audience experience better and bading dock more convenient, etc. (front and back of house estimates). The $200 million plus estimates should not be held as equivalent to the dramatic underestimation of a new build. I find it offensive that Mr. Maughan considers Abravanel Hall as the "wall" or impediment in the flow of a discrete line from the Delta center to the Nordstrom buildings. 5/30/2024 17:05 Ng Starks G20 - Abravanel Hall The council needs to save our history. Let us vote! 5/30/2024 17:07 Maia Gold G20 Should here be a ballot initiative to approve the tax for this purpose? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/30/2024 20:35 Jason Martin Unsheltered people shouldn't be sleeping on my front lawn For weeks now it seems that there is a new practice to push people out of Liberty Park each night. This has led to people camping on the park strip in front of my house and my neighbor's house. Not only are they often loud and disruptive, they also leave behind a huge mess that no one in the city seems to feel responsible for cleaning. I have found used condoms, drug paraphernalia, an old computer, a saw, a milk carton meth lab, numerous food waste, and various other hazardous materials in front of my house. In addition, they broke branches off of our tree and ruined other plants. They have also left behind human waste. I have submitted at least 3 complaints through the mySLC.gov app and was told I was in a queue for about a week and then received notice that they'd closed my case because a scout said the tent was gone. While I would like people to stop shouting and doing drugs on my front lawn each night, I would also like someone from the city to clean up the hazardous waste left behind. It is certainly better for people sleep in a public park with restrooms and trashcans than in front of a private residence. I hope the city council will take swift action to prevent this ongoing issue from continuing. 5/31/2024 9:10 Jake Ryan Water conservation How about instead of asking nicely we just enact and enforce a lawn watering compliance legislation? Empower neighbors to hold each other accountable by reporting improper water usage. Raise the tax credit incentive to zeroscape. Same with the car idling law, which is USELESS without enforcement. I swear you knucklehead politicians don't actually care to get results so long as y'all get paid. Disappointed in all of you. 👎 Feel free to take a look at this document I've drafted regarding a voter initiative to amend the idol-free ordinance which has historically not been enforced in the city. https://docs.google.com/document/d/14MiKSgfqFIq9uQkXYnK- VUuQqgQI6KLTkQVpUPHMZPw/edit?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1N7hGyiyPjOnyS5x_XiXY2O3T_9hGaWluJL dfFA8DcB8_RVQVFpQnt5Ys_aem_Afoy5mjZ-eq57GuMGU00Eb5d3bytRyu1NshqroRsNW9aae9bNP59tmBMcJ- PPXcqqu0wO4EHHQPVn4PwlqhY-8Ql 5/31/2024 11:35 Sabrina Fivas Question about the proposed MLB team and hockey team Hi Victoria, I’m writing to you to ask about the proposed MLB team/stadium and the proposed hockey team and sales tax increase. Do you as a city council member get to vote on these proposals? I cannot wrap my head around the idea that our sales tax will increase and help pay for these things when both groups proposing them are BILLIONAIRES. If you get any say in how this turns out, I would hope you are strongly opposed to subsidizing the building of these things because it will be to our detriment. I was born and raised in Rose Park and feel like we are completely left out of the decision making process. There is also plenty of research that shows NO economic benefit to a surrounding community when a sports arena is constructed in the vicinity. No social or economic benefit at all and in our situation, a tax increase. I’m so worried about the future of my neighborhood and our city. Thank you for your time, Sabrina Fivas Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 5/31/2024 14:22 Nicholas Von Stackelberg Downtown Sports and Entertainment District Hello Councilmember Mano: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposal to raise sales tax 0.5% in SLC to pay for an entertainment district. I strongly urge a NO vote on this proposal for the reasons outlined below. At a minimum, this should be put before the voters as a referendum. Taxpayers should be allowed to make a decision of such consequence for our city and pocketbooks. These are some of the reasons I do not support this proposal: This will exacerbate income inequality in our city by using public financing to further enrich a billionaire brat/sports bro and all the millionaires associated with the basketball and hockey teams. If he can afford to overpay $600 million for the hockey team, he can afford to renovate his own stadium. It is morally bankrupt to raise taxes to pay for sports and entertainment in the context of the unsheltered population crisis in SLC. You cannot spend time in any park in the city without being confronted with this issue head-on. I recently volunteered for a trash clean-up on the Jordan River, and the amount of trash is overwhelming and toxic, some/much of it from those living in tents along the river. This housing problem is inhumane and negatively impacts our quality of life, recreational enjoyment and ecosystem function in the city. Downtown is not in need of revitalization - it is doing just fine, thanks in part to the City's leadership. Furthermore, a private entity should not direct the revitalization, especially an area as historically and culturally important as Japantown. This is bad government practice and policy that will further breed cynicism in future public endeavors. I myself am a sports fan and watch sports on television. I do not attend Utah Jazz games, as the product they have on offer is not worth the exorbitant ticket prices. I experienced this very same issue in Seattle. A brief synopsis: Seattle citizens passed a referendum banning public financing of arenas/stadiums. In response, the NBA allowed the Supersonics to move to Oklahoma City (a move that hurt the NBA more than Seattle, I would argue). In the intervening years, Seattle was awarded a hockey team and Climate Pledge Arena was renovated entirely through private financing ($1.15 billion). So cities don't have to bow to monopolistic sports leagues, only insecure ones do. So if he wants to move his teams to Draper/Lehi/Orem or wherever, life will go on for our city. (On a side note, having experienced the heartbreak of losing the Sonics, I find it ironic how callously super-nice Utah is to devastate other communities (New Orleans and Phoenix) by stealing their professional sports teams.) Thanks for your consideration. Nicholas von Stackelberg District 5 Resident PS. I am supportive of pay raises for the Mayor and Council Members. In the future, make it an annual thing, rather than waiting ten years. 5/31/2024 15:18 Perry Bankhead comment for council I am against any tax increase for the new entertainment zone around the Delta Center. As you already know (or can research) Arena's do not economically improve the city. And an increase means that the majority of the people in SLC get no use from it. I would like to see a tax added to the events at the arena so that the people attending the events are paying for the renovations and those who can not afford to attend events are not subsidizing those who live outside of SLC for the upgrades. 5/31/2024 18:43 Anonymous Constituent why is tax increase needed?If the rezoning is favorable to development why is a tax increase needed vs the developer funding since they and the tenants will be yielding the profits of operation and capital appreciation? Is any of the tax increase an offset to tax breaks to developers or tenants? And how on earth can a tax increase on residents be justified in the middle of economic hardship, huge utility bill increases and steep inflation over the past 4 years? The development district website conspicuously omits this key information. 5/31/2024 21:54 Damien Bosse Stop giving billionaires our tax money I'm tired of billionaires claiming to be giving us redevelopment benefits while taking our tax money. If they want a new stadium that they will charge us admission for, then they can take out a loan. Make the smith group develop their new stadium on their own dime, unless you're handing out free money to everyone in the city now. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 9:16 June s Taylor Renovating Abravanel Hall Dear Dan, Just my input on the current discussion on Abravanel Hall: It’s beyond ridiculous to consider trashing the current hall & building a new one because 1. Building a new one as good as Abravanel would cost as much or more -guaranteed. Practically every estimate of “new stuff” costs, from the new Prison by GSL to the projected Gondola up LCC, is lowball. I guess the developers consider us all stupid sheep to be sheared. Which I for one resent. 2. The acoustics of the current hall are great - and there is no way in hell that a new hall could be guaranteed to have acoustics as good. That alone should dictate choosing to renovate. 3. Last but not least: Why should I trust leadership & its advisors on building vs renovation when it’s clear SLC & the state of Utah can’t even take care of the assets it has? Like, why haven’t at least some of the needed renovations , like the ADA retrofits, been done over the years? Inquiring minds want to know. June Taylor 6/3/2024 9:18 Brad Bush I oppose the tax increase Dan, Just registering my opposition to a tax increase to fund these downtown vanity projects. There are so many other priorities we should be focused on, and so many more sustainable paths to growth and making SLC a great city to live in. Mendenhall is a very problematic mayor (I was disappointed you endorsed her) and this is just a textbook Mendenhall example of the wrong direction she’s taking the city. Thanks, Brad 6/3/2024 9:40 Aline Devaud Against .5% tax increase for downtown revitalization project Hello Council members, I am opposed to paying more tax for the proposed downtown revitalization project. I would be in favor of a smaller tax increase state- or county-wide to increase public transportation and reduce or eliminate the cost of public transportation. How about doing something that will improve the well-being for many and improve the air quality for all of us? I know that this proposal may be bigger than what the SLC Council can do but at the same time, I'm suggesting that SLC citizens also not be burdened with a tax increase to benefit the few. Thanks, Aline Devaud Dan Dugan's district 6/3/2024 9:43 Becky Johnson Re: Feedback re: Sales Tax Increase Hello- I am a resident of Salt Lake City and in advance of the May 21 public hearing, I would like to provide my input regarding the City Council's consideration of a proposal to increase citywide sales tax by 0.5 to support development of a Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention (SECC) District around the Delta Center. I do not support this proposal. The citizens of Salt Lake should have been able to vote on a proposed sales tax increase PRIOR to the decision being made for the NHL team to come to Salt Lake. Ryan Smith, owner of the NHL team, should take responsibility to fund development of the SECC District. In addition, I am a regular patron of fine arts and regarding Abravanel Hall, I am adamantly opposed to tear down and rebuild on the current site, or another site. Please send acknowledgement of receipt of this email. Thank you, Becky Johnson 6/3/2024 9:44 Joyce Marder Abravanel Hall I support the preservation of Abravanel Hall and what’s left of Japantown. I oppose subsidizing a sports complex with an increase in taxes of any kind. Joyce Marder 6/3/2024 9:48 Elizabeth ROGERS Bonneville Shoreline Trail Access Greetings Mr. Dugan, Thank you for your service to our community. I have lived in Arcadia Heights for more than 20 years, and it came to my attention last week that we may lose public access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail next to the H rock. This is an iconic outdoor space in Salt Lake City that I hope we can preserve. What influence do we as community members have to keep this trail public? Can we create a petition? I would like to do everything I can to take action to keep this space from private development and seek your council on this matter. Thank you so much for your consideration. Sincerely, Liz Bond Rogers District 6 Resident 6/3/2024 9:49 Aline Devaud Bonneville Shoreline trail at top of Lakeline drive Hello Dan, I was surprised and dismayed on my walk last Friday to encounter the person installing a fence and sign closing off the south entry to the Bonneville Shoreline trail just north of the Parley's Pointe trailhead. Please do what you can to reinstate public access to this stretch of trail. Thank you, Aline Devaud Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 9:51 Alessandro Rigolon Re: H Rock/East Bench Preserve access Dear Councilmember Dugan and Public Lands, I'm writing to express my concern about signs that the East Bench Preserve might no longer be accessible from Lakeline Dr and Scenic Dr. I have seen posts and orange nets in the last few days, alongside a sign saying "private property - no trespassing." As you know, this is an extremely popular trail and open space, very well used, and part of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail system, which the city and state are seeking to expand. Removing access would go against that goal. Is there any official update from the city regarding this trail? I remember reading that the city was seeking to negotiate with this property owner. The trail has been open for such a long time that it would be a huge loss for the neighborhood. I use that trail at least 4 or 5 times per week, and it is a big reason why I chose to live in my neighborhood (on the other side of Foothill Dr). I would appreciate any information you can provide. Thanks, Alessandro Alessandro Rigolon Beacon Heights resident 6/3/2024 10:04 Andrew Turscak Access to East Bench Preserve Good Morning Dan, As a resident of the East Bench neighborhood, it is disappointing that the property owner has decided to close off access to iconic hiking like Jack's Peak, the H Rock, and the rest of the East Bench Preserve. I view these areas as the main reason I love my neighborhood. Closing access to this area seems counter productive for the character and health of the community, as well as state objectives to expand access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The area is well taken care of by recreationists and residents like myself, and I see no logical reason for it's shuttering. Please let me know if you have any resources available to folks like myself who would like to keep this area available for public access. Best, Andrew Turscak 6/3/2024 10:05 Joan OGDEN Councilpersons' "automatic" salary increase as proposed by the mayor I very much appreciate the work that you do on behalf of our district and the citizens of Salt Lake City. That said, I note the story in today’s Salt Lake Tribune, regarding the mayor’s proposal for a 26% increase for her salary, which would automatically increase councilpersons’ salaries by the same percentage to roughly $53,000 for what is described as “half-time” work. That would put the salary for councilpersons at about 86% of the average salary (for full time work) in the city, and at about 59% of the full-time salary for top earners in the City. I am concerned that citizens would see the increase as inappropriately large. Best, Joan Ogden Average Salary in Salt Lake City, UT Annual Salary Hourly Wage Top Earners $89,626 $43 75th Percentile $78,899 $38 Average $61,685 $30 25th Percentile $44,471 $21 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 10:07 Chris Storbeck Proposed Pay Increase Mr. Dugan, We are strongly opposed to the proposed increase to Mayor Mendenhall’s salary and to the nearly 26% salary increase for City Council members. Elected positions are public service positions. If the individuals running for office think the salary is inadequate, they should either forgo running for election, or make a pay increase part of their political platform. Less than a year ago, Mayor Mendenhall was re-elected with 58% of the vote. While this number is a majority, it can also be viewed as a 42% disapproval rating! It is noteworthy that this increase in pay was not put to the voters, but is instead being proposed when the public does not have the ability to reject it. The Mayor and Council have consistently sided with “moneyed interests” in city development projects. The proposed sales tax increase to primarily benefit the wealthy owners of the local professional sports franchises, the leasing of public land in Sunnyside Park to the University, and decisions that benefit property developers are all examples of putting private interests ahead of the publics. Similarly, the Mayor’s focus on projects that come to fruition in future decades, if at all, shows a shocking lack of attention to everyday problems. The streets and roads are in the worst condition I’ve seen in the many years my wife and I have lived in Salt Lake City. Similarly, the Mayor’s “feel good” projects like the gas leaf blower exchange, or tree planting in public spaces without plans to care for them, are ineffectual initiatives that waste public funds. The population of Salt Lake City is increasing at the rate of 1% per year. Such slow growth does not justify large increases in the salaries of city administrators. In general, the city’s population faces steady increases in fees for garbage collection, water, and other city services, while congestion and quality of life in areas like Sugarhouse and Guardsman Way get worse. If the Council wishes to approve a pay raise for itself and the mayor, that pay raise should be identical to pay increases for all city employees, and should approximate the rate of inflation. A performance or “market based” pay increase is unjustified and, in fact, ludicrous. Chris and Jeri Storbeck 6/3/2024 10:10 Sydney Zimonja SLC Airport Hello, We are East High School seniors and wanted to express our concern about the accessibility in the new Salt Lake City airport. With gate B being so far, individuals may have a hard time getting to their gate without assistance. If people are in a hurry, the lack of accessibility could cause issues when trying to make connecting flights or arriving to their gate on time. The updated airport is good for accounting for the expanding demand for air travel. Having so many direct flights from Salt Lake with a variety of airlines makes it welcoming, desirable and convenient for people traveling. Thank you so much for your time, East High Students 6/3/2024 10:12 Paula Morris NHL Arena Our family is opposed to the sales tax increase in Salt Lake City (Capitol Revitalization). Why only our SLC city council can vote on this proposal makes no sense. Voters should have a say in the matter. We have 8 voters in our family living in SLC including our adult children and two grandchildren who are registered voters now. We all are opposed for public money for a hockey arena. Using some data from the Utah Taxpayers association about how much a family will be taxed ranges from $150 more a year to $400 more a year. And this is for 30 years. I would expect that the City Council and Mayor provide more exact figures. I have read the bill SB272 and also noticed that sales tax could also be raised in West Valley City and West Jordan (first class cities in a first class county). If this sales tax increase passes our family will be making larger purchases in the County from now on to reduce our tax burden. Salt Lake County is a short drive. Paula Morris 6/3/2024 10:14 Joan OGDEN Ryan Smith "wants"Per today’s Salt Lake Tribune issue, Smith wants to soak Salt Lake City for his own pockets. NOOOOOOO! Joan Ogden Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 10:16 Tyler Cruickshank Hockey Tax Hi Dan. My input on the potential tax increase for Ryan Smith. The hockey team is fine if not good, however, I probably won't go. The tax proposal is not fine and feels like a real inside job. This year I started working at the SLCSE high school in Rose Park. I wanted to see if I could help and encourage kids. I'm just a paraprofessional even though I have a graduate education etc. As a paraprofessional you can't work more than 29 hours, no benefits and make 18$ an hour. It's unlivable. These kids need help and I'm helping but there are not enough parapros and there's not enough money. The tax increase along with the terms of the proposal would be a real slap in the face. Thanks for listening. -tyler and 4 adult family members. 6/3/2024 10:19 C M Bender Input on upcoming vote re sales tax increase to fund Ryan Smith’s hobbies Dan, I’m one of your constituents. I’d like to express my preference for a no vote on increasing the sales tax (or any of the other handouts he wants) to fund Ryan Smith’s latest hobby venture. Here’s why: There is no evidence that public financing of privately held entertainment venues or districts provides any tangible economic benefit to the cities that pursue this course of action. There are, however, multiple studies that demonstrate public financial participation doesn’t provide any tangible economic benefits to the taxpayers. If Mr. Smith wants to enhance the Delta Center to better accommodate his customers, that’s his choice. If he wants to develop and build a surrounding “entertainment district”, again, that’s his choice. Asking for public help to pay for this completely private business venture is the behavior of a panhandler, not a businessman running a successful private business. Salt Lake City doesn’t need his teams presence in the Delta Center to remain a vibrant, growing city. Nobody is moving here, staying here, or keeping downtown vibrant because the Jazz and an NHL team to be named later play 82 times in the winter. If he decides he wants to move, let some other city pay the billion dollar price tag. Agreeing to Mr. Smith’s demands to remain in downtown won’t benefit the majority of Salt Lake City residents but it will certainly cost us socially, morally and economically. Thanks MIke Bender 6/3/2024 10:22 Austin Grams New “Delta Center” Arena / other SLC issues Dear Councilman Dugan, The funding for the new “Delta Center” arena in downtown Salt Lake City should not be funded by taxpayers. Sales taxes for a sporting arena is a big NO. The arena can be funded via private contributions, and/or renovated privately at a much more affordable rate like many other professional sports team owners do. Salt Lake City, the state of Utah, and the United States of America has a much more serious problem of national debt, rampant inflation, unaccounted for impulsive spending, funding overseas wars, unacceptable Social Security Disability & Social Security problems. This is unacceptable to force more taxes. Thank you, Austin Grams. 6/3/2024 10:27 Byron CANNON Sports facilities frenzy in SLC Dan: My entire family is concerned that SLC's frenzy to spend millions more for more sports and arenas has gotten out of control. Please oppose any plans that will cost tax payers for this sudden and unnecessary movement! Thank you, The Cannon family 6/3/2024 10:29 Diane Hartz Warsoff Abravanel Hall Dear Councilman Dugan - I have been dismayed to learn that the new "entertainment" district proposed for the new NHL team could result in the destruction of a very unique and special building, Abravanel Hall. I have attended over 100 concerts and talks there in the past 30 years, and the acoustics and overall ambiance would be difficult to duplicate. In addition, this proposal comes less than one year before the building is eligible to be placed on the National Historic Registry. Please ensure that the total tenor of downtown SLC isn't usurped for a sports team, regardless of where the money comes from. As your constituent and an SLC resident, please do the right thing for our city. Sincerely, Diane Hartz Warsoff Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 10:30 Tom Stephens Ryan Smith's entertain district and tax dollars Dear Dan, When everyone is in favor of a certain course of action, it’s time to be highly skeptical. Ryan Smith’s grand plan for an entertainment district has received a lot of positive press. Mr. Smith comes from a predictable mold – an entrepreneur who makes it big, highly enthusiastic, a promoter to his core, buying professional sports teams, on top of the world at this point in time. If the city is intent of helping fund Mr. Smith’s grand plans, please strike a hard bargain, a very, very hard bargain, including having your antenna up for Smith’s lobbyists and sophisticated public relations. Sincerely, Tom Stephens .. a resident of Salt Lake City for 20 years before moving to Millcreek. 6/3/2024 10:32 Ryan Moran Smith Entertainment Group . Dear Mr. Duggan, My name is Ryan Moran and I live in your district. I am writing to express my staunch opposition to the Smith Entertainment Group’s plans for its downtown expansion. The following KSL article has detailed plans https://www.ksl.com/article/51001504/smith-entertainment-group-seeks-99-year-lease-2-extra-blocks-as- part-of-salt-lake-plan. SEG asks for carte blanche to redevelop two city blocks, doesn’t detail which blocks those will be, and seems to expect the city to pay for this. Individually, any of these demands would be abhorrent. Taken together, this is an absurd demand for a redevelopment plan that most economists agree will demonstrate very little net benefit to the city. You are quoted in this article as touting the potential benefits to downtown. I would urge you to read some of the reporting that Andy Larsen has done for the Salt Lake Tribune on this issues (such as this https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2024/02/03/andy-larsen-how-much-are-you/). In short, the economists Larsen cites all note that sports stadiums do not provide a net benefit for the city; they essentially shift spending from one part of the city to the downtown area. If SEG was willing to foot the bill for the stadium, that would be one thing. To give a huge subsidy to a project that will provide little benefit to the entire city, however, will be awful. The fact that historic Japantown, one of Salt Lake’s only historic ethnic communities falls within this potential footprint is a further travesty. I urge you to vote against this plan and the approval of any tax increases for the construction of SEG’s stadium. I have voted for you in the past as I thought you would do the most to support affordable housing and improved public transit infrastructure. Spending one billion dollars to construct a stadium will take away from these important issues, and likely further the problem of affordable housing that is already hurting so many of our city’s residents. Sincerely, Ryan Moran 6/3/2024 10:33 Paula Morris Downtown I listened to the presentation before the City Council last week and was very disappointed with both Mayors. Sitting there on either side of Mr. Maughn was not a good look. I did appreciate your comment on going slow but it seems to be a done deal with no public vote and just the one public hearing next week. The artist drawing of downtown SLC looks like Vegas or Times Square. So sad. I am appalled that anyone would buy into using the phrase that SEG wants to keep Abravanel Hall "on-site". That's pathetic. I am one of the almost 35,000 signators of the change.org petition to keep Abravanel Hall just the way it is. There is a contract between SLC and Dale Chihuly about his glass sculpture. I guess someone will find away around it and move it or destroy it. After all, we need more than one helipad for the billionaires. Paula Morris 6/3/2024 10:37 Tom Bielen Entertainment District Vote Why do we want to give all that cash to a billionaire.Our roadways are pot holes The police force has been reduced etc. This proposal points out everything that Is wrong with government activity. Hope you vote no. Tom Bielen Voter in your district Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/3/2024 13:57 Kerri Nakamura FW: (EXTERNAL) Consideration of Fayette Avenue street improvement CIP - Constituent Submitted application number 451357 Council Members: I recognize that you are in the thick of budget deliberations and that finding funding for capital projects that didn't make the Mayor's Recommended budget is a tall task. That said, I am asking you to consider the funding request for street improvements, including sidewalk, curb/gutter, and most importantly street light installation on Fayette Avenue between 200 West and Washington Street in the Central Ninth Community Council. Fayette Avenue does not meet Salt Lake City's minimum street standards. This project has broad community support, including strong Central Ninth Community Council support, and would help the Central Ninth community by improving two large parcels of Salt Lake City land that are located adjacent to Fayette Avenue. As outlined in the application, this project is part of a much larger project the community is working on with UDOT to improve UDOT's property in the area. The upgrade of Salt Lake City's land will send a great signal to UDOT to remain engaged with us as we work to improve their properties. Thank you for considering funding for this application during the 2024-25 funding cycle. Best, Kerri Nakamura 6/3/2024 16:20 S Crofula Comments The proposal to raise the city tax to support the arena is fundamentally unsound. We are a desirable market for professional sports teams, which make enough money to build their own infrastructure. Let them walk rather than punish the locals. Other teams will beg to come here. 6/3/2024 16:23 James Miska Feedback on Food Equity Microgrant I want to let you on City Council know that the Food Equity Microgrant in both years 2023 and 2024 have been helpful to dozens of individuals and groups in this City that are struggling for equity in terms of food access. To my understanding, this year, 2024, the budget allowance for this grant was for $40,000. However, the amount applied for by all individuals and groups was over $146,000. This demonstrates the present need of between 3 and 4 times the amount supplied by the City for this grant. Worth taking into account is the fact that, even though close to 4 times the amount of money was asked for than was supplied, that was ONLY coming from those in the know about this grant. If more people knew about this grant (I only heard of it by word-of-mouth), then it is a given that MORE money would be applied for. Therefore, in this next year's budget, please INCREASE the amount supplied for the Food Equity Microgrant program to at least 4 times the amount from 2024, to $160,000. Maria Schwartz has been fantastic to interact with and she is doing a great job heading up the program. Thank you, James Miska District 4 6/3/2024 16:45 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Why is it the Salt City Council is ignoring the nepotism in the Salt Lake City Golf Administrates Office. The People there are ruining golf in the Salt Lake City for their own personal agenda, Mainly Kelsey Chugg she should really be investigated for nepotism. It's really sad. All the people who play golf in Salt Lake City will find out about this and they all voted for Salt Lake City Council Members. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/4/2024 9:09 Kerri Nakamura Consideration of Fayette Avenue street improvement CIP - Constituent Submitted application number 451357 / D5 Council Members: I recognize that you are in the thick of budget deliberations and that finding funding for capital projects that didn't make the Mayor's Recommended budget is a tall task. That said, I am asking you to consider the funding request for street improvements, including sidewalk, curb/gutter, and most importantly street light installation on Fayette Avenue between 200 West and Washington Street in the Central Ninth Community Council. Fayette Avenue does not meet Salt Lake City's minimum street standards. This project has broad community support, including strong Central Ninth Community Council support, and would help the Central Ninth community by improving two large parcels of Salt Lake City land that are located adjacent to Fayette Avenue. As outlined in the application, this project is part of a much larger project the community is working on with UDOT to improve UDOT's property in the area. The upgrade of Salt Lake City's land will send a great signal to UDOT to remain engaged with us as we work to improve their properties. Thank you for considering funding for this application during the 2024-25 funding cycle. Best, Kerri Nakamura 6/4/2024 9:24 Jan Hay Comment on water rate increase - D2 This voice message came from a resident of Poplar Grove concerning the Public Utilities item on the agenda for tomorrow’s Council Meeting. She wanted to voice the concerns of her community about the continued rate increases with water bills and garbage collection. She is requesting that Council Member Puy advocate for keeping these rates low, particularly as many of the residents of Poplar Grove are living in poverty. She would like to see the funding for the water reclamation facility come from another source. She also mentioned that it is nearly impossible to have a vegetable garden any more because of the increased water bill costs. 6/4/2024 9:34 Carl Smith Voicemail to City Council Voicemail: My name is Carl Smith. I live in D1, Victoria is my Councilwoman. She is doing a great job. I haven't given her enough credit but I seen her in action and she is doing great. I wanted to comment on the budget Fy 2025 proposal. There is one thing you are not taking into account and that is inflation market values. Property taxes are increasing quite a bit and you will receive a huge windfall. You can use a fund in between to pay for that infrastructure you need to build for all the new projects you are proposing. You can use that instead of the new fees and sales taxes. Only SLC will be paying that tax but all of Utah will reap the benefits, it isn't really fair and it isn't really an opportunity like you think it is. It is mostly for the legislators and mostly the state but you don't care about the City, it seems to me. I don't think most people see this, but I have an education in economics, finance, and politics from the U of U. I know that the things you are proposing and the tools that you are using are basically just not effective and disincentivizing to the people who live here. They will not shop here and not want to live here. It will become like California and we all know what prop 13 did California in relation to the sales tax. I can see SLC turning into a regressive state. You are also proposing that the Mayor get a 26% pay raise and that is outrageous. Stating that is is a market correction when it is not. It is a money grab when everyone else is hurting because of inflation. Do not do it, I am against it. I am okay with the Council receiving an increase in pay, just because of the fact that they have a hard job and they would probably do a but better with a higher pay or maybe we will get better people from the rest of the districts. I think you are making a huge mistake and being callus with fees. You are using the water increase across the board as a sale tax so you should drop those. Decreased water usage should be rewarded not disincentivizing as well. I think another governmental mistake. I don't understand how you can't make choices while seeing how it will effect the future. Wait a bit and see the money come in from increased property taxes. I don't see why we need to pay an increase for someone's wet dream. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/4/2024 14:09 Sara F Taggart Opioid Settlement Spending I’d like to know what plans the city has made on spending the opioid settlement money. Where can I find more information and what kind of accountability measures are being put in place to ensure the money goes to the right people (people affected now and prevention) 6/4/2024 15:02 Executive Presbyter Petition PLNPCM2024-00441 Presbytery of Utah Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 699 E. South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Concerns Regarding the Newly Planned Entertainment District: On behalf of the Presbytery of Utah, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Entertainment District and its potential impact on the Japanese Church of Christ (JCC). As a remnant of Japantown—a once vibrant and active community—the JCC holds significant cultural and historical value. Unfortunately, during the 1960s, much of Japantown was dispersed and nearly eradicated when the Salt Palace was built. Only the JCC, the Buddhist temple, and a garden remain as witnesses to this rich heritage. The JCC continues to play an essential role in celebrating cultural and religious diversity. Throughout the year, it hosts various events that honor Japantown's legacy. However, the current district plans threaten to eliminate these last remaining witnesses of our community's past. While I understand the financial benefits associated with the new district, I implore you to consider including Japantown in your plans. By doing so, the city can demonstrate its commitment to preserving cultural diversity and honoring the contributions of Japantown. Moreover, I ask that the JCC be treated with the same respect afforded to places of worship associated with the dominant religion here in Utah. Interfaith relations are crucial for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as emphasized by President Monson and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf at the General Conference in April 2008 where both shared, “I would encourage members of the Church wherever they may be to show kindness and respect for all people everywhere. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours.” Further they declared, “we honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fullness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father."(https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interfaith#:~:text=Uchtdorf%20of%20the%20First%20 Presidency, for%20their%20selflessness%20and%20courage.) We Presbyterians have very good interfaith experiences with different faith traditions here in Utah, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hope that we can see this relationship in how the New Entertainment District honors and respects the JCC and Japantown. I am willing to engage in further conversations and offer assistance to create a plan that both respects progress and preserves the Japanese heritage. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. Mirjam Haas-Melchior (she/her/hers) Executive Presbyter Presbytery of Utah 6/4/2024 15:40 Executive Presbyter FW: (EXTERNAL) Petition PLNPCM2024-00441 **Attachment 2 *this comment is attached as a picture* I acknowledge the Ute, Goshute, Paiute, Shoshone and Navaho tribal peoples on whose land I live and work and offer my deepest respect to the Native American Elders both past and present. 6/4/2024 16:16 Andy Moss Please review NHL Deal I just saw the prices for the season tickets. They are higher than the jazz season tickets and are higher then pretty much any NHL team. If our taxes are going towards the delta center it should be affordable to the people. Please ask the smiths to look at costs and reconsider their prices so it can be a team for all and not the elite Attachment 2 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/4/2024 16:24 David Troester Comment: City budget for water and sewer I’m opposed to proposed increases for Public Utilities water and sewer rates. Often my monthly water fees are double or more than the charge for my water usage. Last month, for example, my water service fee was $13.41 and my water charge was $6.03. See my bill below. My fees should never be more than my usage charge. It’s punitive and mismanagement. Please add these comments to the official record of comment regarding the proposed rate increases and redact my address. Thanks, DB Troester 6/4/2024 19:34 Emily Radivoyevich FY25 City Budget Hello. I am a resident of District 5 and am messaging to voice my feedback on the FY25 city budget. I support the following budget proposals: - the increase in property taxes to support the City Library system - repairing fractured sidewalks and making pedestrian crosswalks safer - increasing public transit and on-demand ride services on the west side - AFFORDABLE housing Single family homes LESS THAN $350K, more condos to own, RENT CAPS PLEASE - the increase of funds for community and neighborhoods that support open streets, parks and Tracy Aviary I do not support the following budget proposals: - the increase of SLCPD budget, including new cops along the Jordan River and North Temple You are using my tax dollars for the wrong thing. I want my taxes going towards resources for the homeless and that doesn't just look like more beds in homeless shelters. It looks like harm reduction clinics, creating more jobs for homeless case workers so that homeless people can get off the street faster, and free food programs for all. Stop criminalizing homelessness and using my tax dollars to continually displace homeless people around Salt Lake City! No more cops! - Smith Entertainment Group's proposed "Sports Entertainment District" downtown This is a terrible idea. Sport's aren't the only thing Salt Lake City has to offer and this proposal caters to a limited portion of the population. - Mayor's salary increase Take it out of the police budget if you want it so bad. Regards, Emily