The URL can be used to link to this page

09/03/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING September 3, 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 tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings. 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: 18:17:46 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of July 2, 2024, as well as the formal meeting minutes of July 9, 2024. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention and Action Month. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Resolution: Notice of Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area – 25 The Council will accept public comment about the designation of the Central Business Improvement Area for another three-year period from April 2025 – April 2028 (CBIA- 25). The CBIA is a special assessment on commercial properties downtown and will be used for economic promotion activities within the boundary area. This is a public hearing as required by state law and will mark the beginning of a 60-day written protest period during which a property owner in the boundary area may submit a written protest. The City first designated the CBIA in 1991 and a new CBIA has been designated every three years since. The current contract was awarded to the Downtown Alliance in 2022 and will expire in April 2025, coinciding with the conclusion of the current assessment area, CBIA-22. A second special assessment is levied for holiday lighting in the downtown. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 2, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 9, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The proposed amendment includes three new full-time employee positions in the Attorney's Office related to restructuring and moving the City Prosecutor's team, Fleet Block pre-development work and demolition, a new line of credit for the Airport Redevelopment Project, additional funding to several parks capital improvement projects and new ongoing funding for maintenance of Public Lands properties, among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 and Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (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.) E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Legislative Action: Redondo Street The Council will consider adopting a Legislative Action that would request the Administration review and come back to the Council with a recommendation for the best method to clear up the legal confusion as to the ownership of this part of Redondo Street. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Northpoint Light Industrial Zoning Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 1, 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 creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District that aligns with the goals, policies and future land use recommendations established in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The proposal would include providing an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native habitats. This is a City Council-initiated petition. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. This project is within Council District 1. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00333. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 17, 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 the minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area over a certain size. The proposal would establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the City and prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district. Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00260. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Board Reappointment: Arts Design Board – Colour Maisch The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Colour Maisch to the Arts Design Board for a term ending September 3, 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, September 3, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 29, 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. JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 2024 NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS,September is known nationally as “Suicide Prevention Month;” and WHEREAS,according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, suicide is the 9th leading cause of death in Utah, and the 2nd leading cause of death for Utahns aged 10 – 24 years old; and WHEREAS,also according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah experienced 718 suicides in 2022; and WHEREAS,every life lost directly affects the victim’s family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and community; and WHEREAS, there are many mental health resources such as Huntsman Mental Health Institute, Live On, SafeUT App, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, The Trevor Project, National Alliance on Mental Illness Utah, and the Volunteers of America; and WHEREAS, free and confidential support is accessible and available by calling or texting 988 to be connected to a skilled, trained counselor at a crisis center in your area, anytime, 24/7; and WHEREAS, anyone can learn to recognize the warning signs of suicide and how to help someone in a crisis by visiting LiveOnUtah.org; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City values those who work daily to help better the lives of others through their professions in mental health care, education, emergency services, and many more. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City recognize the month of September 2024 as National Suicide Prevention Month in Salt Lake City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City encourages all residents to familiarize themselves with mental health education and treatment resources and recognize how a healthy mind can help us better care for ourselves, our families, and our communities. Adopted this _3_ day of September 2024 Item B1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:September 3, 2024 RE: Resolution: Notice of Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area for April 2025 – April 2028 (CBIA-25) MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC PROTEST HEARING I move that the Council close the public protest hearing. Staff note: This is a public protest hearing as required by state law. The date of the hearing was set when the Council adopted the resolution of intention to designate the CBIA-25 on July 9, 2024. Closing the hearing begins a 60-day written protest period. The Council will announce the protest tally on November 12. If 40% or more of the property owners by valuation protest, then a special assessment area may not proceed. ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL LORENA RIFFO JENSON DIRECTOR Jill Love Jill Love (Jun 19, 2024 11:12 MDT)Date Received: 06/19/2024 Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 06/19/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 18, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chairperson FROM: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Director of the Department of Economic Development SUBJECT:Resolution of Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area – 25 (CBIA-25) STAFF CONTACT: Roberta Reichgelt, Department of Economic Development, Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com; Peter Makowski, Department of Economic Development, Peter.Makowski@slcgov.com; Andie Feldman, Department of Economic Development, Andie.Feldman@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Administration recommends City Council adopt the Resolution of Intention to designate the Central Business Improvement Area 2025 (CBIA-25). This continues a funding mechanism for downtown promotions, marketing, and advocacy established in 1991. It re-establishes a Special Assessment Area (SAA) in the boundary area map attached (same boundaries as 2022) for a three-year period as well as breaks out a second assessment for Holiday lighting, map attached. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget summary for the City is detailed starting on page 2 under the section “Financial Summary for CBIA–25.” BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City established the Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) in 1991 as a mechanism to fund marketing, promotions, advocacy, and other initiatives in Downtown Salt Lake City through a special assessment on property within a designated area. The current SAA, CBIA-22, expires April 22, 2025. The Administration wishes to initiate another SAA, CBIA-25, by April 22, 2025 to continue the collection of assessment funds within a defined downtown boundary area. This allows for the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy, and other benefits that have and will accrue to the City and downtown property owners and businesses through services provided by the RFP recipient contractor (currently the Downtown Alliance). The SAA also funds an ambassador’s program in Downtown Salt Lake City. The goal of the program is to promote economic growth by increasing local business activity through in- person wayfinding assistance for visitors, connecting the City’s homeless population with available resources, as well as a recently added garbage and litter collection to better maintain cleanliness. If approved, the Administration would like to continue this program and use the downtown special assessment area as a continued funding source. Since the inception of the CBIA, commonly known as a Business Improvement District, the funds collected for the Area have been used to fund the Downtown Alliance under a contract with Salt Lake City Corporation. The Department of Economic Development (DED) is able to extend the contract with the Downtown Alliance for a further three years to cover the CBIA-25 assessment. The creation of the CBIA is a lengthy and complex process that is governed by State law, has numerous noticing provisions, public hearings, and other requirements that involve a variety of City Council actions over the next nine months in order to meet the deadline for continuous funding from the Area. The Department of Economic Development, in cooperation with Engineering, City Attorney’s Office, City Treasurer’s Office, Zions Public Finance, and the Downtown Alliance, would like to brief the City Council on the “Resolution of Intention to Designate the Central Business Improvement Area” on July 2, 2024, with a formal action item on July 9, 2024. The action by the City Council allows the notification of property owners to begin and keeps the process on target to meet the April 2025 deadline for expiration of the current SAA management contract with DTA. Financial Summary for CBIA-25 $3,573,174,176 .00142 $5,073,907 $13,870 $12.79 Revenue for CBIA-25 2024 Taxable Property Valuation Proposed Taxable Value Assessment Rate Taxable Value Assessment Subtotal 2024 Estimated Linear Footage for Holiday Lights Proposed Holiday Light Rate per Foot Holiday Light Assessment Subtotal $177,378 Total Assessment Revenue $5,251,285 Tentative Budget for CBIA-25 Salt Lake City Expenses DED Management $ 132,000 Reserve withheld (3%)$ 173,293 Professional and Technical $ 33,000 Legal Fees $ 30,000 Printing $ 5,500 Postage Fees $ 3,300 Salt Lake City Subtotal $ 377,093 RFP Recipient Budget Economic Development Activities (27%)$ 1,422,300 Marketing and Events (16%)$ 853,600 Administration (24%)$ 1,280,400 Ambassador Program Unhoused Services (33%)$ 1,663,200 RFP Recipient Subtotal $ 5,219,500 Total Use of Funds $ 5,596,593 Adoption Process and Timeline If the City Council adopts the proposed “Resolution of Intention to Designate CBIA-25,” the additional steps toward final implementation are: ●Property owners in the SAA are mailed a Notice of Intention with a description of the boundaries and an assessment rate ●Property owners have opportunities to protest (in writing) the creation of the SAA or inclusion in it ●Public hearings and informational meetings are held ●Board of Equalization hearings are held to hear factual issues on the amount of benefit received and the amount of the proposed assessment ●City Council adopts an ordinance to create CBIA-25 ●CBIA-25 takes effect April 22, 2025 Special Stipulations Parcels under $20,000 in valuation as well as residential, ecclesiastical and government owned properties are exempt from the assessment, except those whose owners agree in writing to be assessed. By State law, properties that are not included in the initial Notice of Intent cannot be added at a later date unless the property owner consents. However, properties may be removed from the SAA at the Council’s discretion prior to assessment. Property owners are assessed the full amount but may pay the assessment in three annual installments. If owners of 40% or more of the valuation in the SAA boundaries protest the creation of the CBIA- 22, the SAA cannot be created. No more than 30% of the assessment funds can be spent on administrative expenses. Public Process If the City Council adopts the Notice of Intention as recommended, copies of the notice will be mailed to all property owners in the SAA, as well as to the physical property address (if it differs from the address of the property owner), along with a notice of an open house/hearing. Written protests may then be filed with the City, and a protest hearing should be scheduled by the City Council before the adoption of the ordinance creating the CBIA-25. If the City Council creates the SAA, it would appoint a Board of Equalization that may recommend adjusting the assessment rate higher or lower from that indicated in the Notice of Intention. The City Council then may accept, reject, or modify that recommendation before adoption of the Assessment Ordinance. Relevant Statutes and Ordinances The definition of "economic promotion activities" in the SAA statute, Utah Code Section 11-42- 102(18) is as follows: (18) "Economic promotion activities" means activities that promote economic growth in a commercial area of a local entity, including: (a) sponsoring festivals and markets; (b) promoting business investment or activities; (c) helping to coordinate public and private actions; and (d) developing and issuing publications designed to improve the economic well-being of the commercial area. ATTACHMENTS: A. Boundary Map & Holiday Lighting Map B. Timeline C. Resolution SPENCER GR A Y Sa l t L a k e C i t y CB I A Bo u n d a r y M a p 3RD A V E (H W Y 1 8 6 ) OR P H E U M PI E R P O N T GA L L I V A N A V MA R K E T S T EX C H A N G E P L WA S H I N G T O N L I B R A R Y 700 W 700 W 700 W RENDON CT 600 W BUTTERWORTH WOODBINE 600 W 600 W BLISS CT 500 W 400 W RIO GRANDE 500 W 400 W THE GATEWAY 500 W 400 W GALE ST TON 300 W PLEASANT 200 W WAYNE DELMAR POPLAR 300 W 200 W (HWY 89) QUINCE WEST TEMPLE WEST TEMPLE TEMPLE WEST MAIN ST MAIN ST LOMA PLUM ALLEY WALL LOW STATE ST STATE ST EDISON ST MORTENS EN CT 200 EAST 200 E SHEL ERDINE C MOFFATT CT 300 E BLAIR ST 400 E DUBEI 300 E 400 E C ST D ST 4 30 0 N SE W A R D HI L L S I D E A V 20 0 N JA C K S O N A V NO R T H TE M P L E S AV E 50 N SO U T H TE M P L E DA N S I E D R SO C I A L H A L L 10 0 S 10 0 S 20 0 S EC C L E S 20 0 S PI E R P O N T 30 0 S 30 0 S 30 0 S PI O N E E R PA R K 40 0 S 40 0 S PA C I F I C AV E PA C I F I C A V SQ U A R E SQ U A R E 50 0 S 50 0 S ST A N T O N BE L D O N OR C H A R D P L 60 0 S 60 0 S SouthSouth TempleTemple SStt 50 15 10 50 50 60 100 99 55 18 50 51 65 50 65 5099 3045 5550 555044 55 505544 99 5544 50 50 50 55 50 51 5050 50 5165 5050 5151 36 5050 SocSocialial HallHall AAvvee 4455 4550 99 50 45 30 50 30 5150 65 2151 50505051 5151 51 110000 SS 55 50 10 102 79 116 51 51 110000 SS 360 375 357 320 316 307 145 155149 135 206 220000 SS 77 225 118120124 136 160 170 15 131 143 151149 159163155 165 175 201 132 150 156 158 160 75 161 185 185 175 144 122 222 220 PPierpontierpont AAvvee PPierpontierpont AAvvee 149 128 255 80 330000 SS 248 260 262 270 268 10 239 GGallivanallivan AAvvee 299 111 306 317 8 315 311 326 334330 335 48 0 26 319 327323325 341331 328 338 360 9 EExchangexchange PPll 342 380 440000 SS 10 360 370 75 375 321 CBIA 16: Holiday Lighting Parcels (Preliminary)Holiday Lighting Streets Non-functioning lights Included Parcels July 29, 2015 Salt Lake City Geographic Information Systems O 15 163 9 324 334 322 311 31069 110 250 215 15 120111 61 Rio Grande St 400 W 300 W Way n e Ct Poplar Ct 200 W Marguerite Ct West Te mp l e St Ma i n St Plum Aly State St Fl o r a l St Ed i s on St 200 E Sh e l m e rd i n e Ct Mo ff a t t Ct Re g e n t St 122 51 7 CBIA - 25 Tentative Timeline Step Action Description Group/Lead Deadlines 1 Consultant Contract Contract with a consultant to provide guidance throughout process.DED 2/1/24 - 4/30/2024 2 Technical Description of the CBIA Technical Description of the CBIA provided to Engineering. Engineering prepares tax roll based on this data.Consultant 3/12/2024 3 Develop assessment methodology that conforms to Assessment Area Act. Develop assessment methodology concerning Economic Promotion & Lighting Assessment.DED 3/24/2024 4 Overview Transmittal. (Mayor)High level document explaning the process transmitted to Mayor’s Office.DED 3/12/2024 5 Overview transmittal. (Council Office)High level document explaning the process transmitted to Council Office.Mayor’s Office 3/19/2024 6 City Council Meeting DED will provide a written briefing to the City Council on the upcoming on the CBIA- 25 process.DED 4/2/2024 7 Salt Lake County Property Tax Information.Numbers should be available by May 22, 2024.Consultant 5/31/2024 8 Bond Counsel Description & Improvement Review Bond Counsel reviews the description of Improvements and Areas to be Improved.DED 6/5/2024 9 Resolution of intent to designate.Bond Counsel drafts resolution of Intent to Designate.Bond Counsel 6/11/2024 10 Resolution of Intent to Designate and Justification transmittal. (Mayor) Resolution of Intent to Designate and justification documentation transmitted to Mayor’s Office.DED 6/18/2024 11 Resolution of Intent to Designate and Justification transmittal. (Council Office) Resolution of Intent to Designate and justification documentation transmitted to Council Office.Mayor’s Office 6/21/2024 12 City Council Meeting DED will brief the City Council on CBIA-25 Information.DED 7/2/2024 13 Property Owner Letter Prep Property Owner letter includes verbiage of preliminary estimate, rate, notice of intent to designate, common question and map finalized.DED 7/8/2024 14 Tax roll prepared for DED approval.Assess County Data.Engineering 7/8/2024 15 DED approval of tax roll.DED approves county data.DED 7/8/2024 16 City Council Meeting City Council adopts the resolution of Intent to Designate the assessment area.City Council 7/9/2024 17 Draft/Create Notice of Intent to Designate Letter Engineering 7/11/2024 18 Post Notice of Intent to Designate Post notice of intent to designate in at least three public places within boundaries of jurisdiction DED 8/9/2024 19 Mail out Notice of Intent to Designate Mail out Notice of Intent to Designate to go out within 10 days of notice posting.DED sends via State Mail 8/12/2024 20 Minutes prepared for use at protest hearing Distribute to team SAA.Bond Counsel 8/23/2024 21 City Council Meeting City Council Protest Hearing City Council 9/3/2024 22 Draft Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoint the Board of Equalization (BOE). Bond Counsel 9/10/2024 23 Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoint the Board of Equalization Transmittal (Mayor’s Office) Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoint the Board of Equalization Transmitted to Mayor’s Office.DED 9/17/2024 24 Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoint the Board of Equalization (City Council). Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoint the Board of Equalization Transmitted to the Council Office.Mayor’s Office 9/24/2024 25 Property Owners Written Protests Filing Deadline Property owners who are protesting the assessment area. Also, the end of 60-day written protest period. Recorder's Office 11/3/2024 26 Compile Written Protests.Recorder's Office 11/4/2024 27 Delivery of Compilation of Protests Compilation of protests sent to City Council.Recorder's Office 11/5/2024 28 Publishing of Written Protests Publishing of Written Protests on City & State public notice website.Recorder's Office 11/5/2024 29 City Council Meeting City Council announces the protest tally and if it exceeds 40% threshold.City Council 11/12/2024 30 City Council Meeting City Council adopts the Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and appoints the Board of Equalization.City Council 11/12/2024 31 Recording of the Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area & Notice of Proposed Assessment Record Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and Notice of Proposed Assessment with Salt Lake County Recorder, within 15 days of adoption. Salt Lake City Recorders 11/12/2024 - 11/27/2024 32 BOE Notice and Dates of BOE Meetings. Finalize Verbiage for BOE notice and dates of BOE meetings.Bond Counsel 11/22/2024 33 Mailing process for the BOE notice.Begins 2 weeks before mailing date.Engineering 12/6/2024 34 Publication of the BOE hearings. Publication and posting of time and location of the 3 consecutive meetings. Posted as a Class B notice at least 20 days, but not more than 35 days from the first BOE hearings dates. Published on the Utah Public Notice Website.Recorder's & DED 12/10/2024 35 Mailing due to Recorder’s Office for review.Due 1 week before mailing date.Engineering 12/13/2024 36 Mailing of preliminary assessment & notice of BOE hearings Class B notice mailing sent to each property owner and each street addre s. DED 12/20/2024 37 BOE hearings 9:00 am to 10:00 am (public meeting).Held on consecutive days by statute.Salt Lake City Recorders 1/7/2025 38 BOE hearings 10:00 am to 11:00 am (public meeting).Held on consecutive days by statute.Salt Lake City Recorders 1/8/2025 39 BOE hearings 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm (public meeting).Held on consecutive days by statute.Salt Lake City Recorders 1/9/2025 40 Finalization of BOE Hearings Finalize the report DED 1/14/2025 41 BOE Report Completion BOE report completed, signed, and forwarded to City Council and Bond Counsel.DED 1/17/2025 42 Mailing of BOE Final Report BOE report mailed to objecting property owners. Begins 15 day appeal period.Engineering 1/23/2025 43 Assessment Ordinance Bond Counsel Draft Assessment Ordinance Bond Counsel 1/28/2025 44 Assessment Ordinance Transmittal (Mayor’s Office).Assessment Ordinance transmitted to the Mayor's Office.DED 2/4/2025 45 Assessment Ordinance Transmittal (Council Office).Assessment Ordinance transmitted to the Council Office.Mayor’s Office 2/7/2025 46 Budget submission for CBIA Submit budget to SLC Finance Department in anticipation of approval.DED 2/7/2025 47 City Council Meeting City Council accepts or modifies BOE recommendations and adopts or rejects Assessment Ordinance.City Council 3/4/2025 48 Center Business Improvement Assessment Area Management Contract drafting and Execution Execute Agreement between Salt Lake City and the vendor to manage the assessment area.DED 49 Transfer properties into billing status.Engineering 3/20/2025 50 Assessment Invoices and Billing Mail assessment notices and invoices to Property Owners by April 5, 2022 the latest.Treasurer 3/21/2025 51 Publication & Posting of the Assessment Ordinance 1.Publication of the Assessment Ordinance on the Utah Public Notice Website. 2.Post a copy of the Assessment Ordinance as a Class A notice. For at least 21 days DED/Recorder's 3/24/2025 52 Record Notice of Assessment Interest with Salt Lake County Recorder. I note that Utah Code 11-42-404(4)(b)(iii) requires the notice of assessment interest to “describe the property assessed by legal description and tax identification number.” Metes and Bounds legal description provided by Recorder’s Office. Salt Lake City Recorders 4/21/2025 53 Effective start date of the Assessment Ordinance Must be specified in the Assessment Ordinance DED 4/21/2025 54 Assessment Payments Due Invoice Payments due from property owners [15 days after effective date of Assessment Ordinance]Treasurer 5/6/2025 Salt Lake City, Utah July 9, 2024 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, was held on Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at which meeting there were present and answering to roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Victoria Petro Chair Chris Wharton Vice-Chair Alejandro Puy Councilmember Eva Lopez Chavez Councilmember Darin Mano Councilmember Dan Dugan Councilmember Sarah Young Councilmember Also present: Erin Mendenhall Mayor Katherine Lewis City Attorney Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution was introduced in writing, was read by title, and Councilmember moved its adoption: Notice of Intent Resolution 2 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 RESOLUTION NO. of 2024 A Resolution of intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), to designate an Assessment Area for the purpose of levying assessments against properties within the Assessment Area to continue to promote business activity and economic development in the central business area of downtown Salt Lake City by assessing benefited properties within the Assessment Area for the costs of such economic promotion activities for a period of three years (the “Assessments”); and to fix a time and place for protests against the Assessment Area and its assessments, and related matters. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to continue to promote economic growth activities in the central business area of downtown Salt Lake City. The proposed activities are more specifically described hereafter, but generally will include, but will not be limited to, advertising, marketing, special events, festivals, transportation, newsletters, publications, banners, holiday lighting, homeless services, security, special projects, housing, town meetings, government policy, cultural promotion, reports, surveys and other promotional activities (the “Economic Promotion Activities”) in the downtown area as described hereafter and more specifically identified on maps and plans on file in the Office of the City Recorder of the City. In order to accomplish the Economic Promotion Activities, the City proposes to designate the Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-25 (the “Assessment Area”) pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 42, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”), the area of which is more particularly described in the Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area set out hereafter. Section 2. A portion of the cost of the Economic Promotion Activities shall be paid by a special assessment to be levied against business and commercial properties situated within the Assessment Area that are specially benefited by the Economic Promotion Activities. The assessment will have two components: (i) an assessment based on the 2024 taxable property values (the “Base Assessment”), plus (ii) an assessment on certain properties by linear feet for special holiday lights (the “Holiday Lighting Assessment” and together with the Base Assessment, the “Assessment”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the properties within the Assessment Area and the proposed Assessment related to each property. The Assessment may be paid when assessed or, at the option of the property owner, in three (3) annual installments with interest on any delinquent installment until paid. Section 3. The Council shall hold a public hearing on September 3, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah to hear all objections related to the Assessment Area as set forth in the Act. Thereafter, written protests from property owners against the proposed assessments may be filed in the Office of the City Recorder of the City, whose address is 451 South State Street, Room 415, for a 3 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 period of 60 days after the date of the public hearing. On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (such date being within 15 days after the date the protest period expires), at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Council shall count the written protests filed and calculate whether adequate protests have been filed and hold a public meeting to announce the protest tally and whether adequate protests have been filed. The Council may thereafter adopt a resolution abandoning or creating the proposed Assessment Area depending on whether adequate protests have been filed. The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of intention to designate the Assessment Area (the “Notice of Intention”) to finance and support the Economic Promotion Activities. The Notice of Intention shall specify the date of the public hearing and the time within which protests against the proposed assessments may be filed. The Notice of Intention shall be published as a Class B Notice under Section 63G-30-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, for at least 20 days but not more than 35 days before the date of the public hearing. As a Class B Notice, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each owner of property to be assessed within the Assessment Area at the last known mailing address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, Utah, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice of Intention shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to “Owner” at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice of Intention. Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: 4 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE ASSESSMENT AREA PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 9, 2024, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) declaring its intention to designate the Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-25 (the “Assessment Area”) to finance a portion of the cost of economic promotion activities, which are more specifically described hereafter (the “Economic Promotion Activities”) in the area of downtown Salt Lake City within the Assessment Area and to levy a special assessment (the “Assessment” or “Assessments”) for a period of three years as provided in Title 11, Chapter 42, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”), on real property situated within the Assessment Area for the benefit of which such assessments are to be expended in the management and costs of the Economic Promotion Activities. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT AREA The Assessment Area is described by reference to the following streets (the “Reference Streets”): A – North Temple from State Street to the East right-of-way line of I-15 (includes parcels on both sides of the street) B – East right-of-way line of I-15 from North Temple to 400 South C – 400 South from the East right-of-way line of I-15 to 300 East (includes parcels on both sides of the street) D – 300 East from 400 South to South Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street) E – South Temple from 300 East to State Street (includes parcels on both sides of the street) F – State Street from South Temple to North Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street) The area of the Assessment Area shall include all property bounded by Reference Streets A through F described above. In addition, it shall include parcels of property, subject to the exceptions set out hereafter, which abut the Reference Streets plus all corner parcels which have a corner touching any of the Reference Streets. The Holiday Lighting Assessment (as described herein) shall apply to the following streets (collectively, the “Holiday Lighting Streets”): A – 200 South between 300 West and 400 West B – 200 South between West Temple and 200 West (South side only) C – Pierpont Street between West Temple and 200 West D – West Temple between 400 South and 200 South E – Main Street between 400 South and South Temple F – Market Street between West Temple and Main Street (North side only) G – State Street between 350 South and South Temple 5 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 The Resolution, maps, and other information about the Assessment Area are available for examination during business hours in the offices of the Salt Lake City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah. ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA The Economic Promotion Activities shall include advertising, marketing, special events, festivals, transportation, newsletters, publications, banners, holiday lighting, homeless services, security, special projects, housing, town meetings, government policy, cultural promotion, reports, surveys and other promotional activities. The Economic Promotion activities will take place within the boundaries of the Assessment Area for the benefit of business and commercial property owners within the Assessment Area. Since 1992, the Downtown Alliance has managed promotional activities for Central Business Improvement Assessment Areas (or districts) Numbers DA-8690-A, DA-8690- B, DA-8690-97, DA-CBID-00, DA-CBID-03, DA-CBID-06, DA-CBIA-10, DA-CBID- 13, DA-CBID-16, DA-CBIA-19 and DA-CBIA-22. The City intends to extend the existing management contract with the Downtown Alliance to manage the Assessment Area through April 2028, subject to the creation of the Assessment Area. ASSESSMENT RATE, FINANCIAL PLAN AND SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Funding from Assessments provides only a portion of the total budget for the Assessment Area’s programs and activities. The City anticipates that the manager of the Assessment Area will secure non-assessment funds from other sources such as grants, foundations, promotions, contributions, earned income, and sponsorships. In addition, the City anticipates that sponsors and contributors will pay directly to third-party providers a portion of the costs of some Economic Promotion Activities. These supplemental third- party payments are not reflected in the projected budget of the Assessment Area. Most, if not all, of these other sources of funds would not be available without the funding from the Assessments or the Economic Promotion Activities of the Assessment Area. Funds received from the Assessments and the estimated cost of the Economic Promotion Activities, as determined by a project engineer, are as follows: 6 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 Sources of Funds (for 3-year period) Base Assessment Revenue $5,581,298 Holiday Lighting Assessment Revenue $177,378 Total $5,758,676 Uses of Funds (annual basis) Contractor: Marketing and Events (16%)$853,600 Economic Development (27%)$1,422,300 Ambassador Program Homeless Services (33%)$1,663,200 General and Administrative (24%)$1,280,400 Contractor Total $5,219,500 Salt Lake City Administrative Costs and Reserve $377,093 Total $5,596,593 The Assessment is proposed to be levied on benefited property within the Assessment Area to pay for a portion of the Economic Promotion Activities according to the estimated benefits to the property from such activities. The Economic Promotion Activities will not be financed with bonds. PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM ASSESSMENT AREA ASSESSMENTS Residential, ecclesiastical, and government-owned properties shall be excluded from Assessments unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City and the owners of such properties. Subject to the foregoing sentence, only business and commercial properties shall be assessed. In addition, any properties having a taxable value of less than $20,000 based upon the most recent real property assessment roll of Salt Lake County shall be excluded from Assessments. The determination of qualification for exclusion for ecclesiastical and government-owned property shall be based upon exemptions from ad valorem real property taxes for properties used by churches for non-commercial purposes and for properties owned and operated by governmental agencies. Inasmuch as the Assessment is intended to fund economic promotion activities, the City does not find any benefits for residential, ecclesiastical and/or governmental property excluded from the Assessment. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT It is proposed to levy a one-time Assessment for a three-year period on property in the Assessment Area to pay all or a portion of the estimated costs of the Economic Promotion Activities within the Assessment Area. The Assessment shall not exceed the benefits derived by the properties within the Assessment Area. There shall be two assessment components: (i) an assessment based on the 2024 taxable property values (the “Base Assessment”), plus (ii) an assessment based on linear feet (except that corner lots will not be assessed for both frontages as applicable, only one) on certain properties with frontage on the Holiday Lighting Streets for special holiday lights (the “Holiday Lighting Assessment” and together with the Base Assessment, the “Assessment”). The City 7 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 anticipates that, in addition to revenues from the Assessment, the manager of the Assessment Area will utilize other funding resources, including revenues from grants, promotions, contributions, foundations, earned income, and sponsorships. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Assessments shall be payable in full or in three (3) annual installments (the “Assessment Installment” or “Installments”). If payable in three (3) Installments, the first Installment will fall due fifteen (15) days after the effective date of the ordinance levying the Assessment (the “Assessment Ordinance”). The total Assessment for the benefited property related to this notice is detailed in the cover letter accompanying this notice. The first Installment is currently estimated to be due on approximately May 6, 2025. The second and third Installments will fall due on the first and second anniversary dates of the first Installment. If any Installment is not paid by the due date, the unpaid Installment(s) will accumulate delinquent interest and/or charges in accordance with the Assessment Ordinance and State law. The Assessments will be collected by directly billing property owners. The City doesn’t currently expect any adjustments to the Assessments for changes in costs associated with Economic Promotion Activities. The City will ensure that no Assessments will be collected and used for purposes other than those described in this Notice. PUBLIC HEARING The City Council shall hold a public hearing on September 3, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah to hear all objections related to the Assessment Area and all persons desiring to be heard, as set forth in the Act. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS PROTESTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS OBJECTING TO THE ASSESSMENT AREA DESIGNATION OR OBJECTING TO BEING ASSESSED FOR THE PROPOSED ECONOMIC PROMOTION ACTIVITIES MUST BE FILED IN WRITING WITH THE CITY RECORDER OF SALT LAKE CITY EITHER IN PERSON DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY OR BY MAIL (PO BOX 145515) ON OR BEFORE 5:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 4, 2024. To be counted against the creation of the Assessment Area, protests or objections MUST BE IN WRITING, signed by the owners of the property proposed to be assessed. The written protest must describe or otherwise identify said property. If the aggregate taxable value of property that is the subject of timely filed written protests represents at least 40% of the aggregate taxable value of all property within the Assessment Area, the City Council will not impose the Base Assessment and if the linear feet frontage of the Holiday Lighting Streets (except that corner lots will not apply for both frontages as applicable, only one) that is the subject of timely filed written protests represents at least 40% of the aggregate linear feet frontage of Holiday Lighting Streets assessed within the Assessment Area, the City Council will not impose the Holiday Lighting Assessment. 8 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 Protests withdrawn prior to the expiration of the protest period and protests from areas deleted from the Assessment Area will not be counted against the creation of the Assessment Area. On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (such date being within 15 days after the date the protest period expires), at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, the City Council shall count the written protests filed and calculate whether adequate protests have been filed and hold a public meeting to announce the protest tally and whether adequate protests have been filed. To stay informed on the electronic means or physical location of the City Council’s hearings and meetings, please visit www.slc.gov/council/agendas. The City shall post the total and percentage of the written protests it has received on its website at least five days before such meeting. BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder 9 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: AYE: NAY: 10 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: City Recorder 11 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for her approval or disapproval on July , 2024. By: Chair MAYOR’S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this July , 2024. By: Mayor 12 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the duly chosen, qualified, and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: (a) That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true, and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in Salt Lake City on July 9, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to designate the Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-25 to provide economic promotion activities therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. (b) That due, legal, and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of Salt Lake City. (c) That the above resolution was provided to my office on July 9, 2024, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of Salt Lake City, Utah, this , 2024. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 13 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the duly chosen, qualified, and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), do hereby certify that a Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area (the “Notice of Intention”) was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, July 9, 2024. I further certify that the Notice of Intention was published as a Class B Notice under Section 63G-30-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, for at least 20 days but not more than 35 days before the date of the public hearing (September 3, 2024). I further certify that on , 2024, I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Assessment Area at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to “Owner” addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements or economic promotion activities and a map of the proposed Assessment Area, was on file in my office for inspection by any interested parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Utah, this , 2024. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 14 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City Council”) in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the July 9, 2024, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be delivered to the Salt Lake Tribune on July , 2024, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the Notice of 2024 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council (attached hereto as Schedule 2) was given specifying the date, time, and place of the regular meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (a) provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within Salt Lake City, Utah, on , 2024, and (b) published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this July 9, 2024. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 15 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 SCHEDULE 1 MEETING NOTICE 16 Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 SCHEDULE 2 ANNUAL MEETING NOTICE Notice of Intent Resolution 4876-5491-9111, v. 3 EXHIBIT A A-1 Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards DATE:September 3, 2024 UPDATED 6:12 PM RE: Budget Amendment Number One of FY2025 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT URGENT ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. The budget amendment is still open, and the Council may consider the remaining items at a future date. A-1: Attorney’s Office Three New FTEs, Leasing Office Space, and Organizational Structure Change ($522,461 from General Fund Balance for ongoing FTE costs, $102,000 from General Fund Balance to the IMS Fund for one-time costs, and Rescope and Transfer to the CIP Fund $472,298 of the Existing Interlocal Agreement Budget to Lease Office Space, Utilities, Tenant Improvements, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment) D-4: Annual Budget Cleanup; Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Operating Budget ($6,994,737 one-time for New Loans in FY2025 from the Housing & Loan Fund Balance) D-8: Annual Budget Cleanup; Impact Fees Tracking & Compliance Financial Analyst IV FTE in the Capital Asset Planning Office of the Finance Department ($143,258 from General Fund Balance, $140,258 ongoing Reimbursement to the General Fund from Impact Fees, and $3,000 one-time to the IMS Fund) D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund) D-15: Accelerate 4 Parks Capital Projects (New Parks Impact Fees: $2 Million to Liberty Park All Abilities Play Park & Playground, $1 Million of Folsom Trail Landscaping, Irrigation & Completing the Trail, and $1 Million for Warm Springs & North Gateway Park; and Rescope $3 Million of Sales Tax Revenue Bond Funds from Smith’s Ballpark Plus $1.96 Million in Bond Interest Earnings to Pioneer Park) Note: the Council will consider the remaining projects proposed in this item at future meetings. I-3: Rescope Coronavirus Pandemic Recovery Federal Funds (CDBG-CV) Grant Awards that Applicant Declined to Use (Rescope $60,000 one-time from Switchpoint’s Awards to Restore $30,000 to Utah Legal Services, $12,827 to First Step House Peer Support Services, and $17,173 to Odyssey House UTA Passes) I-6: Consultant Services to Assist with City Prosecutor’s Office Transition ($95,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 3 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY25 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: September 3, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 NEW INFORMATION: At the August 27 briefing, the Council approved straw polls for four urgent items listed below. The Council may consider approving these items after the public hearing on September 3. The Council will review the remaining items at briefings in September. August 27 Four Straw Polls Unanimously Supported by the Council - A-1: Attorney’s Office Three New FTEs, Leasing Office Space, and Organizational Structure Change ($522,461 from General Fund Balance for ongoing FTE costs, $102,000 from General Fund Balance to the IMS Fund for one-time costs, and Rescope and Transfer to the CIP Fund $472,298 of the Existing Interlocal Agreement Budget to Lease Office Space, Utilities, Tenant Improvements, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment) - D-4: Annual Budget Cleanup; Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Operating Budget ($6,994,737 one- time for New Loans in FY2025 from the Housing & Loan Fund Balance) - D-8: Annual Budget Cleanup; Impact Fees Tracking & Compliance Financial Analyst IV FTE in the Capital Asset Planning Office of the Finance Department ($143,258 from General Fund Balance, $140,258 ongoing Reimbursement to the General Fund from Impact Fees, and $3,000 one-time to the IMS Fund) - D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund) New Straw Poll Request for $8.96 Million Going to Four Projects in Item D-15 The Public Lands Department has requested a straw poll to allow expediting contracts for four parks capital projects as listed below. This funding would accelerate the projects and is slightly more than half of the total $17.3 million proposed in item D-15. The Council may wish to discuss the overall proposal before straw polling the four projects. The funding shifts are across three different funding sources with different eligibilities. The Council could consider shifting funds between the projects. See the full write-up and summary table of proposed funding shifts for item D-15 starting on page 15 below. The three projects below would use $4 million from parks impact fees: - Liberty Park Rotary Play Park and Playground: $2,000,000 for 2025 construction (new, accessible features requested by hundreds of children and parents involved in the project in 2023 and 2024) - Folsom Trail Landscaping and Irrigation: $1,000,000 for 2025 construction (more robust landscaping, irrigation, and amenities improvements in the Folsom Corridor between 1000 West and 500 West, beyond the original construction estimate that focused only on improvements near intersections) - Warm Springs and North Gateway Park: $1,000,000 for 2026 or 2027 construction (greater ability for the City to deliver the vision that is being developed by the stakeholders involved in this project, including Native American, Pacific Islander, and local communities) Pioneer Park would receive $4.96 Million of new funding from the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond: Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: August 27, 2024 2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: Sept. 3, 2024 3rd Briefing: Sept. 10, 2024 (if needed) Potential Adoption Vote: Sept. 17, 2024 Page | 3 - Smith’s Ballpark and Pioneer Park: Recapture and reallocate $3,000,000 (of $3,000,000 total) from the now tentative Smith’s Ballpark project and allocate an additional $1,960,713.54 (of $1,960,713.54 total) from the Revenue Bond’s interest income to the Pioneer Park sales tax revenue bond-funded project. UPDATED Section I: Council-Added Items Items I-1 through I-4 are updated to reflect new information and I-5 is a new placeholder raised at the August 27 briefing and pending more information. I-1: Replacing Trees and Landscaping on North Temple ($505,000 one-time from Funding Our Future Fund Balance Parks Maintenance Category) Council Members asked what funding would be needed to replace the dying trees and landscaping along North Temple where herbicide was accidentally sprayed last October. Using FY2025 CIP funding and / or $933,152 of parks capital maintenance funding in CIP could be used. During the August 13 CIP briefing, the Council decided that addressing this project better belonged in Budget Amendment #1 pulling from Funding Our Future Fund Balance because it’s an emergent situation using one-time funding. The Public Lands Department stated 219 dead or dying trees are estimated to be removed in the next couple months. The irrigation system along North Temple is in good condition but would be modified to reach the new tree planters. The manufacturer recommends waiting until October 2026 (three years) before planting trees back into the grounds where the herbicide was applied. A new “double-safe procedure” has been implemented requiring a supervisor and a warehouse employee to both approve checking out herbicide to prevent a similar situation from happening. The Department provided the below table of potential costs, interim plan, and Attachment 1 as a community flyer about the situation. Item Subtotal Tree removal, stump grinding, new trees planted in planters $85,000 Tree planters (Qty 100, Unit Cost ~$2,000)$200,000 Landscaping, soil removal (top 4”), mulch, modify irrigation for planters $220,000 Total $505,000 “In the interim, the Division is working with a contractor to schedule the removal of dead trees. The top four inches of soil will be removed, and mulch will fill in the ROWs. The department will install large planters to hold soil and trees to prevent contaminated soil from reaching the trees. These new trees in planters can be transplanted back into the park strips once soil tests confirm that it is safe to do so. Public Lands leaders will meet with community groups prior to tree removal to begin repairing trust and provide detailed information. Details will be provided about the herbicide application occurrence, our current situation, and the City's proposed path forward. A more detailed action plan and timeline is being developed as the department works with contractors and identifies materials delivery dates.” Policy Question: Additional Resources Needed – The community flyer distributed by Public Lands states that “the department is committed to replanting two trees for every tree lost due to unintentional herbicide use.” This would be approximately 438 trees. The Council may wish to ask the Administration are additional funding requests anticipated beyond the $505,000 estimate to keep this public commitment? Or would existing budgets be sufficient to purchase additional trees? I-2: Follow-up on Council’s Project-specific CIP Allocations (Recapture one-time $875,000 from a Cancelled Project and one-time $1,012,153 from Projects Completed Under Budget) This item is a follow up budgeting step to implement the Council’s adopted CIP budget from August 27. The Council recaptured $875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Center connecting corridor project (originally funded in 2019). $807,000 of those funds were awarded to California Avenue pedestrian and safety improvements construction at Concord Street and Glendale Drive (project #41 on the CIP funding log). This project will benefit the same community and many of the same students and families that use the Sorenson Centers a few blocks away. The intersections of California Avenue and Concord Street and Glendale Drive are frequently used by students and families going to and from the adjacent Glendale Middle School, Mountain View Elementary School, and Glendale Branch Library. The remaining $68,0000 went to other projects. The Council also recaptured $1,012,153 from capital projects that were completed under budget. These funds went to several new projects. I-3: CDBG-CV (Coronavirus Pandemic Response Federal Funds) Grant Awards that Applicant Declined to Use (Rescope $60,000 one-time from Switchpoint’s Award) Page | 4 At the August 27 meeting, the Council discussed an announcement for how to handle $60,000 of CDBG-CV one-time federal grant awards that the applicant Switchpoint declined to use. The Council’s direction was to (1) make sure the organizations receiving the funds can actually spend them, and (2) choose the most expedited option to get the funds out into the community. This year, the City’s total CDBG award was less than anticipated. As a result, the funding for Utah Legal Services was reduced to zero. Some Council Members have suggested restoring the $30,000 award to Utah Legal Services. Staff checked in with the Housing Stability Division about this option and the next two highest scoring applicants (First Step House’s Peer Support Services and Odyssey House’s UTA Passes) based on the resident advisory board’s recommendations. The Division confirmed that Utah Legal Services’ and First Step Houses’ programs have a strong multi-year track record of fully spending their HUD Grant awards and in a timely manner. Odyssey House’s UTA Passes program was a new application to the City’s CDBG program this year so it does not have a history to check performance. The Housing Stability Division is providing technical assistance to Odyssey House for the UTA Passes program which is common for new applicants. The Council may wish to consider two factors related to the program: (1) this is one of only two applications advancing the City’s HUD grants transportation goal which has seen fewer applicants over the years than other goals, and (2) the deadline to spend all CDBG-CV funding is December 3, 2026 (the one-time pandemic response funds have different deadlines and regulations than the regular annual CDBG funds). Potential Rescopes to Three Eligible Applicants: - Restore Utah Legal Services' tentative award of $30,000 that was reduced to $0 because the City received less CDBG funds than estimated, and - Award the remaining $30,000 based on the resident advisory board's scoring as follows: o $12,827 to fully fund First Step House Peer Support Services (total would be $80k) o $17,173 to Odyssey House UTA Passes (total would be $64,173; request was $90k) I-4: PLACEHOLDER Y2 Analytics Contract – Funding for Additional Surveys ($TBD one-time from General Fund Balance) This is a placeholder pending information about potential options for additional surveys of City residents and possibly other stakeholders. Topics could be tailored to district specific issues. I-5: PLACEHOLDER Police Noise Enforcement ($TBD one-time from General Fund Balance) This is a placeholder pending additional information about potential options for noise enforcement by the Police Department. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was gathering information and developing options. During annual budget deliberations, Council Members discussed community requests and needs for greater noise enforcement and placed $50,000 in a non-departmental holding account to revisit how to address the issue. Ideas raised included overtime for the civilian Police Community Response Team, additional equipment, and/or more civilian FTEs. Council Members have heard constituent’s concerns about potential noise violations related to loud parties, mass gathering events, and vehicle traffic such as modified mufflers that intentionally increase noise levels. The Council could ask the Administration to consider this one-time funding as a pilot and include ongoing funding for increased noise enforcement in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2026. The Council adopted the below legislative intent on this issue as part of the FY2025 annual budget adoption: Noise Enforcement (Vehicular and Non-vehicular). It is the intent of the Council to request a briefing from the Administration about noise enforcement in the City and existing State law. This would include but not be limited to: a. noise enforcement for violations from both vehicle and non-vehicular sources; b. identification of additional resources needed to improve enforcement; c. policy regarding noise ordinance waivers; d. semi-annual reports regarding noise enforcement; e. consideration of increased fines as a deterrent; f. proactive work with any mass gathering or event spaces (including institutions that sponsor high-decibel events). Information below this line was provided previously for the first briefing. Budget Amendment Number One includes 22 proposed amendments, ($421,029,704 in revenues and $443,720,223 Page | 5 in expenditures) of which $1,969,783 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to thirteen funds with four proposed general fund positions and four grant-funded positions. Most expenses in this budget amendment are housekeeping items found in section D. There are four proposed Council-added items; however, only one of these items would draw from the General Fund Balance. If all the items are approved as proposed, then the FY2026 annual budget would need $1.5 million to cover new ongoing costs. This increases to $4.5 million if the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant funding is not awarded for FY2026. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, including the $505,000 from Council-Added Item I-1 for tree replacements on North Temple, then the General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.72% which is $8,262,954 above the 13% minimum target. Four Straw Poll Requests The Administration is requesting straw polls for four items. First is Item A-1 Attorney’s Office Organizational Structure Change, requesting three new FTEs. The straw poll would allow early advertising of the job postings. The Council may also wish to consider taking a straw poll for Item D-4, a request to add the $6.9 million operating budget for the EDLF fund, which was inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended FY2025 annual budget. Economic Development has submitted a request for $75,000 from the EDLF to Policy Kings Brewery. The Council could consider a straw poll for the loan processing to begin before the Budget Amendment #1 adoption vote. D-8 is another follow up from the annual budget which included a new financial analyst IV on the staffing document but the funding for the position was inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. This position is needed to comply with new state requirements for impact fees tracking and reporting. D-14 includes claims related to the damage at the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble. Repairs have been paid for by the third- party contractor. The City needs to reimburse the contractor. The Finance Department indicates this item is time- sensitive and now requests a straw poll to expedite payment. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Page | 5 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Because this budget amendment is being transmitted within the first month of the Fiscal Year, no adjustments to the revenue budget are anticipated at this time. Page | 6 Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.83% Page | 7 The proposal includes nineteen initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A.New Budget Items B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources C.Grants for New Staff Resources D.Housekeeping Items E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F.Donations G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I.Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is current as of May 1, 2024 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024 which was adopted after the Mayor’s Recommended Budget was proposed to the Council on May 7. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $3,824,800 of parks impact fees. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the intervening six years. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date $ Expiring in FY2027 Fire $578,695 More than two years away - Parks $20,931,089 August 2026 $6,893,768 Police $1,553,249 More than two years away - Transportation $1,154,192 August 2026 $2,691,888 Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items. A-1: Attorney’s Office Three New FTEs, Leasing Office Space, and Organizational Structure Change ($522,461 from General Fund Balance for ongoing FTE costs, $102,000 from General Fund Balance to the IMS Fund for one-time costs, and Rescope and Transfer to the CIP Fund $280,000 of the Existing Interlocal Agreement Budget to Lease Office Space) On June 28, 2024, the District Attorney’s Office notified the City Attorney’s Office of their intent to terminate the management services interlocal agreement between the City and County. The agreement allows either party to initiate the termination process. No specific termination criteria are required; the agreement may be ended with or without cause. A six-month transition period is required before the agreement terminates which will end on December 31, 2024. Under the agreement, the County District Attorney also serves as the City Prosecutor and manages 31 City FTEs in the City Prosecutor’s Office who are also located in the DA’s office building at 35 East 500 South. This budget amendment item has three proposed parts to terminate the agreement and shift operations back into the City Attorney’s Office. $522,461 for Three New FTEs and Leadership Structure Change: Listed below are the three new positions, costs for the positions through the remainder of FY2025, and the fully loaded annual costs that would need to be included in the FY2026 General Fund annual budget. The total cost in FY2025 for the three new FTEs is estimated to be $522,461. - Senior City Attorney pay grade 39 proposed for 8 months at a cost of $157,636. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated to be $236,454. - City Prosecutor pay grade 39 proposed for 9 months at a cost of $178,278. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated to be $237,704. A job description for this new position is included in the Administration’s Page | 8 transmittal. - Deputy Director of Administration pay grade 40 proposed for 9 months at a cost of $186,547. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated to be $248,730. A job description for this new position is included in the Administration’s transmittal. It’s worth noting that when the interlocal agreement between the City and the DA was originally implemented in 2015, four senior level positions in the Attorney’s Office were eliminated. $280,000 Rescope for Leasing Office Space and Utilities: According to Schedule A of the interlocal agreement, the total cost to the City for FY2025 is $944,596 ($443,708 lease fee + $237,002 management fee + $263,886 operating fee). The fees are paid on a quarterly basis. Terminating the agreement halfway through FY2025 would leave a remaining balance of $472,298. The Administration is proposing to rescope $280,000 of this to lease office space for the 31 FTEs currently leasing office space in the District Attorney’s Building and the new City Prosecutor. This would leave a remaining balance of $192,298. The Administration may return to the Council in a budget amendment to rescope those remaining funds for other related costs such as tenant improvements, equipment, furnishings, and if the office rent is greater than anticipated. $102,000 for Hardware, Software, and IMS Costs: The Administration is proposing a one-time transfer of $102,000 from General Fund Balance to the IMS Fund for hardware, software, licensing, electronic devices, and other IMS costs for transitioning the 31 existing FTEs in the Prosecutor’s Office and the three new FTEs referenced above. The existing case management system segregates City Prosecutor and DA cases. This allows a data dump of the City’s cases to transfer onto another system. Policy Questions: Long-term Office Space for the City Prosecutor’s Office – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration options for identifying long-term office space for the City Prosecutor’s Office including room to grow, limiting new leasing contracts to shorter terms to allow time to evaluate more options, and how this could fit into the City’s overall space needs. In FY2024 CIP, the Council approved $200,000 for a development strategy and spacing needs study. The Council could also ask the Administration to share the final report from the study and/or provide a briefing. Primary Responsibility for Class A Misdemeanors – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the decision will be made whether the City Prosecutor’s Office would take back primary responsibility for Class A misdemeanors? Under the soon to be terminated interlocal agreement, the District Attorney has primary responsibility for felonies, Class A, B, and C misdemeanors as well as infractions. After the agreement is terminated, the new City Prosecutor would have primary responsibility for Class B and C misdemeanors and infractions but Class A misdemeanors are less certain. A Successful Transition and Performance Measures – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what will a successful transition look like for the City Prosecutor’s Office functions to be brought back into the City Attorney’s Office? The Council may also wish to ask the Administration to provide performance measures to monitor how the transition goes such as average and median number of days to dispose cases by type, average number of cases per prosecutor, number of cases referred to diversion courts (drug court, mental health court, etc.), number of cases filed by type, number of convictions by type, number of victim notifications, etc. STRAW POLL REQUEST: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow early hire advertising of the three new positions before the budget amendment is formally adopted. The Council could also indicate whether the rescope of funding to lease office space is generally supported or more time is needed to consider and share information. A-2: Reappropriation for Expanded Air Quality Incentives Pilot Program to Provide Indoor Devices ($30,000 one-time from the Environment & Energy Fund Balance) This is a re-appropriation of $30,000 that the Council approved in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2024 because the funding wasn’t encumbered under a contract, so it lapsed to the Environment & Energy Division Fund Balance at the end of FY2024. This one-time expansion of the Air Quality Program would be a pilot program. The Division has coordinated with the Housing Stability Division to potentially partner with the City’s existing home repair and rehabilitation programs. Partnering with a community-based organization is also possible. An estimated 60 households are anticipated to participate. The pilot program would provide indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, air quality monitors, and single burner induction cooktops. D-1: Airport Interim Financing ($400 Million one-time in the Airport Fund) Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue interim financing up to $400 million for a Line of Credit directly with a bank. We are currently in the procurement process and are negotiating the terms of the agreement Page | 9 which we deem to be favorable, especially considering the low-interest rate environment. These funds will ultimately be refunded with long-term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of three years to help with financial flexibility on the Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating and maintenance expenses or to fund construction costs as determined by the Airport Finance division. Staff note: The Council held a public hearing on this item at the August 13 formal meeting. This is the follow up budgeting step to authorize accepting and spending the anticipated funds up to the $400 million maximum. D-2: Interest on General Obligation (GO) Streets Reconstruction Bonds Series 2020, 2021, and 2022, and Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2022 B Tax Exempt and Series 2022 C Federal Taxable, and GO Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds Series 2023 ($10,483,609 one-time interest earnings available to projects eligible under the bond’s original authorization) This item would recognize nearly $10.5 million of accumulated interest earnings from six bonds the City issued between 2020 and 2023. Interest earned are considered bond proceeds and are spent on capital projects eligible under the bond’s original authorization. The interest earned may not be used to pay debt service on the bonds. The four general obligation bonds were authorized by voters. The two sales tax revenue bonds were authorized by the Council. The $4 million of interest from the three streets reconstruction GO bonds would be used to fund additional rebuilds of city streets as determined by the Engineering Division’s Six Year Pavement Plan and deliberations of the Roadway Selection Committee. The City uses a data-driven approach to first reconstruct streets with pavement in the worst condition in collaboration with other public right of way projects such as public and private utilities. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was evaluating whether to recommend the $1 million of interest from the 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space GO Bond should be contingency funding available to any of the 14 capital projects originally funded by the bond or to a specific project(s). This bond originally included $16 million as contingency funding available to any project. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was evaluating whether the nearly $3.5 million of interest from the sales tax revenue bond Series 2022 B should be contingency funding available to any of the five capital projects originally funded by the bond or to a specific project(s). Those original projects and bond funded amounts are: $6,100,000 for the Westside Railroad Quiet Zone project, $8,000,000 for the Warm Springs Plunge Structure Stabilization & Improvements project, $11,200,000 for City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction project, $9,753,000 for the 600 North Corridor Transformation project, and $7,500,000 for the Radio Towers project. This bond originally had no contingency funding available to any project. As a tax-exempt bond, all of these funds should be spent within three years of the issuance date which would be by September 2025. Policy Question: Flexible Contingency Funding or Use for Specific Projects – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to approve the interest earnings from the Parks Bond and the Sales Tax Revenue Bond for flexible contingency funding available to any projects originally funded by those bonds or identify specific projects that would receive additional funding. October 2025 Spending Deadline for Sales Tax Revenue Non-taxable Bond Proceeds – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for status updates on the five projects funded by this bond and next steps to meet the three-year spending deadline. As of May this year, only 5% of the $42.5 million from the bonds had been spent. However, construction is anticipated to proceed soon on three of the five projects which will significantly increase spending of the bond funds. The following five paragraphs are from the City Treasurer’s Office and detail the interest earnings by bond issuance. A best practice is to spend interest earned from unspent bonds before issuing new bonds for the same purpose. General Obligation Bond Series 2020 was issued in September 2020 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par value of the issued bonds was $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including interest earned from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $571,672.02. General Obligation Bonds Series 2021 was issued in November 2021 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par value of the issued bonds was $20,600,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $1,463,994.53. Page | 10 General Obligation Bonds Series 2022 was issued in September 2022 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par value of the issued bonds was $21,785,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $1,966,209.86. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225.000. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from November 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $3,462,304.21 and $1,960,713.54 respectively. General Obligation Bonds Series 2023 was issued in August 2023 to fund improvements of City parks and trails. Par value of the issued bonds was $24,765,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from September 2023 through June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $1,058,714.66. D-3: WITHDRAWN D-4: Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Budget ($6,994,737 one-time for New Loans in FY2025) A budget for EDLF was inadvertently left out of the FY2025 annual budget. This item would provide an operating budget for the EDLF to issue new small local business loans during FY2025. New loans would still be subject to Council review and approval during public meetings. The Administration reports that a plan and mechanism are being put into place to avoid such an oversight in the future. Typically, the EDLF fund balance would be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as the operating budget for the new fiscal year. The Council may wish to request that in the future the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book include greater information about the EDLF to improve transparency and provide another mechanism to reduce the likelihood of this situation repeating. D-5: Increased Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Federal Grant Award ($12,359 one-time in the Misc. Grants Fund) This item is to recognize the increased HUD HOPWA award in the amount of $12,359 for FY 2025. The Council approved and allocated the City's anticipated HUD HOPWA award in the total amount of $932,841 on April 16, 2024. On June 11, 2024, the City was notified of the City's final HOPWA award in the total amount of $945,200. The additional funds, the difference between the two amounts, are being allocated as per the Council approved contingencies. D-6: Rescope Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance Funding for Fleet Block Predevelopment Activities including Surveys, Environmental Remediation, Demolition, and Security (Rescope $200,000 from FY2023 and $500,000 from FY2024 both in the CIP Fund) The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 23 and FY 24 CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400 West and 800 – 900 South for redevelopment. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Council was also considering in the FY2025 CIP budget an additional $500,000 for the same purpose. $1.2 million would be provided between the FY2025 CIP funding and these proposed rescopes. Funding will be utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment and to mitigate mounting security and safety issues. It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the Administration seeing an immediate need for security services of over $250,000 per year to address daily break-ins and vandalism. Rather than hiring long-term security services, the Administration proposes substantially decreasing security concerns and increasing public safety at the property site as soon as possible. Specific activities will be terminating utility connections, surveying the property, abating asbestos and other environmental contaminants within the buildings, and demolition activities. In October 2023, the Council approved $600,000 from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond for public engagement, concept development, and planning for creating a green public space on the southeast quadrant of the Fleet Block. An additional $5.4 million for design and construction from that bond is anticipated in future issuances. Council discussion included potentially including a civil rights monument / memorial / public art. In December 2023, the Council adopted an ordinance that established the Form Based Mixed Use 11 zoning district, and rezoned the Fleet Block to Form Based Mixed Use 11. The Council also adopted an ordinance that established the southeast portion of the block as a public square in Title 15, pursuant to the boundaries included in the ordinance. The Council also adopted a legislative action requiring a restrictive covenant be recorded against the property that identifies that area of the Fleet Block as a public square. Page | 11 D-7: Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Interest Forgiveness ($5,264 one-time from General Fund Balance) HUB Salt Lake, LLC, a borrower from the Economic Development Loan Fund, requested forgiveness from Salt Lake City on accumulated interest from the period of 9/2021 – 4/2024, due to the unforeseen hardship and impacts from the COVID pandemic and inability to access Salt Lake City’s small business relief programs. This request was not recommended by the Department of Economic Development (DED) but was brought to City Council for consideration. At the authorization and approval of City Council, the Department of Economic Development has submitted a budget amendment request to allocate the requested funding to the Economic Development Loan Fund to be distributed to the business/borrower. The loan, including accumulated interest, to Hub Salt Lake LLC was paid off in May of 2024, and as such, the requested amount would be submitted to the borrower as a reimbursement. D-8: Annual Budget Cleanup; Impact Fees Tracking & Compliance Financial Analyst IV FTE in the Capital Asset Planning Office of the Finance Department ($143,258 from General Fund Balance, $140,258 ongoing Reimbursement to the General Fund from Impact Fees, and $3,000 one-time to the IMS Fund) This is a follow up item from the annual budget. A financial analyst IV FTE was inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. The position would be funded for 10 months to recognize the time to hire at a cost of $143,258 at pay grade 32. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated at $171,910. The position would be fully funded from impact fees and entirely dedicated to tracking, compliance, and planning for impact fees. The four types of impact fees (fire, parks, police, and transportation) could equally split the cost of the position depending on factors such as how much time the analyst spends working in each area, the outstanding available balance by type, and number of projects by type. The Finance Department provided the below summary of why the position is needed. Staff note: state law requires impact fees to be encumbered or spent within six years of the City receiving them, and a refund of impact fees must be paid with interest to the original payor. "We are requesting the position based on the new requirements from the state auditor. The reporting and tracking for impact fees has become extremely complex. All impact fees that are budgeted must be tracked individually. This includes the dedicated revenues that are associated by the building permit as well as any match. Individual revenues and expenses have to be tied to the individual project. This tracking is going to take a lot of work for Salt Lake City to ensure that the revenues are being spent in a timely fashion by project and to update the departments that the timing of the funds needing to be spent. If we don't do this type of tracking on an ongoing basis, it could result in more refunds that have to be given." STRAW POLL REQUESTED: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow early advertising of the job posting. D-9: Maintenance on New Public Lands Assets and Expanded Complaint-based Weed Abatement ($329,150 one-time Transfer from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and $142,800 from General Fund Balance to Nondepartmental) This budget amendment requests approval to fund unfunded maintenance for 9 new properties and the complaint based weed abatement. This funding will cover FY 2025 maintenance needs for these properties. The total one-time funding of $471,950, will be funded by transferring $329,150 from Fund Balance of the Transportation Fund to the General Fund, and an additional $142,800 from the General Fund. This is a one-time funding request. In the future, these properties will be included the Capital Asset Planning Team led assessment of all unfunded maintenance of General Fund owned properties that will score, rank, and recommend a holistic approach to funding unfunded maintenance going forward. Page | 12 Breakout in cost: - $32,800 Seasonal Staff Hours - $439,150 Contracted Services - $471,950 Total BA Request Funds are to be transferred into Non-Departmental within the Public Lands Cost Center. D-10: Reappropriations for Public Utilities Enterprise Funds ($1,047,200 one-time in the Storm Water Fund, $659,624 one-time in the Water Fund, and $575,000 one-time in the Sewer Fund) This item includes three reappropriations for budgets that the Council previously approved in FY2024 because the funding wasn’t encumbered under a contract so it lapsed to the fund balances for each of the three enterprise funds at the end of FY2024. The funds would cover a mix of equipment and project procurements that are still needed. D-11: Attorney’s Office Breakroom Construction ($149,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) The Department of the City Attorney’s office has engaged with the Engineering/Public Services team to complete the work for the fifth-floor breakroom construction presented initially in FY 2024 and had been informed we will not be able to secure work orders/contracts prior to the end of the fiscal year. Improvements are all directed towards the 5th floor breakroom. The 5th floor currently houses the majority of the Attorney’s department (civil, litigation, risk, legislative affairs). Related, as noted in Item A-1, the Prosecutor's Office is returning to the leadership of the City Attorney's office in December, which requires the hiring of a City Prosecutor and transitioning 31 employees from the District Attorney Offices to a City-managed space and using City devices. D-12: Rescope Waste & Recycling Division Temporary Staffing Agency Funding to Provide Seasonal and/or Part-time Equipment Operators ($75,000 rescope one-time in the Waste & Recycling Fund) The Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability is requesting to transfer $75,000 from the Other Charges & Services spend category used to pay a temporary staffing agency to provide seasonal and part-time personnel. The Division typically hires 4-5 temporary employees at times throughout the year to support a variety of needs resulting from increases in seasonal workloads. Rather than pay a temporary staffing agency their typical 30-40% wage loading rate, the division can hire seasonal and/or part-time employees with more flexibility and more cost effectively. This, in turn, also allows the Division to be more wage competitive in what remains a very tight labor market. D-13: Reappropriation for Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) This is a reappropriation of $400,000 that the Council approved in Budget Amendment #3 of FY2024 because the funding was encumbered under a contract so it lapsed to the General Fund Balance at the end of FY2024. Additional one-time funding is needed to continue transitioning City buildings to an upgraded S2 control access system as the citywide standard. The back-end software was recently upgraded for the Public Safety Building and City Hall. This item would allow the same upgrade for Plaza 349 and the Justice Court buildings. The funding also includes card readers and proximity cards (sometimes called smart badges or access cards) for employees using the four buildings. The Council may wish to request an update on other planned security improvements and consider whether funding for the security access system should be a new appropriation instead of using funds that were originally budgeted for physical security improvements at the City & County Building. D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund) In March of 2024, the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble located at 1216 Wasatch Drive was damaged. This exposure caused the Tennis Bubble to deflate causing significant damage to both the exterior and interior of the Tennis Bubble. Additionally, some of the equipment and electrical inside the Tennis Bubble was damaged. The Tennis Bubble is owned and insured by Salt Lake City, but managed, maintained, and operated by a third-party contractor. The repairs have been paid for by the third-party contractor and the City needs to process the awarded claim settlement and distribute it to the third-party contractor in the amount of $23,633.48. STRAW POLL REQUESTED: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow expediting the receipt and payment of the reimbursement. Page | 13 D-15: Accelerate 14 Parks Capital Projects (Rescope $5.35 Million of Parks Bond Funds from Glendale Park to Nine Parks Projects, New $15.35 Million of Parks Impact Fees to Four Parks Projects, and Rescope $3 Million of Sales Tax Revenue Bond Funds from Smith’s Ballpark Plus $1.96 Million in Bond Interest Earnings to Pioneer Park) The Administration is proposing $17.3 million of new capital improvements funding to accelerate 14 parks projects. Most of this comes from $15.35 million of parks impact fees. It also would rescope $5.35 million from the Parks Bond, rescope $3 million and $1.96 million of interest earnings from the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond. The changes are meant to better align the spending deadlines of bond funds and impact fees with project construction timelines, and it should be noted that the projects as previously presented will still be completed, these changes mostly affect funding sources and timelines while a few have scope increases. Impact fees must be spent within six years. Nearly $7 million of parks impact fees are scheduled to expire in FY2027 and capital projects typically take two years or more to be completed. The City’s balance of parks impact fees is approximately $21 million as of May 1, 2024. Non-taxable bond funds must be spent within three years. The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond Series B were issued in October 2022 and have a spending deadline of October 2025. The table below shows the fund source changes proposed for the 14 projects and the net change in the project funding. The notes column has details such as additional project funding, construction timelines, and Council District for the smaller neighborhood parks. Project Parks Bond Parks Impact Fees 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond Change in Project Funding Notes Glendale Park $ (5,350,000) $ 11,350,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 Phase 1 construction would remain fully funded. The $6 million increase is for Phase 2 construction. Additional Parks Bond funding is anticipated in future issuances. The Council approved $3.2 million of parks impact fees for the project previously Jordan River Corridor $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 500,000 Would fund designs based on the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan (upcoming interim check in briefing for the Council) Donner Trail Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025. District Six neighborhood park Taufer Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025 or 2026. District Four neighborhood park Richmond Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025 or 2026. District Four neighborhood park Steenblik Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025. District One neighborhood park Ida Cotton Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025. District Five neighborhood park Madsen Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000 Construction would be in 2025. District Two neighborhood park Page | 14 Project Parks Bond Parks Impact Fees 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond Change in Project Funding Notes Contingency $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 500,000 Funding available to cover cost overruns for any Parks Bond project Public Art at Parks Bond Funded Projects $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000 Would go through the Arts Council with contracts signed in 2025 and art installed 2025 or 2026 Liberty Park Rotary All Abilities Play Park & Playground $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 Would double the total project funding to $4 million; project is already receiving $2 million from the Parks Bond Folsom Trail Landscaping & Irrigation $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 Would increase the total project funding to $6 million; project is already reciing $5 million from the Parks Bond Warm Springs & North Gateway Park $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 The two parks are on either side of the Warm Springs Historic Plunge Building. Council gave direction to combine them into Warm Spring Park, likely by ordinance amendment Smith’s Ballpark $ - $ - $ (3,000,000) $ (3,000,000) As a taxable bond, these funds have an September 2027 spending deadline. The RDA Board approved $715,000 for the Ballpark Next Strategy which is anticipated to be completed in 2025 Pioneer Park $ - $ - $ 4,960,714 $ 4,960,714 Would increase the total project funding to over $18 million ($10 million from the sales tax bond and over $3.4 million from parks impact fees). As a non- taxable bond, these funds have an October 2025 spending deadline Funding Source Totals $ - $15,350,000 $ 1,960,714 $ 17,310,714 $17.3 million of new spending would be authorized by the Council. The remaining balance of unallocated parks impact fees would be approx. $3 million. The $1.96 million is interest earnings from the sales tax bond Page | 15 This request accelerates project construction, builds more of the amenities the public has requested without creating new projects, and improves the City’s ability to quickly spend funding from the 1st Tranche (Nov 2022; Oct 2023) of the Parks GO Bond, Parks Impact Fees, and the Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Aug 2022). Parks GO Bond 1st Tranche: Reallocate $5,350,000 (of $9,000,000) from Glendale Park Phase 1 Construction/Phase 2 Design. Allocate $5,350,000 to accelerate the construction of nine (9) existing Parks GO Bond projects that would otherwise have to wait for the issuance of the Parks GO Bond’s 2nd Tranche (see bullet point list below). This saves the City and taxpayers money by delaying the issuance of the 2nd Tranche of the Parks GO Bond until FY 2026 and allows those nine projects, which need $5,350,000 for bidding and contracting as soon as January 2025, to move forward without delay. The projects included are: - Jordan River Corridor: $500,000 for 2025 design (Phase 1 projects prioritized by the City and the public in the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan) - Donner Trail Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction - Taufer Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction - Richmond Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction - Steenblik Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction - Ida Cotten Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction - Madsen Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction - Contingency: $500,000 - Art: $300,000 for anticipated 2025 artist and fabricator contracts Parks Impact Fees: Allocate $5,350,000 in Parks Impact Fees to Glendale Park Phase 1 Construction/Phase 2 Design (replacing the GO Bond’s 1st Tranche allocation of the same amount, described above). Allocate an additional $6,000,000 in Parks Impact Fees for Glendale Phase 2 Construction, potentially reducing the size of the 2nd Tranche of the Parks GO Bond, freeing up 2nd and 3rd Tranche funding for other Parks GO Bond projects, and/or increasing the Phase 2 Design team’s ability to provide more of the amenities that the public requested in the Glendale Regional Park Vision Plan. (Note: Additional Parks Impact Fee requests for Glendale Park are very likely; they would occur after future design phases are more fleshed out and cost estimated.) Also allocate an additional $4,000,000 in Parks Impact Fees to three, fully impact fee-eligible, in-progress Parks GO Bond projects that could easily incorporate additional funding without any delays to their established project schedules or to the public’s project delivery expectations. These projects include: - Liberty Park Rotary Play Park and Playground: $2,000,000 for 2025 construction (new, accessible features requested by hundreds of children and parents involved in the project in 2023 and 2024) - Folsom Trail Landscaping and Irrigation: $1,000,000 for 2025 construction (more robust landscaping, irrigation, and amenities improvements in the Folsom Corridor between 1000 West and 500 West, beyond the original construction estimate that focused only on improvements near intersections) - Warm Springs and North Gateway Park: $1,000,000 for 2026 or 2027 construction (greater ability for the City to deliver the vision that is being developed by the stakeholders involved in this project, including Native American, Pacific Islander, and local communities) Sales Tax Revenue Bond: Recapture and reallocate $3,000,000 (of $3,000,000 total) from the now tentative Smith’s Ballpark project and allocate an additional $1,960,713.54 (of $1,960,713.54 total) from the Revenue Bond’s interest income to the Pioneer Park sales tax revenue bond-funded project. D-16: Rowland Hall Contribution for Traffic Calming on Sunnyside Ave ($100,000 one-time to the CIP Fund) As part of a Development Agreement with Rowland Hall to develop a certain property on Sunnyside Avenue, Rowland Hall has agreed to contribute $100,000 to the City to be used for traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures on Sunnyside Avenue. The development is now in a phase where the funding has come due, and, as such, needs to be appropriated. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY25 ($2,945,958 from Grant Fund) The grant funds 20.75 hourly positions. These positions are broken down as follows: - 1.0 HEART Grant Specialist-50% of time is charged to the grant. - 2.0 FTE HEART Coordinators-100% of time is charged to the grant. - 1.0 Justice Court Intercept-100% of time is charged to the grant. 12.0 officers-100% of time is charged to the grant - 3.0 Sergeants-100% of time is charged to the grant - 3.0 officers - 6 months of time is charged to grant Page | 16 - 1.0 Lieutenant - 9 months of time is charged to the grant Note: All positions EXCEPT 3 officers and 1 Lieutenant are positions that have been previously paid for by the grant. The 3 officers and Lieutenant are new to this grant for this funding year. Policy question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration when they will be requesting the $662,760 needed from the General Fund for the equipment and safety gear needed for all the grant-funded positions or whether existing budget could absorb some or all the costs? The grant provides 4 new positions in SLCPD to assist with HRC’s & YWCA. Sub-award will go to Volunteers of America. The award was less this year and does NOT fund police vehicles and computers or ongoing equipment costs for 15 officers. The Administration indicates it will request that general fund balance be used to fund these needs which the grant no longer covers. Questions and Responses from the Administration: Are there any one-time costs needed but not covered by this grant which would be paid for another way (e.g, vehicles, equipment, supplies)? HEART – All costs are included in the funding request. SLCPD –Police officer one-time costs for vehicles and computers are not covered by this grant. Also, no ongoing costs for any of the police equipment on the current or new FTE’s are included. See one-time costs in the chart below: Housing Mitigation Cost Estimate for FY 25 Equipment Costs FTE Cost Total Officer Vehicles (Fleet) - NEW 4 $ 69,000 $ 276,000 Computers /software (IMS) - NEW 4 $ 7,150 $ 28,600 Officer Equipment/Safety/gear 15 $ 44,184 $ 662,760 Officer Equipment/Safety/gear - NEW 4 $ 48,887 $ 195,548 Overtime MOU related- 15 hours/Month per FTE 19 $ 11,200 $ 212,800 Total cost estimate for FY 25 $ 169,221 $ 1,375,708 Would this shift the $662,760 of ongoing costs for the 15 existing officers out of the Police Department budget to this grant? It seems those ongoing costs would have been covered in the PD budget for the existing employees. Those costs have not yet been moved to general fund. They have been covered by the grant in previous fiscal years but the grant funding is not enough to cover personnel and equipment in fy25 - only personnel. Because of that, we need to make a request to have ongoing costs for all non-personnel costs covered in general fund. Grant Funded Positions EXISTING POSITIONS # of hourly positions Salary Amount HEART Grant Specialist list -50% of time charged to grant .50 $42,296.80 2 FTE HEART Coordinators 100% of time charged to grant 2.0 $157,414.40 1 Justice Court Intercept 100% of time charged to grant 1.0 $87,360 12 officers- 100% of time charged to grant 12.0 $778,752 3 Sergeants-100% of time charged to grant 3.0 $330,720 NEW POSITIONS 3 officers-6 months charged to grant 1.5 $76,076 1 Lieutenant-9 months of time charged to grant .75 $98,280 20.75 $1,570,899.20 Page | 17 Other Employee Costs Differential salary rate estimate $9,919.01 Salary amount FTE $1,570,899.20 12.5% of total salaries of SLCPD PTO moved to fringe per state requirement (160,479) Total Salary costs $1,420,339.51 Total fringe for all employees $1,112,767.20 Grand total Personnel Costs $2,533,106.71 Volunteers of America – the VOA subaward supports the continuation of the Mitigation Outreach Team with five (5) FTE positions. The members of the Mitigation Outreach Team include one (1) Business and Community Liaison to coordinate support and advocate for neighbors of SLC qualifying shelter programs, as well as unhoused individuals to the City. 4 FTE Street Outreach workers prov ide direct services include street outreach care coordination to connect individuals with opportunities for short- and long-term support and resources, and housing focused case management to support unsheltered individuals transition to housing. The VOA subaward is $402,007.06. The request includes funds for supplies and training for two (2) HEART Team members. This includes material for community engagement, ($3,000) mobile phones ($1,071), and attendance at the National Alliance to End Homelessness ($6,770.) Is there a status update on the request for a match waiver? We have not heard back yet. It will probably be early September before they announce awards and notify us if a match waiver was granted. How much funding would the grant need to be next year to fully cover the ongoing costs including the new FTEs? If the program maintains the same level of SLC staffing and costs for supplies and travel, the budget will increase approximately $1,179,246.60. This number reflects the new FTE’s increase to 100% and a 5% increase in salaries and benefits. It is unknown if the VOA sub award will increase. SLC will be notified of the FY 26 allocation in Summer 2025. The program is funded by the State Homeless Fund. If the amount reduces or the increase is ≤$1,179,246.60, the program will reevaluate how services are delivered and seek improvements to maintain a level of service with fewer funds. Could you please clarify the second HEART Community Engagement Coordinator? The Council approved a Sequential Intercept Program Coordinator (Miami Model) as part of the grant last year but the new grant memo shows that position as new? There is also a second HEART Community Engagement Coordinator listed as existing but this does not appear to be what the Council approved for the grant last year? The second HEART Community Engagement Coordinator has been included in the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant funded positions since FY22. The position has continued to be a part of budget. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 4 G-1: (None) Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Replacing Trees on North Temple ($505,000 from Funding Our Future Fund Balance/Parks Maintenance) Council Members asked what funding would be needed to replace the dying trees and landscaping along North Temple where herbicide was accidentally sprayed last October. Using FY2025 CIP funding and / or $933,152 of parks capital maintenance funding in CIP could be used. During the August 13 CIP briefing, the Council decided that addressing this project better belonged in Budget Amendment #1 pulling from General Fund Balance because it’s an emergent situation using one-time funding. The Public Lands Department stated 219 dead or dying trees are estimated to be removed in the next couple months. The irrigation system along North Temple is in good condition. The manufacturer recommends waiting until October 2026 before planting trees back into the grounds where the herbicide was applied. A new “double- safe procedure” has been implemented requiring a supervisor and a warehouse employee to both approve checking out herbicide to prevent a similar situation from happening. The Department provided the below interim plan, table of potential costs, and Attachment 1 as a community flyer about the situation. Page | 18 Item Subtotal Tree removal, stump grinding, new trees planted in planters $85,000 Tree planters (Qty 100, Unit Cost ~$2,000)$200,000 Landscaping, soil removal (top 4”), mulch, modify irrigation for planters $220,000 Total $505,000 Policy Question: Additional Resources Needed – The community flyer distributed by Public Lands states that “the department is committed to replanting two trees for every tree lost due to unintentional herbicide use.” The Council may wish to ask the Administration are additional funding requests anticipated beyond the $505,000 estimate to keep this public commitment? Or would existing budgets be sufficient to purchase additional trees? I-2: PLACEHOLDER: Follow-up on CIP to Recapture Funds from a Cancelled Project and Projects Completed Under Budget This item is a placeholder depending on the outcome of the Council’s CIP deliberations and adoption vote scheduled for August 27. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Council was considering a recapture of the $1,012,153 from capital projects that were completed under budget and the $875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Center connecting corridor project (originally funded in 2019). I-3: Follow-Up on CDGB - Two Funding Awards Applied for and Declined by Switchpoint ($60,000) The CDBG award was less than anticipated. As a result, the funding for Utah Legal Services was reduced to zero. Some Council Members have requested that $30,000 be provided to Utah Legal Services and that the remaining $30,000 be added to the next CDBG cycle. I-4: PLACEHOLDER Y2 Analytics Contract – Funding for Additional Surveys ATTACHMENTS 1. North Temple Trees Community Flyer ACRONYMS CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CDBG – Community Development Block Grant CREP – Commission on Racial Equity in Policing CIP – Capital Improvement Program FOF – Funding Our Future FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS IMS – Information Management Services RDA – Redevelopment Agency Page | 19 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2026 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #1 Item A-1 Attorney’s Office Organizational Structure Change $722,888 3 FTEs: 1 City Prosecutor 1 Senior City Attorney 1 Deputy Director of Administration City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704 annually Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8 months/$236,454 annually Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 - $186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually. At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or less than the current budget under the soon to be terminated interlocal agreement with the District Attorney’s Office. #1 Item D-8 $171,910 1 FTE: Capital Asset Planning Financial Analyst IV position Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General Fund for the position’s cost. $2,945,957 grant funding* 4 FTEs: 3 Officer positions 1 Sergeant position *Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover the ongoing costs including the new FTEs. #1 Item E-1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY25 Costs currently paid for by the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant in FY2024 that might be shifting to the General Fund in FY2025 $662,760 For ongoing costs related to 15 existing FTEs $662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15 officers. The Administration is checking whether existing budgets could absorb some of these costs. TOTAL $4,503,515 8 New FTES Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:September 3, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Redondo Street Legislative Intent Staff note: an alley vacation may have fewer technical requirements and may be a quicker process not requiring any purchase of property. MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt a Legislative Intent that requests the Administration review and come back to the Council with a recommendation for the best method, either a street or alley dedication, for Redondo street located between approximately 800 East and Windsor street in order to clear up the legal confusion as to the ownership of this part of Redondo street. MOTION 2 I move that the Council reject the Legislative Intent. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: September 3, 2024 RE:Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Sept 3, 2024 Set Date: Sept 3, 2024 Public Hearing: Oct 1, 2024 Potential Action: October 17, 2024 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City Code creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District. This Council initiated petition would create a new zoning district that would help implement the vision and goals of the Northpoint Small Area plan adopted by the Council in November 2023. The new zoning district would provide an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native habitats. The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation. In the motion, the Planning Commission requested that any land use involving hazardous waste or medical waste be prohibited. As noted in the Transmittal letter, Planning Staff reviewed the land use tables and confirmed that such uses are not proposed in the current draft ordinance. Page | 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Purpose Statement - The purpose of the Northpoint District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife habitat surrounding the Great Salt Lake shore lands and the Jordan River while providing an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses that produce minimal impact on adjacent residential and agricultural properties. This district is appropriate within the Northpoint Small Area Plan boundaries. The district promotes a high standard of building design quality, open space preservation, and protection of sensitive lands and waterways Land Uses The following summary of uses is outlined on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report. The land use table is significantly pared down from the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District, excluding many uses that would be inappropriate for the area. Prohibited uses include kennels/pounds, raising of furbearing animals, bottling plants, check/payday loan businesses, community correctional facilities, commercial laundry facilities, outdoor recycling processing centers, rock and gravel storage and distribution, and vehicle auctions, package delivery service and distribution centers. Allowed Uses include primarily agriculture, light industrial, office, manufacturing uses, and some retail services. Development and Design Standards The following table outlines the Development and Design standards as well as Modification standards outlined on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report Summary of Development Standards Max lot size Maximum lot size is 10 acres, but larger lots may be approved if 20% of the area of the lot to be modified is preserved as natural open space on the development site. See the section below titled Allowed Modifications for more information on modifications to the standards. Max Height Buildings cannot exceed 40 feet in height. Building Size Limitations Maximum building footprint is 100,000 square feet, with potential for increased size if the property owner incorporates sustainability measures such as additional open space preservation, a green roof, or electric vehicle parking. See the section below titled Allowed Modifications for more information on modifications to the standards. Page | 3 Setbacks and Buffers Additional Setback: Jordan River Buffer Building setback requirements for the front and corner side yard is 20’, and the rear and interior side yards is 15’, with additional setbacks from residential structures and specific buffer requirements along the Jordan River. New development must be 65’ from principal residential structures on neighboring properties, and vehicle laneways used to access a development site must be setback 30’ from principal residential structures on neighboring properties. The Jordan River has a 300’ buffer from the annual highwater line. The first 100’ is a strict no-disturbance buffer and no construction or development activities will be permitted in this area. The remaining 200’ of the buffer area (the area between 100’ and 300’) is designated as the Transitional Buffer Area. This allows the buffer width to be reduced in some areas if a greater buffer is provided elsewhere. The modified buffer must maintain the total required buffer area, foot for foot, and must be contiguous with the No-Disturbance Buffer. Landscaping Requirements include water wise landscaping and prevention of noxious weeds to protect adjacent sensitive lands. Trees Trees are required along all property lines at a rate of 1 tree per 30 feet of property line, however, due to concerns with the unique drainage conditions in the area, trees can be spaced irregularly or clustered. When abutting a residential use, the amount of trees required is increased to 1 tree for every 15 feet of property line and must be placed every 15 feet for the length of the residential use and within 30 feet of the residential use. Design Standards Building Façade Length Limiting building facade length along 2200 West to 250 feet. Maximum Length of Blank Walls The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’. Building Materials Specifying building materials to ensure they are compatible with the natural environment. Brick, natural stone, wood, and tinted/textured concrete are appropriate materials. Stucco, including EIFS, is limited to architectural detailing surfaces and articulation. Exterior plastic vinyl siding or any reflective or polished materials are prohibited. Roofs Implementing roof specifications to mitigate the heat island effect. Light reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI) of 82 is required for all roofs. Page | 4 Bird-safe Glass Treatments For any building elevation with more than 10% glass, a minimum of 90% of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass, or other means to reduce the number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 inches wide by 4 inches tall. Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. Dark Sky Lighting Standards All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs so that no light is emitted and/or reflected above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Fence Guidelines To minimize impacts on wildlife, fences shall have a visually open design with at least 50% of the fence open for the continuous length of the fence. Stormwater Retention Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all new and redevelopment projects greater than 1 acre. Detention shall be provided to ensure stormwater discharge does not exceed 0.2 cfs per acre, or less, to match pre-development flows, as identified in the area stormwater master plan. Modification of Standards Maximum Lot Area Approval for lots larger than 10 acres may be granted, provided the buildings and structures are grouped and a minimum of 20% of the area to be modified is designated as natural open spaced on the development site. Required setback yards and disconnected small areas of open space scattered throughout the site do not count toward the 20%, but any required wetland, canal, or other riparian buffers may be included. Maximum Building Façade Length The maximum building façade length of 250 feet along 2200 West may be increased if more natural open space is provided on the development site. The maximum building façade length may increase at a ratio of 20 feet per 5% of the total site dedicated as natural open space. The natural open space dedicated and permanently protected on site shall be no less than 7,000 SF, and to the greatest extent possible, shall be contiguous. Maximum Building Footprint The maximum footprint of a new building (100,000 SF) may be increased by complying with one or more of the options below. No more than an additional 100,000 square feet in building footprint will be permitted for an overall Page | 5 Electric Vehicle Parking Sustainable Roof Designation of Natural Open Space Public Amenities: Stormwater All electric property maximum building size of 200,000 SF. Provide a minimum of 10 electric vehicle parking spaces with a rate of 10,000 SF of additional footprint per 10 EV stalls. At least 30% of the roof area shall be devoted to either solar panels or a green roof, or a combination of the two in exchange for 40,000 SF of additional footprint. Additional open space designation on the development site at a rate of 1 square foot of building square footage for 1 square foot of open space preserved. Inclusion of a privately-owned public pathway, trail, or greenway connecting to or through natural open space areas with a rate of 10,000 SF per 1,000 SF of linear feet of trail, or 25,000 SF per trailhead. Providing full retention of stormwater with no release to the public storm drain system for 50,000 SF of additional footprint, or providing stormwater detention to the effect that no more than 0.1 cfs/acre is discharged from the 100- year 3-hour storm for 35,000 SF of additional footprint. The site is developed as an all-electric property for an additional 50,000 SF of additional footprint. Key Considerations Planning staff discusses in depth two key considerations on pages 7 -10 of the planning commission staff report. Below is a short summary of the discussion, Please see those pages for full analysis. 1. How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Staff found the text amendment was consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Plan Salt Lake such as Economy, Natural Environment and Growth. Additionally, they found text amendment aligns with the goals and vision of the newly adopted Northpoint Small Area plan. 2. Public Input and Code Changes Staff made many substantive changes to the draft ordinance based on feedback from the public. These include changes to the land use table, maximum lot size, vehicle laneways and location of trees. Potential Amendments Page | 7 After the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendation, some stakeholders reached out to Council Member Petro and staff to raise concerns and questions they have about the proposed ordinance. Staff was able to review and respond to some of the questions. For the others which do not yet have a response, staff is asking if the Council supports working with the constituent and planning staff to come up with potential changes that would address their concerns. Questions with Responses 1.Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening. o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet walls for screening mechanical equipment. 2.Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add painted in addition to tinted/textured concrete. o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted. 3.Blank Wall Standard – change to 8’ instead of 12’. o The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’. Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature shall be either recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12"). o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break up the wall than 8". Questions for further discussion 1.Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade. o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not match standard market buildings for interested tenants. o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this concern. 2.Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural open space.” o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 3, 2024 RE: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards PLNPCM2023-00260 The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance to require a minimum 350-foot distance that new gas stations must be from rivers, streams or other water bodies, parks or open space areas one acre or larger throughout the city. Council Members may recall a conditional use application that proposed locating a gas station on the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East, adjacent to Sugar House Park. The Administration reviewed that application and ultimately denied the request. That was the impetus for this proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment at its January 10, 2024 meeting and held a public hearing at which four people from the gas station industry spoke in opposition. The Commission voted to table the application so Planning staff could work with those from the gas station community that submitted comments, review electric vehicle (EV) requirements, and consider where the amendment would apply in the city. Following the meeting, Planning staff modified the proposed text amendment to eliminate specific required locations where EV chargers would be placed. They also reviewed all zoning districts where gas stations are allowed and determined prohibiting gas stations near or adjacent to schools, residential neighborhoods, and other public areas would both eliminate large areas where these stations could be located and conflict with station owners’ rights. As noted above, the subject text amendment was initiated from a conditional use application that would have allowed a gas station adjacent to a public park. The focus of this text amendment is to preserve and protect water sources and open space areas. This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission again at its April 10, 2024 meeting and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 3, 2024 Set Date: September 3, 2024 Public Hearing: September 17, 2024 Potential Action: October 1, 2024 Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration their reasoning for recommending fuel tanks be at least 30-feet from property line vs. the requested 10-foot minimum from Maverik. 2. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what impact, if any, the proposed zoning district consolidation will have on this text amendment. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff notified all gas station owners in the city of the proposed text amendment and requested comments. A second notice was sent to station owners following the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting and included revisions based on the Commission’s requests. Maverik, Inc. was the only company to respond to the notices. They expressed concern about the proposed requirement to locate fuel storage tanks and gas vents in new gas stations a minimum of 30 feet from property lines. Maverik believes this is “impractical, unnecessary and potentially dangerous to customers.” They noted the tanks would need to be very close to the fuel canopy where there is a lot of vehicle traffic. Current technology can detect any leaks from the tanks which would allow quick remediation. Maverik proposes a 10-foot minimum from property lines. The draft ordinance retains the 30-foot minimum distance from property lines for fuel tanks in new gas stations. It is worth noting that fuel tanks being replaced at existing stations may be in substantially the same location as the old tanks. The following are some key changes included in the draft ordinance: Underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks and vents must be located a minimum of 350 feet from water bodies (pond, river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open spaces one acre or larger. For new gas stations, underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks must be located a minimum of 30 feet from the property line. Pump islands must be a minimum of 25 feet from property lines and buildings for new gas stations. Fuel vents must be located at the top of a provided gas pump canopy for new gas stations. At least one EV parking space with a standard charger is required for every 10 required parking spaces for new gas stations. New and replacement underground fuel storage tanks must be constructed of non-corrodible material or designed to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure greater durability and lifespan. If a leak or surface runoff contamination occurs the property owner is accountable for cleanup and remediation. Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for one year or more will be considered willfully abandoned and ineligible for nonconforming status. Their use cannot be restored unless they comply with updated standards. Replacement and updated tanks at existing stations may be in substantially the same location and not have to comply with the updated requirements. The Zoning Administrator may modify the tank locations if federal or state requirements prevent locating tanks in a substantially similar location, or if the applicant demonstrates a different location is more appropriate. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Page | 4 Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 4-24 of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Planning found that the proposed ordinance will help implement goals of the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan (1992), and Plan Salt Lake (2015) to protect the natural environment from fuel leaks and surface water contamination. Consideration 2 – The Importance of Standards for Gas Stations and Accessory & Primary Facilities with Above and Underground Storage Fuel Tanks Planning noted the proposed ordinance is intended to promote the public’s health and safety by reducing potential air, water, and soil contamination from gas station leaks and vapors. They cited a 2022 Utah State Department of Environmental Quality report that showed approximately one in four underground fuel storage tanks tested throughout the state were not in compliance with regulations, and leaks were detected at approximately seven percent of tested facilities. It stands to reason that tanks found to be out of compliance when inspected create environmental issues, and leaking tanks unquestionably cause these issues. Additionally, overfilling storage tanks from fuel delivery trucks, and water runoff from gas stations have the potential to contaminate soil and water. Planning staff stated: Any failure of best management practices would cause a risk of contamination to water sources and open space in the city through the storm drain connection. There are no best management plans that can mitigate the negative impact since spills are caused by human error, and that could lead to a potential failure. Consideration 3 – Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses The proposed text amendment would apply to newly constructed gas stations. Existing stations with above or underground fuel storage tanks would become legal nonconforming uses and allowed to continue. Consideration 4 – Zoning Districts That Allow Gas Stations & Accessory/Primary Facilities with Above or Underground Fuel Storage Tanks – Use Analysis Gas stations are allowed in 14 zoning districts in the city as shown in the list below. They are a permitted use in 13 of the districts and a conditional use in the CB (Community Business) zone. Gas stations are prohibited in many zoning districts including all residential districts and restricted in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District, which is primarily in the eastern part of the city. There are no existing specific City zoning standards that must be met for building a station in areas where they are allowed, other than fire and building codes. (The State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality has requirements gas stations must comply with.) Zoning districts where gas stations are allowed: M-1 (Heavy Manufacturing) -permitted use M-2 (Light Manufacturing) -permitted use BP (Business Park) -permitted use CB (Community Business) -conditional use CS (Community Shopping) -permitted use Page | 5 CC (Corridor Commercial) -permitted use CG (General Commercial) -permitted use CHSBD1/2 (Sugar House Business District) -permitted use D-2 (Downtown Support District) -permitted use D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential District) -permitted use D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District) -permitted use TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Station-Transition) -permitted use TSA-SP-T (Transit Station Area Special Purpose Station-Transition) -permitted use Staff note: pages 10-19 of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report includes several maps illustrating sections of the city where gas stations are located in relation to green spaces, streams, and open spaces. Consideration 5 – Secondary Recharge Area and the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District and Ordinance More than 10% of the state’s drinking water comes from groundwater, much of which is filtered through recharge areas, primarily along the east bench and eastern parts of the city including the foothills and front-facing mountain ranges. These include primary and secondary recharge areas. Primary recharge areas are comprised of rocks and boulders but do not have layers of clay. Water and other liquids spilled in these areas can end up in the groundwater without filtration through the soil that would otherwise help clean them. The unfiltered and cleaned liquids can flow into the water supply. Secondary recharge areas are similar to primary recharge areas but have layers of clay that can help minimally contain contaminants that may spill on the surface of these areas. As the name implies, secondary recharge areas are a secondary drinking water source to replenish groundwater and can be up to 10% of the city’s water supply. Gas stations are not allowed in primary recharge areas. Underground fuel storage tanks are restricted in secondary recharge areas, meaning with best management practices they can be permitted in those areas. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment B (pages 32-33) of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies Page | 6 The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April11, 2023 – Petition received by Salt Lake City Planning Division. • April 12, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • July 10, 2023 – Information about the proposal was sent to all community council chairs to solicit public comments and begin the 45-day recognized community organization comment period. • August 21, 2023 – 45-day recognized community organization public comment period ends. • November 9, 2023 – Notice of the proposed text amendment sent to all gas station owners in Salt Lake City. • December 29, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at the following city libraries: SLC Main, Chapman, Sprague, Day-Riverside, Glendale, and Anderson-Foothill. • January 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning Division listserv for the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • January 10, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to table the proposed text amendment for Planning staff to go back and make changes. • April 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning Division listserv for the April 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • April 10, 2024 – The Planning Commission was briefed on changes to the proposed ordinance. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • April 15, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. • May 4, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division. • May 23, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. ________________ ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Jill Love Jill Love (May 23, 2024 16:31 MDT)Date Received: 05/23/2024 Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/23/2024 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 05/23/24 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT:Petition PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards STAFF CONTACT:Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should follow the Planning Commission's recommendations and approve the petitions for a zoning text amendment. BUDGET IMPACT:None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to require minimum distances that new gas stations can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the city. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district. Existing gas stations could replace and/or upgrade fuel equipment and tanks without complying with these new regulations as long as the new equipment is in the same location as the original equipment/tank(s). Section D of the proposed ordinance addresses replacement, reconstruction, and any modifications existing gas stations may request. PUBLIC PROCESS: 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 ●Notification– o Early notification of the proposal was sent to all City Community Councils on July 10, 2023. o November 9, 2023- Notice of the proposed text amendment was sent to every owner of a gas station in Salt Lake City. o December 29, 2023- Notice of the public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 2024- notice signs posted at six city libraries: SLC Main Library, Chapman Branch Library, Sprague Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library, Glendale Branch Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library. ●Planning Commission Meeting – On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment. The Commission tabled the item so that the Planning staff could work with the stakeholders from the gas station industry, who had given comments on the amendment, review the EV requirement section again, and consider where this ordinance would be most applicable and appropriate within the city. Notification for the April 10, 2024 Meeting- o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve – April 5, 2024. Planning Commission Meeting- On April 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to send a favorable recommendation for the petition to the City Council. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here) b) PC Minutes of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here) c) PC Staff Report of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here) d) PC YouTube Video of the January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here) e) PC Agenda of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here) f) PC Minutes of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here) g) PC Staff Report/Memo of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here) h) PC YouTube Video of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide text amendment April 11, 2023, Petition for the text amendment was received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. April 12, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 10, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the all-City Community Council Chairs to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. August 21, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. November 9, 2023 Notice to sent to all gas station owners within Salt Lake City, regarding the proposed text amendment. December 29, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted at six city libraries: SLC Main Library, Chapman Branch Library, Sprague Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library, Glendale Branch Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library. January 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. January 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing January 10, 2023. By a vote of 7-1, the Planning Commission voted to table the proposed Text Amendment for planning staff to go back and make changes. April 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. April 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on April 10, 2024. By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission voted to send a favorable recommendation for the zoning map amendment petition to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2023-00260: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to propose minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the city. The proposed text amendment would prohibit gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district. The Ordinance under section 21A.36.120 will list the proposed standards, “Standards for Gas Stations and Facilities with Underground and Above-Ground Fuel Storage Tanks.” As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00260. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3.ORIGINAL PETITION MEMORANDUM PL,\.11/NING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Cc: From: Date: Re: Mayor Erin Mendenhall LisaShaffer, ChiefAdministrativeOfficer; Blake TI1omas, Department of Conununityand Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, DeputyPlanning Director Nick Nonis, Plaiming Director April10, 2023 Amendments related to gasstations located nearwater sow-ces andsensitive lands The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a zoning text amendment to analyze the zoning districts where gas stations are allowed in the city and prohibit the use when in close proximity to water bodies, water resources, ground water recharge areas, and public parks. TI1is action is necessa1y to fmther the legitimate government interest in protecting rivers, creeks, streams and other water bodies in the cityand increasing the protection of the ground water protection areas. TI1is action will also fmther the role that parks and open spaces provide in creating large areas where ground water can be recharged. TI1is proposal will propose minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park or open space area over a certain size, and establish more sttingent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the seconda1y ground water recharge area of the city. Determining the minimum separation and standards will be coordinated with Public Utilities to ensure that best practices for managing water impacts from gas stations can be included in the city's zoning code. The public process will include a minimum 45-day public input period before the Planning Commission holds a public heating. All registered recognized organizations will be notified of the proposal. TI1is memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notifythe Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.nonis@slcgov.com if you have ai1yquestions. Tiiank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. 04/11/2023 Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTHSTATE SlREET, ROOM406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKECITY, UT 84114-5400 WWWSLCGOV TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-0174 4. ORDINANCE ________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior Cit Project Title: Gas Stations Located Near Water Sources And Sensitive Lands Text Amendment Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00260 Version: 1 Date Prepared: May 4, 2024 Planning Commission Action: Recommended 4/10/2024 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning: Deletes the current gas station standards (Section 21A.40.070); Adopts new gas station standards to impose a distance requirement between gas stations and bodies of water as well as new standards related to lot size, vehicle stacking, electric vehicle parking, screening, and the location of aboveground and underground storage tanks. Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1 1. Adopts a new Section 21A.36.120 as follows: 2 21A.36.120: RESERVED: REGULATIONS FOR GAS STATIONS AND FUEL 3 DISPENSING FACILITIES WITH UNDERGROUND AND/OR ABOVE-GROUND 4 FUELD STORAGE TANKS 5 Gas Stations and Accessory Uses that have fuel tanks on-site, such as Truck Stops, Fuel 6 Distributors, and Storage uses, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in 7 zoning districts provided in Chapter 21A.33 “Land Use Tables”, and are subject to the 8 provisions of this section. 9 A. General Standards: 10 1. All fuel dispensers and fuel storage tanks (above or underground) shall comply 11 with the requirements of this section and all other applicable regulations, including 12 the applicable reference standards and any other applicable regulations of the State of 13 Utah and Federal regulators. In case of conflicting provisions in any of the above- 14 listed rules, the strictest restrictions shall apply. 15 2. Distance from water bodies: All underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks 16 and gas vents shall be a minimum of 350 feet from any existing water bodies (pond, 17 river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open space -that are one 18 acre and greater in size. 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: May 4, 2024 By: _ y Attorney 19 3. Distance from property lines: All underground and above-ground fuel storage 20 tanks and gas vents shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any property line. 21 4. Associated pump islands shall be a minimum of 25 feet from any property line 22 and adjacent buildings. 23 5. Fuel vents: When a canopy is provided, gas vents shall be located at the top of the 24 gas pump canopy. 25 6. New underground fuel storage tanks: All new and replacement fuel storage tanks 26 put underground shall be constructed of non-corrodible material or designed to 27 prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure greater durability 28 and lifespan. 29 7. Leak or surface-runoff contamination: If contamination occurs, the property 30 owner shall be accountable for any cleanup and remediation of the subject property, 31 any City property, and any downstream water or soil contamination. 32 8. Nonconforming status: Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for 33 one year or more shall be considered willfully abandoned and will not be eligible for 34 nonconforming status. The use shall not be restored unless it is restored to comply 35 with the standards of this section and all other applicable sections in this title. 36 B. Additional Standards for Gas Stations: 37 1. Minimum Lot size: 30,000 square feet. A gas station may be located on a lot with 38 another principal use when the lot complies with the minimum lot size. For the 39 purposes of this regulation, a lot shall include a site that consists of multiple lots or 40 parcels within a single development when the parking lot and circulation elements are 41 shared across the boundaries of the lots or parcels 42 2. Minimum Lot Frontage: 150 feet along all public streets. For sites described in 43 21A.36.120.C.1, the lot frontage shall be measured for all lots or parcels involved. 44 3. Stacking Lane Standards: These standards ensure adequate on-site maneuvering 45 and circulation areas, ensure that stacking vehicles do not impede traffic on abutting 46 streets, and that stacking lanes will not have nuisance impacts on abutting residential 47 lots. 48 a. Stacking lanes shall be arranged to avoid conflicts with site access points, 49 access to parking or loading spaces, and internal circulation routes to the 50 maximum extent practicable. 51 b. A minimum of 36 feet of stacking lane is required between a curb cut and the 52 nearest gasoline pump. 53 4. Fuel Pump Standards: 2 54 a. Fuel pumps shall be located on the site in a manner that does not interfere 55 with easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances. 56 b. Fuel Pumps shall be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can 57 be accommodated on-site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other 58 portion of the public right of way. 59 5. Electric Vehicle Parking: Gas stations shall provide at least one (1) parking space 60 dedicated to electric vehicles for every ten (10) required on-site parking spaces. 61 Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of 62 parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking space shall be: 63 a. Located in the same lot as the principal use. 64 b. Signed clearly and conspicuously, such as special pavement marking or 65 signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and 66 c. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station. 67 C. Additional Standards for Fuel Dispensing Facilities: 68 1. Above-ground fuel storage tanks shall: 69 a. Provide a 25-foot clear radius from combustible materials, storage areas, 70 parking/backing areas, and all buildings on the same lot. 71 b. Have a maximum height of 20 feet from the finished grade. 72 2. An obscuring sight fence of six feet in height shall be required surrounding the 73 fuel storage tanks and associated vehicle fueling areas. All required fencing shall be 74 prewoven chain-link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, 75 metal, composite/recycled materials, or other manufactured materials or combination 76 of materials commonly used for fencing. In addition, the fenced area must be paved 77 with a nonpermeable surface. 78 D. Upgrades to Nonconforming Gas Stations and Fuel Dispensing Facilities: 79 1. Replacing and Updating Tanks and Associated Equipment: An existing gas 80 station may replace existing tanks and associated equipment in substantially the same 81 location without having to comply with the provisions of this section. 82 2. Reconstruction: Existing gas stations that are noncomplying as to lot area, lot 83 frontage, or tank setbacks may be demolished and reconstructed, provided the 84 reconstructed use complies with the other applicable regulations of this section and 85 the tank location is substantially the same. 86 3. The zoning administrator may modify the location of the fuel tanks and associated 87 equipment if federal or state requirements or other legal requirements prevent 88 locating the replacement tanks in a substantially similar location. 3 89 4. The zoning administrator may approve an alternate location for fuel tanks and 90 associated equipment if the applicant can demonstrate that a more efficient and safe 91 location is more appropriate. 92 93 2. Deletes Section 21A.40.070: 94 95 21A.40.070: MOTOR FUEL PUMP REGULATONS RESERVED 96 97 When established pursuant to uses permitted or conditional within the applicable district 98 regulations, all motor fuel pumps shall conform to the requirements below: 99 100 A. Location: No motor fuel pumps or islands shall be erected closer than twelve feet 101 (12') to any lot line, required landscape yard, front or side yard or within any "sight 102 distance triangle" as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 103 104 B. Safety Curbs Required: All uses for which motor fuel pumps or islands shall be 105 made a part, shall erect a safety curb around the perimeter of all paved areas. All such 106 curbs shall be of approved construction. The curbs shall be located so that no vehicle 107 overhangs any public right of way or adjoining property. 108 109 C. Gas Pumps At Convenience Food Stores: In addition to the requirements of 110 subsections A and B of this section, the location of motor fuel pumps at convenience food 111 stores shall be approved by the zoning administrator, where the location of such pumps 112 satisfies the following criteria: 113 114 1. Pumps should be visible to the motorist on the street; 115 2. Pumps should be visible from the store; 116 3. Pumps should be located on the site in a manner which does not interfere with 117 easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances; 118 4. Pumps should be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can be 119 accommodated on site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other portion of 120 the public right of way; 121 5. Pumps should be so located to avoid conflict between cars going to motor fuel 122 pumps and those going to parking spaces. On site circulation should be clearly 123 marked and must reflect established design standards for moving aisles, parking 124 dimensions, and turning radii; 125 6. Pump location, and vehicular access to and exit from pumps, should not conflict 126 with established pedestrian or bicycle approaches to the store; and 127 7. Lighting shall be oriented so as not to cast direct light onto adjacent properties. 128 129 3. Amends the definition of “GAS STATION” in Section 21A.62.040 as follows: 130 131 GAS STATION: A principal building site and structures for selling the sale and dispensing 132 of motor fuels or other petroleum products and the sale of convenience retail. 4 133 134 4.Adopts a new definition “FUEL DISPENSING FACILTY” in Section 21A.62.040, as follows 135 (to be inserted alphabetically into the list of definitions in said section): 136 137 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY: A stationary facility consisting of one or more fuel storage 138 tanks and associated equipment, which receive, store, and dispense fuel for private use and 139 not for sale to the public. 140 141 142 [END] 5 http://poplargroveslc.org PoplarGroveCouncil PoplarGroveCouncil August 27, 2024 RE: Ale's CIP Priority Projects Dear City Council Members, The Poplar Grove Community Council is in support of the changes being proposed by Alejandro Puy to the list of CIP projects as outlined below: Memory grove: the request is for almost 2 million dollars! It’s very much needed, the only change I want to make is to remove out of that amount $160k that’s earmarked for a study. Memory Grove hasn’t gotten any CIP constituent requests in many years, and while I know the funding is needed it is hard for me to support this fully when we have had many constituent CIP requests for the International Peace Gardens and we couldn’t fund them. Last year I was able to earn the support of my colleagues to make some little improvements on the garden, but I think it’s only fair to move this a little, while not sacrificing the needed improvements to the grove. -California Ave improvements. Last year our council funded a study to ensure our kids are safe when crossing California, and the study came out with a request for funding. The recommended budget didn’t fund it. I would like to find it, but recapturing $875k from a project that won’t move forward in Sorenson. The money stays in the neighborhood. -#22-#53: Jordan River: I would like to allocate additional funding for the Jordan River Corridor to leverage the not enough funding from the bond. Fife Wetlands has deferred Maintenance that was requested by the community for more than 5 years and always unfunded. I would like to move some funding to make some of the needed improvements in this underrated gem in the westside. Your consideration of these changes is very much appreciated. Best regards, Karen Potts Treasurer Karen.potts@poplargroveslc.org 385-256-5441 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Aug 25, 2024 To the Salt Lake City Council, I am writing on behalf of the Poplar Grove Community Council to express our strong support for Councilman Alejandro Puy’s proposed amendments to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. We believe these adjustments represent a fairer allocation of resources to address long-standing needs and priorities in the westside communities of Salt Lake City. First, we fully endorse Councilman Puy’s suggestion to reallocate $160,000 from the Memory Grove project to support the International Peace Gardens. While we recognize the importance of the improvements at Memory Grove, it is vital to address the substantial backlog of requests from our community members for enhancements to the International Peace Gardens. Our community has waited patiently for improvements that reflect the diverse cultural heritage and natural beauty of this unique park. Second, we strongly support the proposal to redirect $875,000 from the Sorenson project to fund necessary safety improvements along California Avenue. Ensuring the safety of our children and residents is paramount, and the results of the recent study clearly indicate an urgent need for these upgrades. Keeping these funds within our neighborhood and investing in our community’s well-being aligns with our mission to promote a safe and vibrant environment for all residents. Finally, we fully back the proposal to allocate additional funding to the Jordan River Corridor and Fife Wetlands. For too long, this critical area has faced deferred maintenance, which has negatively impacted both the environment and the enjoyment of our community members. The Jordan River and Fife Wetlands are invaluable assets to the westside, and we strongly believe they deserve the necessary funding to maintain and enhance their ecological and recreational value. In conclusion, we believe that these adjustments represent a balanced and equitable approach to resource allocation, reflecting the diverse voices and needs of our community. We urge the City Council to approve these amendments to ensure the continued growth, safety, and prosperity of Salt Lake City's westside neighborhoods. Thank you for considering our position, and we look forward to the opportunity to discuss these matters further. Sincerely, Daniel Tuutau, DMA Chair, Poplar Grove Community Council Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Contact Numbers Case Number:HAZ2024-02408 Civil Enforcement: 801-535-7225 Carlos Ramirez Carlos.Ramirez@slcgov.com 801-535-6191 Building Inspectors office: Contact Lori : Buildinginspections@slcgov.com 801-535-7224 Permits Office 801-535-700 This document includes : 1. Introduction and Summary of Illegal Development at 1816 S. State Street 2. Timeline of Events 3. Petition with 36 signatures against the rezoning. 4. Photo Evidence Attachment 5 - 42 pages To the City Council, Planning Division, and Building Permits Office of SLC I am writing to you on behalf of over 30 residents, neighbors, and tenants who live in the residences connected to the proposed rezoning of the 1816 S. State Street lot from Business Park (BP) to Commercial Corridor (CC).We unanimously agree that the Planning Commission and City Council should not approve this request for rezoning or any request for building permits at this time due to ongoing illegal redevelopment at this site.We ask that no permits for redevelopment be approved until the City Council has evaluated the situation and placed redevelopment conditions based on our community input. Since the planning commission approved Tiffanie Price’s rezoning application on April 24th, 2024 which states clearly “No redevelopment will take place” and neighboring residences “Will not be affected”, Price immediately started demolition and unpermitted construction projects that have been ongoing for the past four months. We believe based on the details of her proposal she will attempt to install a drive-through restaurant immediately behind our 7 homes, but without an accurate proposal she could do anything. This ongoing construction has forced us to frequently contact the SLC Police, civil enforcement, and various city offices to address the massive development efforts immediately behind our homes that has resulted in significant effects on our quality of life and the value of our homes. After months of non-stop construction the lot is currently being illegally used as a parking lot for the tenants of her building who also illegally idle their cars within inches on our property fences. It is absolutely imperative that she is not allowed to develop and that any permits she applies for are denied until the City Council can recommend conditions on her redevelopment that serve our community and protect the value of our homes and quality of life. As the residents of the community we request that City Council A) does not approve the zoning for a drive through restaurant B) establishes a requirement that any redevelopment must have a 3-4 foot set back from our property lines and C) Require that a row of trees be installed between our homes to reduce the light and noise pollution that her illegal development has caused in our properties. Sincerely, the Residents of Coatsville Avenue Timeline of Events Jan 1 Zoning Submittal by Tiffanie Price, Stating no redevelopment Mar 6 Residents Receive a Notice to attend planning commission that states “the applicant does not intend to redevelop the property” April 24 Approval by planning commission under the stipulation of no redevelopment or effect on neighboring residencies. April 25 Workers and Tiffanie mark all the trees on their lot to be cleared and incident by Tiffanie Price of harassment, intimidation and threats May 4 Construction Starts - Cut Down power lines, Constant Chain Saws, Wood Chippers, Trucks, Trailers, Heavy Machinery and workers 7am to 8pm on every weekday, Saturdays and Sundays May 14 Workers start cutting into tree stumps and pulling them out of the ground. Workers Tear Up front concrete, Trees are laying on the ground in front. May 20 Removing Stumps continues - Heavy Machinery Construction, Laying Rebar in Front June 6 Hydraulic Excavators - Heavy Machinery Construction , New illegal Garage Installed in front of building, new concrete poured in front of building, June 7 Civil Enforcement Confirms All Work is unpermitted and Illegal June 17 Civil Enforcement is Escorted by Salt Lake City Police to enforce stop work notice after Tiffanie Price refuses to head stop work notices. July 18 Tiffanie starts using the unpaved plot of land as a parking lot. Cars idling in the lot with zero set back from property line. Petition Signers: Submission Date: 2024-06-07T20:52:42.701Z Name: Micheleigh Schori Submission Date: 2024-06-06T01:41:15.915Z Name: Peter Jensen Submission Date: 2024-06-05T23:02:31.474Z Name: Veronica Jensen Submission Date: 2024-05-14T03:13:39.694Z Name: Sarah Parris Submission Date: 2024-05-09T17:37:08.102Z Name: Brandon Aspittle Submission Date: 2024-05-08T00:36:47.026Z Name: Molly Mcginnis Submission Date: 2024-04-27T04:56:22.887Z Name: Michael Mitchell Submission Date: 2024-04-27T03:14:41.204Z Name: Kari Bolken Submission Date: 2024-04-27T02:31:11.623Z Name: Carol Goodman Submission Date: 2024-04-27T02:27:22.821Z Name: Bryan Tompkins Submission Date: 2024-04-27T02:19:29.160Z Name: Jen Librizzi Submission Date: 2024-04-27T01:33:28.159Z Name: Sammi borders Submission Date: 2024-04-27T00:56:47.149Z Name: Sarah Lamphier Submission Date: 2024-04-26T23:34:55.084Z Name: Tamarra Greene Submission Date: 2024-04-26T21:07:33.703Z Name: Lonnie Williams Submission Date: 2024-04-26T21:07:11.645Z Name: Josh Dobson Submission Date: 2024-04-26T20:43:22.972Z Name: Griffin Pool Submission Date: 2024-04-26T20:18:08.682Z Name: Josephine Lokiru Submission Date: 2024-04-26T19:58:35.844Z Name: Cassidy Wasko Submission Date: 2024-04-26T19:54:37.220Z Name: Sierra Boyack Submission Date: 2024-04-26T19:08:24.783Z Name: Shae Anderson Submission Date: 2024-04-26T18:54:58.847Z Name: Casey Poulson Submission Date: 2024-04-26T18:53:40.099Z Name: John Goodman Submission Date: 2024-04-26T15:04:40.516Z Name: Rosemary Phillips Submission Date: 2024-04-26T14:12:18.166Z Name: Alice Dughi Submission Date: 2024-04-26T12:11:13.492Z Name: Jason Gunn Submission Date: 2024-04-26T07:19:00.102Z Name: Callahan Black Submission Date: 2024-04-26T07:14:11.143Z Name: Nicole Kryger Submission Date: 2024-04-26T07:09:11.395Z Name: Danielle Powers Submission Date: 2024-04-26T05:07:40.655Z Name: Alison Mitchell Submission Date: 2024-04-26T03:58:55.836Z Name: Nicholas Zeman Submission Date: 2024-04-26T03:11:35.554Z Name: Briana King Submission Date: 2024-04-26T01:38:10.038Z Name: Lucy Gelb Submission Date: 2024-04-25T23:40:59.383Z Name: Chelsea Winkers Submission Date: 2024-04-25T23:40:59.383Z Name: Victor Schlyter Submission Date: 2024-04-25T23:40:59.383Z Name: Scott Hargett Photo Evidence: See next page causigosible damage to roads called out SLC.I dont him in SEC, I'm intbe UK but We read l grew up on bad a really nice road until some wacrak drove alongthebeat with Wen exhaust (fine general consensus, iwbody saw it happen) dangling gouging a fanty shallow bid consistent tine intbe road . . . but after a fewyears(antl the UK gets Eke winters a year, full East and thaw cycles) me road startedWfallapart after hawngbeen fine for a decade, and at thatLme my counnlwas going broke Hinallywent broke in M181 and so d wasntfixe l and It looks fike a huge mess. It did retfake much for wearro grow unevenly. So Iought W point out well as private padding areas -they knewtoritben I and didnb erenjuststop immediately. They drew: back _. . IfiMMesekmdsofpeopletobeawNl, ireumngcostsfor . . I --IuntWmakea YouTubewdm.CarsarenYtoystoplayaroundMh on public roads, it makes me sick when people deal .. .. nirshawraAbeknown2peopW[o endupdead ... .. ..I appreciate that cars are dangerous and there's a culture oftoyfficahon o"mincrcasingthatdaMer,,cleadyfromtheir _ I . . . .. forthe danger offlyfng chunks of concrete. AddNonatty at 8:M in thewder they are creating a sduahon in which concrete would flymwards the public read, if chunks and stones werem fly out they may end upflyngtowards the road ErEs We mosthketydnxlonasthetime in which dneeds W be released isjust afterthe no pressure).Thewheeldoes haseametanneshinsidesoonly .. ._. .. ...-butYbaPssdllalotoffaatconcrete.Their . I last and keep going Then address is 229 Hams Ave Sand looking at maps I'm eery confideettbmMe roads _ ..I wsiblemthewdmat 15A21viden is mirrored).lastly, that car cannot be road legal hkethat, dangerto others and himself.I bridayou sbmdwm .. ., .._hclearthatnobodyslrouldbedomgthinphti Misin SLCor anywhere, when it comes to public roads Igtbeywant W mess around they need W do it mhrety on private property andalsonocMnceofchunksWcomr andstareWflyintopublicspaces).- SkylarkX Murphy Durres Taxpayers dontwam to forenae starker Dear City Counmlmember: I urge you W oppose the proposed closure baluster increase Obtained gyve ready$1 bNion to the NHL sportrom ertamment district. Inflation and growth beard substantially increased We costal housing, food, energy and omer essendal household expenses in recent years. These compounding costs amount to more Wan$11,000 a yearforMe aveage family of four! Marry Salt Lake City residents simply cannot afford We additional rebounded cost 0$225 per year thus sales tmr increase is approsed. We should not be subsudWrg businesses and billionaires W the expense mthe average woddngfamity. The risksfbat private businesses choose to take fraud not be placed on the backs of taxpayers, especially Mention business alone stands W reap the financial rewards' Study after study shows that these subsidies do not prowde We promised economic benefits, and often leavetaxpayers with broken promises and mounting costs in We Wag inn. Eluded Me agamsttbis for increase and so"' Sincerely, Colleen LayWn,UTIM1041 Hello PlmsefiMa chndmylefterofirrteni in supported 91N 49:12 Mom/maSConstM1uem Selea Tax I bepeve it is more appropriate W implement a statewide increase on Sales Tax. The entire stalewill berefithom WevibrarcyofthisdisWct. W520241100 Colleen Sena 9/5202414:11 Pods, Dacus **Attachment 1-2 pages including a planter or roundabout at the 2100 South Wasatch Drive intersection. Think you forthe supportt Polly Dacus Attachment 1 - Page 1 Subject: Support for Traffic Calming Measures at 2100 South and Wasatch Drive To Whom It May Concern, We, the undersigned residents and concerned stakeholders of the community, are writing to express our strong interest in the implementation of traffic calming measures at the intersection of 2100 South and Wasatch Drive. The current traffic conditions at this intersection have raised significant safety and congestion concerns for residents and commuters alike. Specific Measures of Interest: 1. Roundabout Installation: We believe that installing a roundabout at this intersection would significantly improve traffic flow, reduce the risk of accidents, and enhance pedestrian safety. Roundabouts have been shown to decrease vehicle speeds and improve overall traffic efficiency. 2. Planters and Greenery: Adding planters and green spaces at the intersection could not only beautify the area but also act as physical traffic calming measures. By creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment, we hope to encourage more careful driving and enhance the overall quality of the neighborhood. Reasons for Support: • Enhanced Safety: The intersection is currently prone to high-speed traffic, which increases the risk of accidents, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. • Reduced Congestion: Traffic calming measures can help alleviate congestion, leading to smoother and more predictable traffic flow. • Improved Aesthetics: Planters and a well -designed roundabout can contribute to the visual appeal of the area, making it a more pleasant place to live and travel through. We respectfully request that the relevant city departments and decision -makers give serious consideration to these proposed traffic calming measures. We believe that these changes will greatly benefit our community and contribute to a safer, more pleasant living environment. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to positive changes that will enhance our community's safety and well-being. Sincerely, Polly Dacus Signature Page Attachment 1 - Page 2 We, the undersigned residents of Arcadia Heights support the request for a traffic calming assessment in our neighborhood. We urge the authorities to prioritize the safety and well-being of our community members. Please find our signatures below: iJ�IQ/l/LSrL &"t4d Date: 9h) I "U "1(T/I r'"" WG'(}�1 Date: %b //`��"` LL t 1 3. Ila Date: 4. na r(A N06td� Date: 67�//% S• FRIc DAw Date: 0 �� 6. �Gc� �UllQ2 Date: rJ 7. A�Ie., NUn-C-2; Date: $Ilc 8. Geo r-8t0. J<�li KC ✓P ate: / 3 i 2o. N. � SCL, Davie: 00/: Please nbU that th4e signatures represent only We are confident that many others would be eager to express their support for this request. Thank you for considering our collective voice and for your commitment to enhancing road safety in our community. 911631 HeaMer WilMns redew:lopemenUbmds nmyua rvri RAY2o2416:14 John Stewart concern arson mmem amup Proposal Unresmsed issues Heres an idea. Instead m mnssmamagng, tines given Wine coumy residences. Think long and hard about bow to more 2near schools In our city. You cam ahvays depend on millions mdollam ffyou have anther stain disaster. Students and per lies deserve safe places to go to school. Using for money, to bunrd schools, and cleaning up our city should be prionty. Emedainment is rim high on the ash m need right now. Dermal[ _ salary In Ike when absolutety hothng gets done on me west side m town?There are potholes along Me streets, those Mat have Men re- tarred are always close to a LDS Temple! So our property, ouNies, sewer rates . .- .1 hiked salaries are being paid forwMout doing anything? Phase improve[wing conditions and not jumtalk thetalk! We want more transparency as to where our moneygoesto and be you, as council members be more accountable. Best Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for your commonly, service in he[pig to improve Salt Lake City. I haw: bad manyconcerns abouttie$mho Entertainment Group and their plans. I vronY go into all mthat now, but I do wantto mention my main concern.I corem[y serve as a commissioner onthe Accessibility and Disa nIiy Commission with ASMey hchtle. The people on our committee represent a variety m Wherein disabilities. Ear example, epilei blind deal, physicaldwbilNes, legalngb[s. bamportabm, independent [using, etc. Our purpose is to nmproethe accessibility mthe disabled in our communed. People in Salt Lake know bow it is very difficult to go Mere you need top. whether by car, bus, orbmthrough an mtho construction, especiallybr more with dromfiNes. It is also difficult toget access in various buildings throughoutthe city. When I saw Me proposal for the downtown reviGmation, I bad mmryconcems. Some are: Through all mthe construction, win therebeaccessto the buildings, se es and programsdovmtorvndurmgMeconshuctmi especnallyontbe sidewalksaMs eels?Adepartmenttiom SLCgwernmemneedstodomg Wrinspectiomtoconbmtho Once the revitalization is completed, Wit the buildings, sheers, roc. be accessible? Winthe buildings include accessb AIM(semce for the bind)? Win there he epileprytramingfor staff members? Will people with physical dromfirms be able to get wherethey need to go+ Our commission was wary involved with Me planning and construction mthe new airport to see thatthere was accessiblMto people who any disabiby. They came often to our commission meetings tog reports and get input, which was very helpful. I suggestthat someone from the Smith group come to our meetings toget input on accessibility. I feel s4onglythat Salt Lake CM or Smith Emertamment Group hire at. least one person to oversee accesmthhty throughout the whole process m this project so that it will done right, according to code, and allow an people access to the places May want to go. Thank you for Worn Amy Carmen J thenrgrendlods Mere dueto the number m homeless people using drugs and defecating. Pay would hike a regraon placM there and hopes of the issu a being resahed so they cen use tho park again. They Irve nn the units acrossbomthopark. it has been 3 months and fi re t uests Mich Me Mayes office neglects to resolve: (like rearmed us to the forest semce, streets,etd PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEM or burn dovmtheweedsonthestreetinhomm 191O Wasatch DMeand Broadmoostreets. lsafire and health hozardthri city .., . . .. . . 11 Instead concentrates on downtown improvement and net suburb maintenance WW202416:15 TammySmdh WW202416M ZacharyMcker 3IMU48:57 Hobert Speiser Misguided caulhontape about VOTE comdor I am a homeowner in Disbict4, and thiseastweek along a several block stretch 012ME phelween Sound Tempe and 500S) it seems that Me city council decidetl it mold be a pod use of resources to put up hideous "noon tape, traffic cones, and signs reminding people that the grass is differ parking. I here hoed in my home for over 20 )ears, and have NEVER seen the grassy m edged used as a parking lot as these signs seem to imply. About once a year some dummydrnes a car over the medianwhen it is wel federal milli courle, butffis is incredibly rare and I suspe li impaired covers doing this would pay no mind to caulhontape and Mery, signs. Furthermore, Me city rarely tends these medians. The barely managed area is a source of dandefion seetlingthrouglroutthe neighborhood. The sprinklers are lemony, leawng areas of dew Wass, and wM1eraaerthere is storm, dtakes weeks for the city to pick up branches. We maddlywmkthem into our own yard wash bins to clean Mean up.I am flummoxed that mtherthan use resources on maintenance, the vshe used to put up these eyesores.I understand resources are Bmfted, and would reservm[e the city council regardingthe poorly maintained public space. However, I amf vioustiattexdollarswere used inthis misguided "mpwgnto preventpawng on the median -a problem Mat does nct ewst. These are Me ki nd of tNdgs votem remember on elMion Jay. Tam my SmiM Intentionally Loud Drivers Good Afternoon. I here to make this complaint, but it is so tldfiwltto enjoy our weekends wbenthereareso roam/ intentionally disruptive motorcycles and modified w:Mdes goingthrough our borne on Nd $late=lateat night. This is a residential reigrborM1ood and should De respected as such. There needs to be a pobce presenceto enforce disturbances and deterthese aftenbonally reimpose mtlbfduals. Theyarecomingeveryweekentl. andwe should not be subjected! to this constandly witlwut any recourse. I'm cede hn this issue has been brought up countless times, so I'm not certain why no discran ble actions he beentaken.Thankyou. Granite Constructions proposal for North Salt Dear Mr. Hall and City Council members„ This hsto letyon kmwthnt l am deeptytroubled by Orange Lake Construction's proposalto puta concrete patching plain in North San li I'm concerned about air and noise pollotion, and Me potential heats impacts on nearby residents. I'm also concerned, as many 0 us are, on the amou rd of water to pie used by the proposed plant, and the waste water that the pla nt wi II produce. By every means, we need to protecttheendangered Great Salt lake. As UPHE has emphasized 71tere plants also consume large amounts of water and gerwnate wasle water that can confabulate Wound water potiution. As other commenters have pmnted out, Me commission is merely taking Grantee's word that they will not exceed the 201 gallons per daywaler use Imi Me commission must regmresecificalhon otthat claim. 9pefanldy sound the connected to a water management system to prerenl contaminants such as spilt cement, aggregate or concrete sprifrom entering storm rider drains. If should be designed to enable recycletl water from the water management system. Other commenters stale that Grange is only proposing a catch basin who no ouflet to store waste water. If so, common sense suggests that is grossly inadequate to or~ Wound water or nearby properties and could be mosoudo breetling etei I sharethese concerns, and I would like to emphasize the potential harmful impacts on less prmlegnd members of our community, many of whom live near or downwind from Me proposed plant. Please resnnd Grange Construction's proposal- Sincerely, Robed Speiser W1012024V 01 Jan K Hansen Affordable housing 51101202414:02 uororrynussey Amy Kapischke Granite Construction lw emvul ✓uouc opposnon on nranne Construe hi proposal to put a concrete batcbrg plant in North Salt Wire. (EXTERNAL) Go not approve Granire's concrete manufacturing in North Salt Lake CanyoufellmewWsbengdoncaboOtw Metbnoadontabtehousingin SAll _, .. -- afford a house anymore. Wages court increase dart much 6 Utah seemsto encourage that trend Alan, bows that Tbry Home Voltage corm V along? I never here anything ahoN ff arrymore. Are the homeless going to betreen V to death again tbiswiNe?None, Othe homeless deserve to be treated this way -. .. _ then belongings inhire tough. They take away then tents &huntress. Tlxm they man It them. Aft this with novouch ne✓ beforehand .. .. to stay. They rant camp anywhere. Even the shelters aremi .. .shehers,too. Usually they're full in bad weather, when you really needthem.Maybethectuncil I _ .homeless people and the caring non-food", Jim Unsheltered Utah E Others, who really tryto helpthe homeless. So what is the counm I8 mayor doing to help? Thankyou foryourtime. Regards,kn Hansen I urgethe Sad Lake City Planning Commissionto resmndthenrecommethadonforthe approvalo aconcrete manuf dM✓ iiityfor Granite ConOrucdon 91055 NWarm Spmgs Rd dueto significant environmental and health concerns. There are a number O reasons i am urgingyoutb do this. The proposed patching Mat contradicts the intent O M-1 Zoning Standards to 'enhance property vaWes' and provide a'clean attractive industrial selling." W by did the planning commission allowed! Granite to game the system by letting them decide whereto hematite, finefora regmred l,dpp h. set back from residences. The real problem is a concrete shortage, concrete hatching plants do not create cement which Is the bmidngfactorfor concrete production. The proposed plant raises concerns or noise pod Won, an pollution, water consumption and waste disposal. Please do not approve this facility James Viney MD I would like to urge the Salt Lake Cary Planning Commission to rescind then recommethabon for Me approval of concrete manufactun V inci(try for Granite Construction 411155 N Wagon Springs Rtl due significant environmental and health concerns. This wou to be a serious setback for the heats O Noi Satt Lake residents as well as a long the Wasatch from. Dank you, Dottie Hussey Please do not approve Crane's concrete manufacthdry✓ proposal in North Salt Lake. First there are concerns about air pollution, n iso pollution, and water usage on an already greased water lalife. Next, Granite already has a treat recent in instant V requirements for poWmon and resource usage. Granite sNh V up a concrete manufacturing plant in North Salt Lake is a losing programing for nearby resident; as well as the labor Whom as whole. Dank you for your attention to this matter. -Amy Koyisr:We 910I20241403 AmyIONNSON (EXTERNAL. ... - -- atching Dear SL City Council Members and Planning Commission Members, I'm wrNigto express my concernwM the Plamin NSaRLake conJBional use permRproposedbrthe Concrete BatchigPlantin North Salt Lake. I behevethereto besigndcam I _ sufficient to reversethe Planning Commission's recommendation for approval lathe spe.1) The location is already sublectb higher mind active and evenwM a ful five dust plan being suggested l fearthatthe. _ _, byamyconcrefebdchingpWm couWb darimental toourcollectrveauqua0y,especiai"rthose — . . 2)The water for abatement This is an irresponsible use of an already limited resource in our desert c hmate. 3) The Master plan already includes language below: I behove poor au quality and a disregard for our emmmnmen al W N re by ---... -. _ etoerodethequa0y Whbbrcurrentr idemsaswellas oimmrshtherelarve .... . Quaky Ensure local emnronmemal sta dardaAs stated in this plan, au quality has been identded for Salt Lake City residents. Poor .. . . to vehicle and industry emissions. In atlddonto being a health hazard poor air qualiy affects the overall quality We hardy restlems and creates negative perceptions brwsdorg and images 4) Notedly is the hourly planmigon usingwaterforthe blatee dug, it all need waterfor Its disposal aclmdesMe risk mgrm . .. seemsb be wary likely, as the current enlorcementbols sometimes feel inadequate. This applicant has a -- . - exechng regulations and has received numerous wolations and fines in my neighborhood. They continue to pursue a mine in Parleys Canyon that would cause irreparable damage to the enw ronmem add significantly impact the air quality. I request that the Planning Commission rescind it's recommendation for the Conditional use pert Thank W for yourtme in considering my concerns. Sincerely,"Alohmon Salt Lake County Resident 9/1M21124 M:(15 Jill FOnte (EXTERNAL) Grandees Proposed belching plant Please do NOT allow 9y WU414U') Wda F. SmiM (EXTERNAL) Granite Concrete Manufacturing Facility Ladies and germander, I am one m many SLC residents becamingalarmed by our deteriorating natural environment. As cry leaders and planncrs, you have an oblgation make decisions in our beat interest. Granite Construction's latest gambit to build a concrete bunching plant in North San Lake must be dinaBowed.I line jug no an of the quarry on Wasatch BhN. The dug add Met Pam caWMs from that some are intolerable. Granite is u n co no erne) tram Me effects on our ervronment-as evidenced by their edition in are quarry, then proposed Parley's mine, and nowthis. The dug, the wrier consumption, Me exha etf om bucks -all might serve to produce more concrete, but all wiR b Mer erode au r quahy m We here in Me valley. Reese make a decision b tlo n®R by your conatduents and do net allowthe plant to proceed Thanks- andthanksforyoursemce,hBFome DearCltyf uncil,Reaseacttoresnntl Me SLCPlanning Commissionsrecommendation Wapproveaconcreto manufadturingtaciWy in North SaltLake. I believethe Commission was timing he approve such a led" intMs location. Such a facility is at odds wMh one intent of M-1 ZomigSlandards meamto enhance property values' and prodJe a'clean affractrve industrial settbg.- _ _ .. harms such a facile will produce are su bstamial. There trill be semre au pollution eggs, including toxic dug and diesel missions.The _ be inadequate and _.... _ _ water that is in short sir poly and needed for the Great Salt Lake. Mrs a rea son ply cannot stand another source m pollution, considen ng .. _.. ._heeway.therefincry _ _ IhecnhasappsaaaLanddusthom are Great Salt Lake. While Ido net led in this neighborhood it is no timethat we stop burdening the weg add with pollution. Thanks be your consideration. Linda F. Smith 9/10I2024140R Tanya Galton LG (EXTERNAL) Re: Comments on Granite ConsW ct on's proposal fora concrete manmamunngfacifily The Staff Report Errors in Concludingthe CM is Obligptndth Approve the Application The report states, 'State and City cafe regm re that a Conditions[ Use he approved d reasonable conditions can be imposed on fie mend mmgate any reasonably anticipated debimen W I effects of Me use. A conditions[ use can only be clerveJ N Me Planning Commission finds Mat reasonably anticipated dethimeMal effects cannot he mNgated with Me inn posmon m reasonable cond monf "The health hazards associated with concrete basic Nng plants can vary tremendously depending on the precautions and pollution controls used by Me operator. Not men in ideal circumstances they, are significant sources 0 ai r"Wrong 0 numerous typesyrart¢ulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, water and noise pollution. The terms 'ra sonable,' and 'mMgate"are extremely vague, they make Ran standardvery much subjecl to individual im WreWlion, and do not obligate the city to apprmseMe application. IS R'reasmable' to allow business Mat is virtually go formed to harm Me health nearby residents and property own a rs+ Mat constitutes mmgation? How much reduction m known health hazard qualifies as'mltigation +In Me statement of item for 2A20.010 of Zons V Standards for M-1, it fortes that the intent m Me man manuring district is to 'enhance property values. J' This project hardly enhances Me property values of nearby properly owners, whether they am residents or businesses Fonder, in the purpose statement AMOM Rstates, "The purpose mthe M-1Light Manmactunng DlrtriR is to provide an ermronmentfor b®rt industrial uses Mat produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean altractwe indusloal setting and Mal protects nearby sensmve Words and waterways." None m the abow: stated goals is consistent wm a concrete batchi V plant, as Me pollution, truck baffic, and noise all constitute a n 'appreciable impact on adjacent properties, Mat desire a clean aMadne industhal setling._' Recommendation number] says that, - No portion mthe use Oncluding any accessory uses) can bewith in the portion of Me property Mat is within 1,000lt. m a single or own family zoning dlstrim. Otherwise, Me use would be prohibited." Previous commenters have noted Me planning commission has allowed Grande to game the system with the my theyWave, drawn the center nor a0 the 1,ODD R. setback radio a. The commission is allem V Granileto Mom "ine how the ambiguity inMat ordinance is to be iMer amial, uMermiring the item mthe ordinance which oWously Is to pMade some pmtechon for the cure Ms. Even so, as the report Wes, 'A portion mthe wbiect pa¢el is [sell] located within 1,000 k. of an area zoned! R-115,000 Since Fatuity Resrdendal. However, Me use is prohibRed"in operido V wthin the In Mon 0Me property that is within this 1.000 ft. buffer area.' We raise Me question: 'Once operation has begun, does the city have any staff or means by which Mal Ism Ration wi II be eirorced?' 0 not, then even defem all to Granite to draw those and ndaries leaves Me buffer area meaningless. 9/10120241406 Tanya Gauo M CONIINUEDII(EXTERNAL) Re:Comments on Grande Construction's proposaltor a concrete manufacWringfacihty Me commission's stall reportjushfies approwry✓the application in part because ftclaimithere has been shortage ofconcome in the$ah Lake Region, and in Mat"Almrouingthis use will allow additional concrete production in the Salt Lake area andsupport nevconstmction and derelupmenL'Theyothr no details and no references fortheclaim, and nothing in the ordinanceobligatesthem to consider such a shortage. Nonetheless, according to reports in 2022, the fimtiing lactor in concrete shortage at that time was a shortage of cement due to mulhpletactors. @ah's basehno production of cement is aheadylow, but one ofthe onlytwar cement plants in Ulab had maintenance issues and broken egmpment. Merewere supply chain problems relatedtothe pandemic, arise in shipping rates, a national shortage oftruck drivers, and a global labor shortage in the industry, all of which Ndherdecreasedthe supply utcement. Fly ash, another ingredient in cement, became harder to obtamtorsew al reasons. This concrete Lurching plant vn ll not increase the supply 0 cement or fly ash, and therefore will do essendatiy noMingto increase concrete supply rothe Sap Lake Valley. Hoopeston Rescind Urgethe Salt Lake Cdy Plannmg Commissiontore iMMeir commendabonfortheapprmaidaconcretemanuf Wdngfadbty for GraMeConstrucuonat1055NWamSpn�Hddueonsigndicanternronmentalandhealthconcerns. Vague Standards: Highland the ambiguity ofterms like 'reasonable and "iniffi ' mthe slafl report, aquingthey do not obligate the city to approsethe application, especially when public health is 4 risk. Property Values and Zoning I MeM: Point out Mat Me proposed hatching plaM contrad rots Me intent ut M-1 Zom V Standards to "enhance prope"Ibles' and proande a"clean aMa the industrial selling.- - 1,000 ff. Buffer Zone: Question why one planning commission allowed Graute to game the system by telling them decide where to drawthe Motor required 1,OOOfl. setbackfrom residences. Concrete Shortage Claims: Dispute the unverified claims of a concrete shortage i n the SMt Lake regmn a nd clarify that the proposed plain will not address the real issue omen shortage. Concrete patching plants do not create cement which is the limiting factor for concrete production. -Ao Poflutlon Concerns Empbasim the serer¢ap no0uhon asks, iintoning toxic dust and preset missions, which are proven to cause sifunificant health problems, especially for nearby resid ents. Comments tram residents who the near these plants in Harris County, Tx, said, 'It's hard to b reathe with a concrete plant in you r backyard. "'the it ug Mat blows from concrete batch plants curers the ir roofs, then ca is, their barbecue pits. M6 canlpoMid.MeycanthawMendsmr."Noise Pollution: Critique the planning commission's dismissal wise "Union concerns, and stress the impact of additional nose on residents' health. -Inadequate Mutation and EMomeroeM: Arguethatthe commission's proposed arrogation measures, such as dug control war idling restrictions, are insufficient and unfikelyto be emectivelyenforced.-Water Consumption and Wage Management: 0/10I202414:00 Tanya Gadon SlG WlW202414V Julia Lyon CONHNUEOH(EXTERNAL) Re:Commeols on Mtlress Me potenitaliorexcessiue water use and groundwater discrimination, slressmgthe neelforstriRwiter Glance Coresvuctton's proposalfor a concrete management and wage disposal protocols. Enmronmenhol Justice:Atluncatea inOWdinganotl soumeof manufaclucngfanury pomulton roan already burdened communed. hignitighting Me enmonmenWljusloe implications ofthe proposed plant. The homes across one freeway, west and downwind of this propeM, are abnewy eymsed to multiple sources of concentrated pollution. The f reeway. soon to be expo opted the refinery, the nearby airport, emrssions from nearbymaswarehouse homes thtMe acity approved, and dustlrom the Great Salt Lake. - Trask Recond ofthe Applicant: Mention Granite's poor eMtcal and a ndronmentaltrack record, including numerous violations and fines, as a reason W dislruatlheir cemmmnentto mitigation efforts. Grange has proved their contempt forthe wishes and well being W Unions by corNmmng to pursue the disasfrous mine in Parleys Canyon. In summary, this hatching blood is inconsislergwith Md zoning groats. The commission is allomngthe appin an[to game the system to gusted its application. The commission's recommendations for mitigation are inadequate and in marry bases meant ngless. d is nil "reasonable"tu arrow the appli"M to exploc eztsltng residents in the area, aM operate a faciltlythat wtd cause stgntfibant heats hams to people who are abrowyNctims; 0 emvronmemal injustice, l5vcm themuibpteswmesofpollutiontheyarealreadye wdto. This application should undergo. Sncereyjantra concerns aboutconcrete plant in NOM Salt Lake lamwntmginoppositionof Gramte. . , .l\aconcreteNtchingpWMin North Salt Lake.1 to rewind their recommendation W lettbis project mWefroward. I am extremely con r med about air cloudy andenmronmentaI impact not onlyfor residents but students in nearby schools such as West HIM, the Wrgest high school inthe city. The increased impactfrom air Tumbled and desel emissods may only ......, _. . _ and adults'healthconcrundmi we preparetowelcomefhewoMiorlhe Olympics in ,yMis the best wayto cleanup our city and state? Me Mere either altermanse Locations in less populatedareasor—more broadly — Wei body mectthe economic interest of We cmzens?Or doesthis only benefit. _. _ . _ this companyMankyou. Jolla Lynn