Loading...
10/15/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   October 15, 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: 09:01:26 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 Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing October as Italian-American Heritage Month. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring September 15th to October 15th as Hispanic Heritage Month in Salt Lake City. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Salt Lake City International Center Maximum Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to M-1 zoning districts of the Salt Lake City International Center. The proposal would increase the height of front yard fences from four feet to a maximum of six feet. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-0080.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Grant Application: Eviction Protection Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Community and Development, Housing Stability Division to Housing and Urban Development. If awarded, the grant would provide support services for low-income residential tenants at risk of eviction. The grant would also continue to fund two existing full-time positions.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   3. Mosquito Abatement District Property Tax Report The Council will accept public comment and consider a request by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District to increase property taxes. In keeping with State Code, the Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees will report to the appointing Legislative Body regarding their intent to increase the certified tax rate, resulting in a property tax increase to Salt Lake City residents in 2025. Following the City Council briefing and hearing, an additional hearing and vote will be held by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees before the end of the calendar year. The hearing will be held on December 19, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. at the district facilities located at 2215 North 2200 West Salt Lake City, Utah, 84116.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 12, 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. Resolution: 900 South Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City The Council will consider adopting the proposed 900 South Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City. The State code requires the City and RDA to enter into an interlocal agreement to create the project area. The HTRZ Plan outlines the participating taxing entities, tax increment participation rates, the term of tax increment collection, and the planned utilization of tax increment funds in the project area. The RDA Board adopted the item on October 8, 2024.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: North Temple Urban Renewal Project Area Boundary Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) North Temple Urban Renewal Project Area. Earlier this year, the State Legislature passed Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 70 creating the Utah Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District. A portion of the district overlaps with the North Temple Urban Renewal Project Area and the legislation requires the City to remove the overlapping properties from the North Temple Project Area before 2025. The amended boundaries spread across four non-contiguous areas would be approximately half the size of the original project area acreage. The boundary amendment received separate approval by the RDA Board on October 8, 2024.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   3. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Ski Trucks, LLC The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $300,000 loan for Ski Trucks, LLC, at 1260 West North Temple from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Ski Trucks, LLC is a family-owned and operated full-service ski and snowboard shop. The loan will assist in the creation of two new jobs in the next year and the retention of twelve existing jobs.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Street and Alley Vacation and Subdivision Amendment at Brooklyn Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Brooklyn and Dolan subdivisions in order to vacate a portion of Brooklyn Avenue and an adjacent City-owned alley. If approved, the section of Brooklyn Avenue would be divided and sold to the property owners of 1005 and 1007 South 500 West according to the approved plat at fair market value. The alley property would be sold at fair market value to the owner of 1007 South 500 West. The project is located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jonah Hornsby of Jodah One, LLC. Petition No.:PLNPCM2022-00068, PLNPCM2022- 00349, PLNSUB2023-00493.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1816 South State Street The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property at 1816 South State Street from BP (Business Park) to CC (Corridor Commercial). The proposal would allow the building at this site to be leased for additional commercial uses. The request is supported by the Central Community Master Plan. The project is located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Tiffanie Price, property owner. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00033.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Ordinance: Obstructions in Required Yards and Height Exceptions Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend chapter 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, specifically tables 21A.36.020.B and 21A.36.020.C, which regulates permitted obstructions in required yards and permitted height exceptions in different zoning districts. The proposal would address zoning administration issues, modify provisions to match building code requirements, eliminate outdated provisions, and allow rooftop uses to exceed the maximum height in some zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00231.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   4. Ordinance: Airport Title 16 Amendments The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would repeal and replace Title 16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Airports. The proposed amendment would eliminate duplicated and outdated regulations. The proposal also includes moving codified commercial standards to standalone administrative documents for operators doing business at the airport. Language related to ground transportation rules and fees is removed where it is duplicated in City code (Title 5).    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date.   5.  Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission - Gloria Mensah The Council will consider approving the appointment of Gloria Mensah to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Reappointment: Historic Landmark Commission – John Ewanoski The Council will consider approving the reappointment of John Ewanoski to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending October 15, 2028.    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, October 15, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 10, 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 OCTOBER 2024 ITALIAN-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS,Salt Lake City is home to a vibrant assembly of diverse individuals from a multitude of backgrounds, including Italian-Americans; and WHEREAS, Italian-American Heritage Month has been celebrated in October throughout the United States, providing an appropriate time to recognize the contributions the Italian-Americans have made to our community; and WHEREAS,Joseph Toronto, the first documented Italian immigrant to Utah, is acknowledged to have been here as early as 1848, and was followed by waves of other Italian immigrants; and WHEREAS,Italian immigrants formed a vital part of the late 19th and early 20th century labor force that contributed directly to the industrial and economic development of Utah and Salt Lake City by providing needed labor in the state’s mines and railroads; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City formed a central hub for these immigrants as they established families, homes, and institutions; and WHEREAS,the impact of Italian intellectual, cultural, artistic, and governmental impacts have been felt worldwide for centuries and continue to influence our own modern municipal governance; and WHEREAS,In Utah, Italian-Americans organized and supported each other through charity work and education by forming groups such as the Italian-American Civic League, formed on January 18, 1934. This organization is still active today; and WHEREAS, Italian-Americans have made notable contributions to various fields, including business, music, education, government, cuisine, arts, and sports, enriching the cultural tapestry of our city through their traditions and values and leaving a lasting impact for future generations; and WHEREAS, Italian-Americans have preserved their unique cultural heritage through festivals, events, and organizations, fostering a sense of unity and pride within the Italian-American community and sharing their traditions with all residents of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City hereby recognize the month of October as Italian-American Heritage Month in our city and encourage all residents to join in celebrating the contributions and culture of Italian- Americans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City extend their appreciation to the Italian-American community for their enduring contributions to our city and wish them a joyous and meaningful Italian- American Heritage Month. Adopted this __ day of October 2024 ___________________________ __________________________ Erin Mendenhall Victoria Petro, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District One ___________________________ __________________________ Chris Wharton, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two _________________________________ ________________________________ Eva Lopez Chavez Darin Mano Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five ______________________________ ______________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS,Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated nationwide from September 15 to October 15 each year to honor the rich history, culture, and contributions of Hispanic and Latino communities to the United States; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City is home to a vibrant and diverse Hispanic population that contributes to the city’s economic, cultural, and social life, and their traditions have enriched our community and deepened the fabric of Salt Lake City's identity; and WHEREAS,this month begins on September 15, marking the anniversary of independence for several Latin American countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, followed by Mexico’s independence on September 16 and Chile’s on September 18; and WHEREAS,Hispanic and Latino individuals have made enduring contributions in the fields of arts, business, education, medicine, science, politics, law, and more, helping to shape Salt Lake City and the nation; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City celebrates the strength and resilience of the Hispanic community, recognizing its significant role in shaping our city’s present and future through leadership, entrepreneurship, civic engagement, and public service; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming environment for all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, or background, and strives to ensure that Salt Lake City remains a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive; and WHEREAS,Hispanic Heritage Month serves as a reminder of the city’s ongoing efforts to address issues of equality, equity, and opportunity for all its residents, and to uplift the voices and experiences of our Hispanic and Latino residents. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City proudly recognizes and celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15, 2024, and calls upon all residents to join in honoring the many achievements, contributions, and history of Hispanic and Latino communities year-round. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Salt Lake City reaffirms our commitment to promoting inclusion, and welcome residents from all, and will continue to work with community partners to address the unique challenges faced by Hispanic and Latino residents, ensuring access to education, housing, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Adopted this 15th day of October 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: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET – Text Amendment: Salt Lake City International Center Maximum Fence Height Petition PLMPCM2024-0080 MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future council meeting. MOTION 3 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting MOTION 4 I move the Council close the public hearing and reject the ordinance. Item B2 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-2 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: October 15, 2024 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS October 15, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No.2 Existing FTE’s. Eviction Protection Grant Program Provides landlord- tenant mediation and expansion of post- eviction services for low-income residential tenants at risk of eviction. Also provides subaward fund to Ogden-Weber Community Action Partnership and Utah Community Action. Needs Public Hearing. No.$1,143,154 Housing & Urban Development Community & Neighborhood Housing Stability Division Pdf link from the Administration provides a grant project summary. Question: For the Eviction Protection Grant, how many households will be assisted by the grant? Please provide your calculations. Answer: 5,665 Question: It looks like the calculations weren't shared. Would you please provide them? In other words, how did you arrive at the 5,665 households? If we divide the number of households into the total grant funding, the result is $201.00 per household, which doesn't seem to be an adequate amount to prevent evictions. Answer: For the Eviction Protection Grant Program: The grant funding is designated for positions providing direct services, rather than direct financial assistance. Consequently, the projection of 5,665 households is based on estimates from both our team and subrecipients, using data from prior program outcomes. The majority of those served (approximately 3,000) will gain access to online tools through the Tenant Resource Center. It’s important to note that this figure does not represent households avoiding eviction, but rather those benefiting from the services offered. Additionally, the grant funding amount is not directly correlated to the number of people served. Please see attached EPGP Activities, Measures, and Expected Outcomes chart that tallies up these households served in column C of the attachment below (“Activities-Measures-Outcomes- Chart). EPGP Project Summary.pdf Activities-Measures- Outcomes-Chart-FY-2023-24-EPGP-NOFO.pdf Question: It’s our understanding that federal funds can’t be used for a grant match. Is that your understanding as well? Answer: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds may be used as match to satisfy the matching resource requirements, provided they are specifically designated for the activities and costs allowed in this NOFO. Proposed matching commitments that are not eligible, such as, funding sources that are federal (e.g., HOME or Weatherization Assistance Program funds) or that are not committed for allowable uses (e.g., rehabilitation, code compliance) will not be counted towards satisfying the match requirements of the programs in this NOFO, although the funds may be used for the units being treated under this grant. Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel Public Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX REPORT Proposed Tax Increase in 2025 MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer to the District’s Board of Trustees December 19 meeting for a public hearing and action. 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: Austin Kimmel Public Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX REPORT Proposed Tax Increase in 2025 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District (SLCMAD) is reporting on its plan to increase property taxes for Salt Lake City residents, intended to take effect in 2025. SLCMAD states that the tax increase is necessary due to inflationary increases on supplies and mosquito abatement services, to fund the construction of new infrastructure and facilities (Phase II), the acquisition of a helicopter for in-house aerial treatment applications, and day-to-day operational expenses. The increase would generate $1,370,667 in additional revenue for the District and is needed because the annual “new growth” revenue has not kept pace with inflation. Although the percentage increase to the certified tax rate is high, 19.7%, the impact to an average valued-residential property is $0.83 cents per month or $9.95 per year. For businesses, the impact for each $1 million in value is $2.42 per month or $29.00 per year. Current Proposed 2024 2025 Certified Tax Rate: 0.000147 0.000176 0.000029 19.7% Total Tax Revenue 7,029,062 8,399,729 1,370,667 19.5% Increase to Property Owners - ANNUAL Residential Property - Average Value of $623,900 50.44$ 60.39$ 9.95$ 19.7%Note: monthly increase is $0.83 Commercial Property - Average Value of $1m 147.00$ 176.00$ 29.00$ 19.7%Note: monthly increase is $2.42 Difference Item Schedule: Briefing: October 15, 2024 Public Hearing: October 15, 2024 Potential Action: n/a Page | 2 The 2025 proposed budget that the District submitted is anticipating a relatively flat budget through the coming fiscal year (calendar year 2025), because any property tax revenue from the increase would affect their 2026 fiscal year. A few options for smaller increases to the certified tax rate were considered, but after additional review, the Board supported the current proposal a larger increase. The proposed budget would also and recognize interest income benefits from investing the money as well. The Salt Lake City Council serves as the appointing Legislative body, which appoints members to the SLCMAD Board. According to State Code, information is shared with the Council as the elected officials, but the Council’s roles is not to make final policy or budget decisions for the District. Those decisions, along with its operations, are made by SLCMAD Board of Trustees and staff. Goal of the briefing: to fulfill requirements set forth by state law, which mandate that the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District inform the City Council of its intention to pursue a tax increase. State Code also requires that the Council take an opportunity for public comment before proceeding with a public hearing and vote by the District Board of Trustees. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Although the District has the authority to propose and execute property taxes, the Council may raise some questions about timing. Several other tax increases are on the horizon from other taxing entities (County, School, sales tax, etc.), and the Council has considered the impact of all these on property owners. 2. The Council may ask about changes the District is making to operations, how the helicopter and other purchases may affect their budget, including any efficiencies or cost-savings that could be realized. 3. The Council may ask for an update on construction plans, Phase II. 4. The Council could ask the District to expand on how it intends to notify Salt Lake City residents of its proposed tax rate increase and opportunities for input. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposed 2025 tax increase would provide SLCMAD with additional revenue to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of mosquito control efforts in Salt Lake City while keeping up with inflation. SLCMAD states that it has experienced cost challenges due to inflation and double-digit increases in the consumer price index (CPI) at a rate of 19.4%. While the city has experienced new growth, SLCMAD states that new growth has only captured a 6.63% increase in revenues over the last three years. In addition to the challenges faced by rising costs, SLCMAD plans to boost its capabilities by expanding its facilities and developing a new in-house aerial operation program. The expanded facilities would allow the District to increase its surveillance and control programs, provide laboratory and field research capabilities, and house its future aerial operations. SLCMAD currently relies on contracted aerial services based out of Ogden Airport, which uses fixed-wing aircraft for mosquito control operations. However, the District plans to transition to an in-house aerial program by purchasing a helicopter and increasing unmanned aerial systems. SLCMAD expects this will provide the District with greater control over treatment applications compared to that of fixed-wing aircraft, leading to more targeted and effective mosquito control efforts which will reduce adult mosquito control applications. Page | 4 The Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District (SLCMAD) is a Special Service District with its own mission, bylaws, taxing status, and governing authority. Its board members are appointed by the City Council, and as a non-elected Board, the Salt Lake City Council serves as its legislative body. The SLCMAD Board of Trustees is responsible for overseeing the District’s budget, mission, and daily mosquito abatement activities related to public health and nuisance hazards. It may also take all necessary and proper steps to exterminate of mosquitoes, flies, crickets, grasshoppers, and other insects and to abate as nuisances all stagnant pools of water or other breeding places. Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: RESOLUTION: 900 SOUTH HOUSING TRANSIT REINVESTMENT ZONE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the resolution adopting the 900 South Housing Transit Reinvestment Zone Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the resolution, and proceed to the next agenda item. Item F2 TO:City Council Members MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: Ordinance: North Temple Urban Renewal Project Area Boundary Amendment MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the boundaries of the North Temple Urban Renewal Project Area. Staff note: The Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors approved a corresponding resolution on October 8 to also amend the boundaries. State law requires approval from both the Council and RDA Board. Amendments to the North Temple Project Area budget will come to the RDA Board for review and approval in the future. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Item F3 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: Austin Kimmel Public Policy Analyst DATE:October 15, 2024 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO SKI TRUCKS, LLC, AT 1260 W NORTH TEMPLE ST. MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $300,000 loan for Ski Trucks, LLC, from the Economic Development Loan Fund. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item. 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:October 1, 2024 RE: 1816 South State Street Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2024-00033 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for an approximately 0.54-acre parcel at 1816 South State Street from its current BP (Business Park) to CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning district. A 5,700 square foot building is on the site and currently used as a vocational school for tattooing and piercing. The petitioner is not planning to redevelop the site but indicated a desire to lease the building for additional commercial uses such as retail sales or a restaurant which are not allowed under current BP zoning district unless they are approved as part of a business park planned development or when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees. This proposed zoning map amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 24, 2024 meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. As shown in the map below, area zoning is predominately CC and BP for properties fronting State and Main Streets. The subject parcel is adjacent to the O.C. Tanner campus to the south, and a single-story office complex immediately to the west which are both in the BP zoning district. Properties on the south side of Coatsville Avenue are zoned CC for commercial use, but with one exception, all are single-family homes. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 1, 2024 Set Date: October 15, 2024 Public Hearing: November 12, 2024 Potential Action: November 19, 2024 Page | 2 Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue. Note: the lavender shaded PL (Public Lands) parcel is the Salt Lake County Government campus. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss rezoning the property to the proposed Corridor Commercial zoning district and the potential for the property to be rezoned again in the near future with the proposed citywide zoning consolidation. (Under the proposed zoning consolidation properties zoned Corridor Commercial would be zoned MU-5 which has similar height and setback requirements. A comparison of Corridor Commercial and the potential MU-5 zoning is available on the information sheet at this link.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 4 The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Compliance with General Plan Policies Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports initiatives in the Central Community Master Plan (adopted in 2015, 10 years after the property was zoned BP). The plan designates the subject property as “Community Commercial” to “provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods.” It is Planning staff’s opinion that rezoning the parcels to CC would be consistent with the plan’s guidance. Consideration 2 – Community Benefit Policy The subject zoning map amendment petition was deemed complete before the City Council adopted the community benefit policy on March 5, 2024 so the petition is not subject to the new ordinance. Attachment D (page 13) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the zoning districts. It is replicated below for convenience. BP (Current)CC (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 60 feet 30 feet by right, (45 feet through design review) Front Setback 30 feet 15 feet No front yard setback is required in the South State Street Corridor Overlay district. Corner Side Yard Setback 30 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard Setback 20 feet None required Rear Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 75 feet Buffering 30-foot landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district. 7-foot landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district. Parking 1-2 off-street parking spaces 1-2 off-street parking spaces per Page | 5 per dwelling unit required for most housing types. 2 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet required for most commercial uses. dwelling unit required for most housing types. 2 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet required for most commercial uses. Design Standards Building Entrances -X Parking Lot Lighting X X Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 16-18) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal but stated additional review, permits, and utility upgrades would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Page | 5 • January 10, 2024 – Application for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • February 13, 2024 – Application deemed complete. • February 22, 2024 – Petition assigned to Planning staff. • February 29, 2024- o Notice sent to Ballpark Community Council. 45-day comment period for recognized community organizations begins. The community council did not provide comments. o Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. • April 11, 2024 – Public hearing notice mailed and posted on City and State websites, and Planning Division listserv. • April 12, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted on the property. • April 24, 2024 – The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of approval as proposed. • April 25, 2024-Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • May 7, 2024-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • June 4, 2024-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 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:October 15, 2024 RE: Obstructions in Required Yards and Height Exceptions Tables Amendment PLNPCM2024-00231 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Planning Commission that would amend City code to allow additional height up to 10 feet for rooftop amenities such as a patio, with associated unenclosed shade structures including shade sails, pergolas, gazebos, etc. The proposal would allow these in all zoning districts except residential districts. Under current City code rooftop patios are considered habitable space, so must be within the allowed building height for the zoning district within which they are located. If the additional height exception is utilized, coverage with shade sails or other structures would be limited to 40% of the roof area and require them to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edges of the building. If the rooftop amenity and shade structure are within the building’s permitted height without a height exception, then the coverage and setback restrictions would not apply. Additional changes include updating the table of obstructions in required yards. These changes include removing outdated language, complying with changes to State statutes, and adding clarity to simplify administration of the zoning code. A new obstruction type was added to the draft ordinance that includes “Other accessory structures not regulated elsewhere and not exceeding 10 feet in height and 120 square feet.” Arbors and trellises were removed as a specific category and they along with pergolas and other similar structures would be addressed in this section, simplifying the code. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment at its June 26, 2024 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 15, 2024 Set Date: October 15, 2024 Public Hearing: November 12, 2024 Potential Action: November 19, 2024 Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. Is the Council supportive of the proposed 40% limit on shade structures and 10-foot setback for buildings utilizing additional height? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff believes limiting the rooftop shade structure coverage on buildings utilizing additional height will allow them to cover areas such as pools and grilling areas, while providing space for mechanical equipment so it does not need to be located at ground level. A 10-foot setback for shade structures on the top of a building will help ensure the apparent building height from the ground will not change. In addition, under the proposal buildings with rooftop amenities that abut residential zoning districts would be required to have a physical barrier such as a fence or planter to help provide privacy for neighboring properties. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 3-4 of the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 1 – Rooftop amenities, associated unenclosed shade structures and their impacts As discussed above, City code considers rooftop patios to be habitable space, so they must be within the maximum allowed building height for the zoning district where the building is located. The Planning Commission has reviewed projects requesting a few as five additional feet of building height to build rooftop amenities through the planned development process. Allowing them on buildings that utilize additional building height will simplify the process for applicants and the Administration to include these amenities on buildings. Rooftop amenities such as pools, patios, and grilling areas are a benefit to residents of multi-family buildings, but without shade they are not frequently used during the hot summer months. The proposed 40% limit on coverage and 10-foot setback from the roof’s edge is anticipated to minimize the impact of rooftop amenities to neighboring properties, and passersby. Planning staff stated, “By allowing for rooftop amenities as a permitted height exception, and therefore allowing additional private open space, the text amendment implements best planning practices.” Consideration 2 – Public feedback Planning received requests from the East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO), Liberty Wells Community Council, and the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee for a presentation on the proposed text amendment. ELPCO had concerns about a lack of setbacks from abutting single-family homes. Planning staff then recommended adding the 10-foot setback for shade structures, and a physical barrier to help prevent those on a building’s roof from looking into neighboring backyards. ELPCO did not share concerns about the proposed changes, and the Liberty Wells Community Council, and Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee were supportive of the additional requirements. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Page | 4 Attachment B (pages 32-33) of the June 26, 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 The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. Complies The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. May impact residential properties but proposal incorporates regulations to minimize impact. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. (21A.50.050.C applies only to private property owner- initiated amendments. This amendment initiated by the Planning Commission.) Not applicable PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 14, 2024 – Petition initiated by Salt Lake City Planning Commission. • February 28, 2024 – Petition assigned to Ben Buckley, Associate Planner. • March-April 2024 – Planning staff reviewed the petition and drafted language to support goals of the petition. • April 12, 2024 – Notice of petition sent to all city recognized community organizations. • April 16, 2024 – Petition posted to the Planning Division’s open house webpage. Public comment period ended May 31, 2024. • May 9, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the East Liberty Park Community Organization. • May 16, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Liberty Wells Community Council. • May 20, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Sugar House Land Use Committee. Page | 5 • June 13, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the Planning Division listserv. • June 26, 2024 –Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 5-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • June 28, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. • August 27, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division. • September 18, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. 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: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: October 15, 2024 RE: Title 16 Amendment related to the Airport NEW INFORMATION The proposed ordinance amendments are designed to outline Airport operations to be consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, especially among legislative, administrative and federal decision-making roles involved in the Airport. In April of 2023, the Council initially discussed this item and requested re-evaluation of items moved into the Airport’s Rules and Regulations document, and how to address items within legislative authority and oversight. Following the briefing, staff worked with the Airport and Attorney’s Offices on updates to the ordinance to address that policy direction. Since this was last discussed, the Airport received feedback from members of the general aviation community. Additionally, while updating the ordinance, Airport staff found some discrepancies between the general city and airport parking fine. Proposed changes have been included in this draft to address those issues. The proposed parking fine change will require a new public hearing, which is on tonight’s consent agenda to set the date of November 12th. The Council held a hearing on April 18, 2023, during its initial review of the proposal; no one spoke during that first hearing. Policy Questions 1)Legislative Authority & Oversight – based on requests from the Council, staff has reviewed the transmittal to ensure that the Council’s role is clearly established without minimizing the Airport’s ability to efficiently operate and make decisions. See page 2 for a list of proposed edits that address the Council’s oversight role on topics such as conflicts with Federal regulations, budgeting, service delivery, and overall City Policy priorities. Some items may be sufficiently addressed and other may need additional edits – staff would appreciate the Council’s review and direction on those items. a)Does the Council find the changes made to ensure legislative oversight have adequately addressed council concerns? Item Schedule: Briefing 1: April 4, 2023 Briefing 2: October 15, 2024 Public Hearing 1: April 18, 2023 Public Hearing 2: Nov 12, 2024 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 2 3 0 7 9 b)The Council may review the list beginning on page 2 to provide any direction to staff and the Attorney’s office for further edits. 2)Airport staff found conflicting parking penalties between the airport and general city parking regulation sections. Staff recommended implementing the fines from Chapter 16, which are higher that what is currently charged. a)Does the Council support charging higher parking fines? Since this is technically an increase in the fines, does the Council support holding another public hearing? See chart in Key Issues/Parking section below. 3)The Airport is a City enterprise fund, meaning it is financially self-sustaining with revenue generated from airline and other fees. a)The Council may wish to ask for clarification from the Administration, if the Airport is subject to any impact fees that are established in that area of the City? If not, would it be appropriate for the airport to be subject to any impact fees established? Key Changes The transmittal letter notes the key changes include: a. Removal of language regulated by the FAA, or that is operationally focused and managed through the Department of Airport’s Rules and Regulations b. Creation of a standalone Commercial Aeronautical Minimum Standards documents c. Removal of the majority of ordinances regulating ground transportation businesses to consolidate those regulations into one Chapter 5.71 d. General updates e. Parking Penalty changes Section A - Removal of Redundancies o Sections controlled by the FAA are removed from city code o Many sections removed from City code and placed in the Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards document. (see discussion in “Legislative Authority” below) Section B – Creation of Commercial Aeronautical Minimum Standards o Some sections removed from City code and Minimum Standards document is created. Section C - Consolidation of Ground Transportation Ordinances into Chapter 5.71 o Language in title 16 that applies to ground transportation regulations are consolidated into Chapter 5.71 – Ground Transportation. Section D – General Updates o Since Title 16 has not been update for years, many text cleanups are proposed, such as; correction of airport names in the airport system, removal of outdated property boundaries and removal of airline, cargo, and airline service provider fees language. Section E - Parking Penalty Changes o Staff found conflicting parking penalties between Chapter 12.56 Stopping, Standing And Parking, and Chapter 16.64 violation, penalty and enforcement, o The transmittal recommends removing Chapter 12.56 and keep the Airport parking regulations in Chapter 16. Page | 3 2 3 0 7 9 c) Additionally, they recommend implementing the penalty from Chapter 16, which are higher that what is currently charged. They anticipate this will be a stronger deterrence for illegal parking. Current Penalty (Chapter 12) Proposed Penalty (Chapter 16) Parking in unauthorized areas $45 $200 Parking in violation of posted signs $38 $100 Legislative Authority and Role Clarified At the April 2023 work session briefing, the Council ask for changes that would maintain the Council’s legislative oversight of the Department of Airports without conflicting with FAA regulations. This section highlights the proposed changes that would implement that policy direction. Summary – the Council’s direction was to review any amendment that removes the Council’s role as the oversight body on issues, especially related to budget and policy. This included: o Federal regulations that may change and conflict with City Code o Budget Authority o Service Delivery o City Policy Priorities FAA Regulation Changes & Conflicts o Airport director’s ability to expediently resolve conflicts: Updating Rules and City Code - The purpose of proposed section 16.10.030 Authority to Adopt Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards, is to clarify the role and authority of the Airport Director to make changes to this section of City Code. According to the transmittal letter, currently, when changes are made pursuant to federal regulations, updates need to be made to Title 16. To resolve this, the draft ordinance removes items that are found in Federal regulations, from City code, and places them the Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards where they can be updated without Council action. The ordinance delegates this ability to the Airport Director as outlined in 16.10.030: Authority to Adopt Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards. o Reporting to the Council: language (16.10.080) that the Airport director will review any conflict with the City Attorney. The Council could request a memo to report on these items so that the Council can be aware of the conflicting topics, outcome, and, if desired, request a briefing. Budget items o Final adopted budget Confirm that department-wide salaries are adjusted consistent with the City’s annual adopted budget, and individual adjustments may be handled as needed considering the Airport’s unique comparison market. Page | 4 2 3 0 7 9 i) Fee setting – there is nothing proposed that would change the Council’s role in approving all fees through the Consolidated Fee Schedule. ii) Other fees, such as administrative fees, impact fees, payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) - nothing changes how these are handled, but the Council could schedule a separate briefing to review these fee categories. o Financial Audits o Proposed: Section 16.10.030 includes language that specifically provides that the Director’s authority is subject to the City Council’s budget authority. The Council could include additional language that would further clarify that all Airport operations, whether in rules or FAA regulations, are executed within the properly adopted budget and consistent with the citywide policy decision and require additional Council review and approval if changes are needed. The Council may also wish to ask staff to identify whether there is any clarification that would be appropriate in Title 2 of City Code, as part of the Council staff’s separate project. Service Delivery – in the past, there have been conversations about services provided at the Airport, such as ADA assistance. o The Council could request further clarification on whether the Council’s role in those discussions is adequately established in the proposed ordinance, and/or whether the Council’s ability to establish broad policy direction on such topics belongs in another section of City Code. o The Council could also ask that customer service survey results be shared on an ongoing basis. Citywide Policy priorities – the Council may want to review this Title or Title 2 for opportunities to clarify the broad policy setting role they hold, including any clarification about how decisions are made in light of environmental issues, transit, and lobbying efforts on legislative or other topics. The following information was provided for the April 4, 2023, work session briefing. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Administration proposes updates to the Salt Lake City Code Chapter 16, which regulates the Airport. The proposed update includes changes in the following categories: a) removal of sections separately addressed by Federal regulations, b) merging ground transportation regulations into Chapter 5.71 of City Code, c) utilizing a separate document to cover minimum standards for “commercial aeronautics”, and d) general updates. The changes take a number specific regulations listed in the existing ordinance and relocate them to an Administrative Rules & Regulations document, which is referenced in the existing and amended ordinance. Moving or consolidating these items to a separate document is described as consistent with industry best practices, and makes updates and consistency easier. The proposed ordinance amendment is being reviewed by the Council, because the amendments will shift some regulations and authority out of a Council-adopted ordinance and rely solely on an Administrative rules document. Many of the proposed amendments seem reasonable for consolidation purposes, “housekeeping” type of improvements, and to remove items that are more Page | 5 2 3 0 7 9 operational in nature and should not be referenced in the Code. However, the Council may prefer to review the list of changes more closely (from categories c and d especially), because there may be a smaller list of items that are proposed for removal from the Code that should remain in the ordinance and with a step of Legislative oversight. KEY ITEMS The existing chapter is proposed for total repeal, and replacement with the amendment. For this reason, every part of the ordinance is being removed and rewritten. In categories ‘c’ and ‘d’ of the proposal, some regulation items in ordinance would either be eliminated or shifted to the administrative document. Many of these are already delegations in the existing Code to the Airport Director (so that delegation would shift, or the specific carve out would be eliminated altogether). Some examples: process for event permitting (freedom of expression permits) – the existing ordinance includes a reference to the administrative Rules & Regulations document, and the proposed ordinance amendment would remove the reference. the existing Code includes specific references to solicitation of charitable contributions for religious, political or other activity. The proposed update would include removing this specific regulation from the ordinance and replacing it with a blanket delegation that instead refers to the existing and updated list in the Department’s Rules & Regulations document. removing “minimum standards” and technical and regulatory language from the Code. The regulations are covered in other sources such as federal aviation requirements. The minimum standards involve commercial requirements for operators using the Airport for commercial activity. These standards are outlined at length in the last two sections of the administrative transmittal. removes entirely the minimum standards language from the ordinance, and places it in these administrative documents shown in the transmittal. These standards have to do with commercial aviation operators, airlines and others doing business at the Airport. the ordinance currently delegates to the Director the power for “policing and protection” of the public to guarantee safety at the Airport. The update proposal instead references the administrative rules which say the Department or an authorized law enforcement agency can remove people from the Airport if they are not complying with rules. (This may be an example of an item that should retain a Legislative role and remain in the ordinance.) Provisions related to ground transportation permits and fees are proposed to be removed because 1) they occur in the City’s section of Code that regulates business fees and licensing or 2) the rules appear also in the administrative document. Where the rules are in the administrative document the update would eliminate them from the existing Airport Code and rely instead on the document. The ordinance expressly allows the Director to set these and other fees. POLICY QUESTIONS 1) Based on the four categories of changes, the Council may wish to provide direction further conversation and review. Page | 6 2 3 0 7 9 d) For items that have included either a reference or full process in City Code, and are proposed for removal – is the Council supportive of the amendments or would a more thorough review be preferred? Would the Council like to discuss the value of leaving any set of these regulations in ordinance rather than fully delegating them to the department? e) For proposed changes related to consolidating ground transportation regulations into another section of Code, does the Council have any questions or concerns? f) For proposed changes to remove Airport operations that are governed by federal regulations, does the Council have any questions or concerns? 2) The existing ordinance outlines the Director’s role in setting some fees, however the Council does review and adopt the Consolidated Fee Schedule where these fees are located. This practice would be maintained in the proposed ordinance amendments. For any proposed amendments related to fee-setting authority (either within ground transportation or otherwise), would the Council like to review those? 3) Existing Code includes a section, like a preamble, to the Airport chapter. That introductory policy statement is pasted below for your reference, but is proposed to be eliminated in the amended ordinance. Would the Council like to discuss maintaining this previous policy language or something similar in the proposed ordinance? “The city council finds that: A.Aircraft transportation of all kinds is rapidly accelerating and expanding in all its fields and requires and will require increasingly larger areas for landing facilities, terminal facilities, warehouse facilities, hangar and other facilities to accommodate such transportation; B. Salt Lake City International Airport and Airport II are situated in the center of the great intermountain west, and as such will attract and serve an ever expanding aircraft transportation system and efforts are being made to increase the number of airlines using said airports; C. In order to meet the needs of the aircraft industry using such airports, it is necessary that immediate steps be taken to enlarge the airports and their facilities; D. It is necessary that the city make plans for the enlargement of the airports to provide the necessary accommodations and to protect the air space needed therefor; E. It is further necessary to adopt a master plan which will define and fix the exterior boundaries of the area necessary for the orderly and convenient expansion of such airport facilities in order to keep abreast of the needs and requirements of the air transportation industry which the airports should and will serve. (Ord. 88-86 § 12, 1986: prior code § 2-17-1)” ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Airport Director role: The proposed update lists the amended powers of the Airport Director, including the following: adopt rules and regulations, as well as standards for any commercial activity (aeronautical and non-aeronautical) “regulate the development, construction, use, occupancy, management, security, control, operation, care, repair and maintenance of all the land, structures and facilities within the airport system” “establish reasonable time, place and manner guidelines for the exercise of First Amendment rights” “regulate the operation of passenger and vehicle traffic, ground transportation” Page | 7 2 3 0 7 9 “establish and set rates, fees and charges as shall be necessary to meet the needs for operating the airport system” any other purpose approved by the Mayor. Fees: The ordinance currently outlines formulas for many air carrier fees that are instead now posted in the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). The Rules and Regulations document also refers to the Airport section of the consolidated fee schedule. The change would consolidate the setting of the fee to the rules document and the CFS. Waivers: The proposed update also maintains language from the existing chapter that allows the Airport Director to waive certain requirements and regulations with permission from the Mayor and notice to the Council, under a range of circumstances listed in the amendment. Other items: The existing and amended ordinance spell out that by using the Airport, users are bound by the rules and regulation laid out in that separate document. The ordinance currently prohibits disclosure of confidential information related to Airport facility access. The update would instead refer to the Administrative Rules & Regulations document, which has a section on security and access control with more detail than the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1.Administrative Transmittal 2.Administrative Rules & Regulations Document Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/9/2024 8:39 Leila Dethlefsen Stop the expansion of fossil fuels Dear Wharton, As you know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, Leila Dethlefsen Salt Lake City, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/9/2024 10:30 Jim Jenkin Removal of Partial Indemnification Dear Chris, I would like to request your attention to the matter of the removal of Partial Indemnification for Community organizations from the City code. As this was discussed in last month's Salt Lake Community Network meeting, you may have already heard of this; I left on vacation shortly afterward and have only just returned. In that meeting Amy Hawkins described the removal of partial indemnification for community organizations in a Text Amendment approved by the City Council in June of 2023, and originally initiated by the City in 2016. She reports that this change to 2.60.070 was not noticed in the Staff Report and first appeared on page 64 of a much longer document issued on 16 May 2023. She further reports that this change was submitted by the City Attorney's office in an attempt to avoid the City defending harassment. This was a surprise to me and to many of the participants. Assuming that the above is correct, this is very concerning to me it seems to me that: 1. The Language as it existed prior to the change specified the protection applied to the normal business operations of community organizations and would not, therefore, obligate the City to defend any illegal activities. Objectionable speech is a matter of taste and generally protected by constitutional rights. 2. The removal of this protection places Community Organizations without sufficient income streams for private insurance in a position where they can be intimidated by anyone threatening a law suite, and therefore, interferes with public process and suppresses free speech. 3. The late insertion of this change in the text amendment process and its omission from the Staff Report constitute insufficient public process, as well as a lack of civic courtesy, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that numerous community organizations were unaware the change had been made for nearly a year. I would greatly appreciate your views and advice on the above, Sincerely yours, Jim Jenkin Jim Jenkin Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 9:57 Carmela Sudano Our community should phase out fossil fuels and fast track clean energy solutions Dear Wharton, As you know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, Carmela Sudano Midvale, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 10:07 Mary Kessler Our community deserves to be healthy and safe Dear Wharton, As you know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, mary kessler Sandy, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 10:10 Shannon Allsop Our community deserves to be healthy and safe Dear Wharton, As you know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, Shannon Allsop Holladay, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 10:12 Justin Grover Endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty As you may know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non- Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, Justin Grover Salt Lake City, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 12:38 Melissa Delacruz 1/2 Sunnyside Avenue Safety Improvement Project Hello Dan, My name is Melissa De La Cruz and I live on Sunnyside Avenue across the street from the East High football field. I wanted to reach out to you and express my concern, as well as my fellow neighbors’, in regard to the "Sunnyside Avenue Safety Improvement" project. I also wanted to see what steps need to be taken to stop the advancement of this project. I went to the community forum last Thursday where I saw several of my immediate neighbors as well as a few other concerned citizens in the neighborhood. It seemed like a very productive meeting but I'm not sure that it didn't fall onto deaf ears. It's unfortunate you were unable to attend but understand it's difficult and schedules can be demanding. Besides the 3-4 individuals that work for the city, there were about 7 (possibly 1 or 2 more that I didn't see or speak with) in attendance that collaborated and spoke about the concerns resting on the Sunnyside project. Everyone was concerned, and really between the 7 of us it boiled down to this. -We are all opposed to every proposal except for the addition of the two crosswalks- one by East High parking lot and the other at the top of the hill by the future Rowland Hall High School, as we feel that they would be an advantageous addition to the Sunnyside landscape. That being said, we all agreed that a crosswalk at the proposed location at the eastern corner of 1400 East and Sunnyside Avenue is a poor choice. Not only does it eliminate left turns onto 1400 East from Sunnyside and from 1400 East onto Sunnyside, which are crucial passageways into and out of our neighborhood; but it doesn't properly serve the pedestrians that are in need of this crosswalk. The natural path or flow of students and visitors that use the East High parking lot and cross the street to the stadium is further west, by the entrance of the parking lot. This is where they jaywalk. We feel that placing a crosswalk where they are already walking would cause them to use the crosswalk, as opposed to going up the hill, and then making a 90-degree left hand turn to cross at the proposed crosswalk location. Students would be the majority of the pedestrians crossing at this point and we all want to keep them safe. We also agreed that the area for a crosswalk a bit further west by the parking lot entrance is more open, for pedestrians and traffic to better see each other. -As mentioned above, we are opposed to putting in a landscaped median at the above-mentioned intersection that would block access to our neighborhood. It would put undue additional traffic stress at Guardsman Way/Greenwood Terrace as well as 1300 East. Both are already very congested. I imagine it would also cause many to make the right-hand turn from 1400 East, only to make a U-turn to go westbound on Sunnyside. It would be unwise to close that essential corridor. More importantly, it would make that intersection more unsafe. Students that park in that parking lot often enter it by way of 1400 East, and many already turn left into oncoming traffic to enter the parking lot. They do not use the median to make the second left turn into the parking lot. We felt that putting a landscaped median there would only increase the pattern of teens driving into oncoming traffic as to not have to make the extensive detour to park. -We are opposed to a landscaped median. With the ones that are already put in throughout our neighborhood, specifically regarding the one further east on Sunnyside Ave at 1730 E./Diestel Road, it is extremely difficult to see pedestrians, especially shorter ones and strollers, with the high shrubbery. That contradicts the narrative of "Sunnyside Ave Safety Improvements". In addition to safety, which is most important, it will become an unnecessary eyesore because Salt Lake City does not maintain their medians. They get overgrown with weeds and are a safe haven for trash blowing in the winds we get from Emigration Canyon. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 12:38 Melissa Delacruz 2/2 CONTINUED!! Sunnyside Avenue Safety Improvement Project -We do not want the westbound lane on Sunnyside to become one lane. I understand the desire to make bike lanes throughout the city. Sunnyside is not an ideal place for that. There is already a shared bike lane westbound. It is not used by very many bikers, but hundreds of cars use that lane daily. With the building of the new Rowland Hall High School and U of U housing on Sunnyside, traffic will only increase. The westbound lane will be bottlenecked and have traffic backed up to Foothill Drive. Not only will reducing traffic down to one lane make it extremely difficult to navigate, but there will be constant slow/standing traffic in front of our homes polluting our air, more so than it already is. In addition to 400 South and 2100 South, Sunnyside is the only other major artery to the east side. We understood that, as well as our Sunnyside neighbors, when we purchased our homes. Insignificant desires should not be turned into detrimental problems. -We do not want green rectangles painted in the bike lane at the end of each of our driveways. -We feel that adding an additional streetlamp on the southwest corner of 1400 East and Sunnyside is excessive and unnecessary. There is already a streetlight 10-15 feet to the west of the proposed site for a new one. - We do not want a raised crosswalk at the end of 1400 East at Sunnyside. With snowy or slushy streets, it can already be difficult to make it up that small hill from the stop sign at 1400 East. There is already a crosswalk there. -My neighbor on the corner of that intersection does not want the added bulb. She does not want to shovel it. I don't blame her. I do not want the bulb either, on her part. It is unnecessary. The city has already extended that corner out to slow down traffic on the right turn. A bulb is just obnoxious. She already has more shoveling from the previous extension that the city put in. On a different note, something that was brought up by a lady at the forum the other night, was that every time there is a major rainstorm, her basement gets flooded. She lives on 1400 East. The drain water from Sunnyside and 900 South collects and floods her basement. This is a travesty. You probably remember that the East High gym floor got ruined two years in a row because of the excessive runoff. The school's new cement wall blocks the oncoming rainwater but is only deflected and diverted. It would be beneficial to see more drains put in on the east side as to not cause further damage to personal and school property. This, I believe, would benefit the community, as opposed to the majority of the "Sunnyside Avenue Safety Improvement" project. My understanding is that this project has already been approved by the city council and as the posted signs state that these "improvements are coming soon". In other words, it's a done deal. Do we have a voice on this? Is there a way to fight to change or modify this proposal? At the meeting we were not given more than submit your thoughts in the online survey. Please let me know what I can do, as well as my neighbors, to move forward with this. This is something that we are very passionate about, as it affects us directly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Melissa De La Cruz 10/10/2024 14:28 Bill Hanewinkel Request for Information Regarding Budget Increase Hello, There is a proposed property tax increase of 20% requested by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District. This is coming on the heals of rather steep fee increases in 2024 (water and sewer). In detail please, what increasing costs are there in the SLCMAD budget? Thank you. Bill Hanewinkel Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2024 16:34 Roy li Zhang Homeless in District 4 Hello I am a Resident in District 4 , We can't seem to avoid being harassed by the homeless asking us for money and food is one thing, and I will always feed people however, recently they become more aggressive, forcing me to have to call the police as a matter of fact today, as I was out walking my dog around 9 o'clock this morning I had to remind a couple of the homeless that hang out on the corner that they needed to keep their dog in a leash as my dog is reactive towards theirs. I had to pick up my dog and hold her away , I'm used to the homeless and I have to walk past them constantly and like I said, I will feed them and I do, however when I told these people that I needed to control their dog, one of them proceeded to chase after me up main Street until I got to the bookstore and I called 911 the same homeless person didn't just chase me but he was screaming at me. I will quote exactly what he said "I'm gonna fuck you up the ass you dumb cop" and he was carrying a stick. It is beyond me how we have a homeless task force we have a police department and actually we even have a satellite police department closer to city Creek just off of Main Street without being said why are the city ordinance is not being enforced there are ordinances about camping their ordinances about panhandling their ordinances about loitering and actually harassment is against the law. I feel very strongly that I should be able to walk outside of my apartment and walk my dog and not be harassed and not be assaulted by the homeless and their dogs. I'm not sure what the entire solution is, but I do know that the ordinances need to be enforced once I do have one suggestion have it at the garbage cans in front of the Apollo burger should be removed. Those garbage cans in front of the Apollo Burger other reason why they hang out in front of the Apollo Burger and on the corner of 400 S. and Main Street they dig in there for food I get it. They're hungry, but it makes it where the rest of us can't walk past them because they harass us assault us. Let their dogs be off leashes throw upuse the sides of our buildings as restrooms to They go inside the businesses, and I have personally witnessed them stealing soda pop from the Apollo Burger, then going to all of the tables and asking us for money finally passing out in the restaurant. I'm just beyond myself to think that the police department do not control this that we is tax paying residence have to be harassed chased assaulted by people right outside our door because our ordinances are not being enforced, when I called the mayor's office this morning I was told well we're trying, but is the shelters get full and I had to stop him off because to be honest I don't care if the shelters are full I don't care where these people go to or what they do, but what I do care about is that I deserve and me to be able to walk out of my own home and not be verbally assaulted or harassed by the homeless population. Again, my biggest suggestion is remove the trash cans in front of the Apollo burger then there's not anything for them to dig through and they're not gonna hang out there other than that I would like my tax dollars used to actually keep people like me who actually pay taxes safe , right now we are not safe with the homeless population. I'm also curious how many calls a day does the police department get about the homeless population? They're clearly causing enough problems that we don't see them anywhere near the temple or city Creek but they sure are in front of my front door and I can't walk out of it because of them, I'm begging you as a tax paying citizen of Salt Lake City to get our streets cleaned up Thank You , Roy Li Zhang 10/10/2024 16:36 Anthony Tobler Rio Grande Plan + Rio Grande District Plan = Great Success Hi, I just want to ask the council to include the citizen proposed Rio Grande Plan as part of your Rio Grande District Plan. It seems to me that any District Plan that doesn’t include the Rio Grande Plan is going to be subpar at best and unsuccessful at worst. Because currently the Rio Grande District is cut off from the rest of the city on both sides. By dirty rail yards on one side and by an unused Rio Grande Depot on the other side. But with the Rio Grande Plan you would instead have the city’s central train station on one side of the district, and on the other side you would have removed the rail yards, which would open up 50-75 acres of land for redevelopment. So I think combining the plans is necessary for the Rio Grande District to reach its full potential as a central and uniting part of the city. Thank you! Anthony Tobler Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/11/2024 10:19 Moises A. Lopez NOISE...NOISE... (train horns) Dear Council Member, It has been like two weeks were we have been getting noise from the trains. To be honest, we cannot stand it and we cannot live normal lives for the ones living right next to the train rails. Is there something we can help? What is the procedure so we can stop that from happening? This cannot be the "new normal"... Please, be kind enough to write me back or leave me a detailed voicemail. Thanks, Moises Moises A. Lopez 10/11/2024 13:35 Michael Barnes A.D.A violation against Salt Lake City Parks Department Nick, I have been dealing with A.D.A. issues involving Salt Lake City for the last seven years which included having to file a complaint with the Justice Department when the city would not make the City and County Building accessible to those of us who were dependent upon a mobility device could not gain access into this building which bring me too the bridge closure at the Cottonwood Park and the section of sidewalk which was removed on the south side of this park both of these items are a violation of the A.D.A. Act and the cites failure to provide a way for those of us using a mobility device to gain access around this closure just goes to show how little the city cares about the disabled members of our community which is why I plan to file a complaint with the Justice Department concerning this matter and the cities A.D.A. Coordinator has been made aware of this problem . 10/14/2024 7:45 Anonymous Constituent Homeless taken over Riverside Park and camping infront of Elementary School I have reported the camp that has been camping around Backman Elementary school for about 6 weeks now. The folks that run SLC mobile tell me it has been addressed and yet the camp gets worse everyday. I cannot walk around my own neighborhood without seeing tons of trash and needles everywhere. The homeless have literally taken over Riverside Park. I own a home in the area. It has never been this bad. I was told by police to keep calling dispatch and they would remove these people. I do, and they never come. I had a homeless man urinate in my house the other week from one of these camps in the park. I also had my solar lights stolen off my porch. The people camping next to Bachman elementary started a fire that the fire department responded to a few weeks ago. I get they’re homeless and have nowhere to go, but to allow this to go on in a residential area and infront of an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL and park where children play sports everyday is unacceptable. I have pictures of these people with their arms tied up shooting needles into them. INFRONT OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Aren’t there supposed to be drug-free zones within 100 feet of schools and recreational areas? as defined in Utah Code § 58-37- 8(4). These zones carry enhanced penalties for drug offenses. It's concerning that these violations continue near the elementary school and park. ADDRESS THIS AREA IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT GETS MORE OUT OF HAND. I’m begging you. I am so sick of reporting this to the police and they never come. I am so sick of reporting this to SLC mobile and they don’t do anything. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/14/2024 9:03 Jennifer Baugh Stop the expansion of fossil fuels Dear Wharton, As you know, fossil fuels pose a threat not only to our planet, but to our community. Study after study has shown that extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health. In short, fossil fuel expansion is undercutting the good work local governments are undertaking on climate action and public health. I’m writing to you today to ask you to please pass a resolution that calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in our community (and if we've already passed one, please continue working to pass concrete policies to do the same). Passing this resolution will demonstrate your intent to keep our community healthy and safe. You’ll also be showing your support for global action against the climate crisis via the Fossil Fuel Treaty and showing your commitment to taking local action to pass SAFE (Stand Against Fossil Fuel Expansion) policies that stop fossil fuel expansion. All around us, on virtually every continent around the globe, a movement is growing. People from Canada to California from Boulder to Baltimore from the Amazon Sacred Headwaters to the Rhineland from Capetown to Jakarta – and beyond – are fighting fossil fuel expansion: and more often than not, they’re winning. The Treaty and SAFE Cities movements are connecting these neighbors, local groups, elected officials, and government staff and helping them pass policies that take concrete and lasting action to protect community health and safety and address the climate crisis. The Fossil Fuel Treaty has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations collectively representing tens of millions of people, hundreds of municipalities like ours, and 13 nation-states. It's even gaining traction within the halls of the United Nations. The Treaty is aiming to end the exploration for new fossil fuels, phase out existing production in line with a 1.5ºC scenario, and implement a just transition for every worker, community, and country. As a member of your community, I’m asking you to endorse the Fossil Fuel Treaty and show your commitment to ending the expansion of fossil fuels in and around our homes. Together, we can keep our community and planet safe from fossil fuels, speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy, and create good, long-term jobs. I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to stop the proliferation of fossil fuels. Thank you, Jennifer Baugh Taylorsville, UT 10/15/2024 10:23 Margaret Holloway Just Another Tax Just blows my mind how developers push everyone around. The state creates their own tax districts takes city property. Then we have to pay with the council permission for what. To spray the bugs. Which they built the prison there. The new abatement building was just completed .a few years ago. Our city only grows tall not out. So why are the developers not going to pay for additional services? Why is it on us again? Do you ever say. Not our responsibility. You built there, No. We are an endless pot of money.. Just blows my mind... we get walked on and walked on yet nobody fights back, Margaret We have been sold out with nothing in return. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/15/2024 12:37 Katie Pappas Mosquito Abatement District Property Tax Increase My comments are regarding Agenda item #3 on the 10/15/24 council agenda. I oppose the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District's request for a property tax increase. With new revelations regarding the inclusion of PFAs in many pesticides, the last thing we should be doing is increasing pesticide use. Instead, we need to pay attention to the science, adopt stricter regulations and discontinue their use wherever possible. PFAs are synthetic chemicals, referred to as "forever chemicals" because they don't readily break down and accumulate in the environment and living things. Their presence leads to a long list of health problems, and they readily move from mother to fetus. Labeling of pesticides does not require PFAs be identified as such so you may be spraying them around your home without your knowledge. Between local mosquito abatement districts and private businesses, we don't even know how much pesticide use there really is. It's horrifying to see a pest control company spraying around my neighbor's home where three small children live. People think because it's allowed, it must be safe. This is an issue that impacts every single one of us. Maine and Minnesota have taken steps to curb and ban PFAs. There is no reason the state of Utah shouldn't be doing the same. I oppose my tax dollars going to fund the spraying of toxins, anywhere. Why would we want to increase this harmful practice? Katie Pappas Salt Lake City 10/15/2024 13:35 Steve Sugiyama Phone call to City Council Constituent called regarding the 50/50 City sidewalk policy. I know the City has a program not like any other City I have come across. They charge the homeowners 50% for sidewalks and repairs. I find this to be troublesome. We can't control the sidewalk, we can't own it but we have to pay for it? You would think the homeowner would have some say in what happens with the sidewalk. How it looks or who can walk on it. Why should the homeowners have to pay when we have no say and the City collects taxes for public right away. Where is all that money going to? No other City I have ever seen does this and I think it should be a policy that is changed. Please consider changing the policy. Thank you. 10/15/2024 17:48 Zack Scriven General Comment Not having the Rio Grande Plan as part of the Depot District is a glaring oversight.