HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
October 8, 2024 Tuesday 4:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
4:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 12:43:30
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 3052
East Emigration Canyon Road ~ 4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the
properties at approximately 3052 East Emigration Canyon from FR-2/21,780 (Foothills
Residential District) to RMF-75 (High-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The
proposal would increase the development potential of the site. The Planning Commission
forwarded a negative recommendation. The project is located within Council District 6.
Petitioner: ANA Enterprises, representing the property owner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 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
3.Informational: Updates on the Tenant Resource Center and the
Landlord/Tenant Program ~ 4:35 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on the Administration’s progress in implementing two
programs designed to support renters, the Tenant Resource Center and the
Landlord/Tenant Program (previously known as the Good Landlord Program). These
programs were included as strategic priorities in the Thriving in Place anti-displacement
plan adopted by the Council in October 2023.
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 - n/a
4.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Ski Trucks,
LLC ~ 5:05 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about 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 12 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
Standing Items
5.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
6.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
7.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 3, 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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
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 8, 2024
RE: 3052 East and 3150 East Emigration Canyon Road Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2022-01106
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for two parcels at 3052 East and
3150 East Emigration Canyon Road in City Council District Six from their current FR-2/21,780 (Foothills
Residential) zoning to RMF-75 (High/Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The petitioner’s stated
objective is to construct a multi-family residential building with 199 units and underground parking.
Current FR-2 zone only allows detached single-family dwellings with a minimum 21,780 square foot lot
size. Approximately 12 homes could be built on the site under existing zoning.
Combined, the currently vacant and undeveloped parcels are slightly less than 6 acres. They are located at
the mouth of Emigration Canyon, east of Hogle Zoo and Rotary Glen Park. Condominium buildings and a
large radio tower are located up a steep slope to the south and west of the subject site. Development farther
to the south and west is comprised primarily of single-family residential. Access to the site would be from
Emigration Canyon Road rather than from neighborhood streets.
Planning staff and City departments and divisions have concerns with the proposed development which are
discussed in Attachment F (pages 82-87 of the Planning Commission staff report) and summarized in the
additional information section below.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its June 26, 2024 meeting and held a public hearing at
which approximately a dozen people spoke or had their comments read expressing opposition to the
proposed rezone. Concerns cited include inconsistencies with City plans, the property’s location in a
floodplain, potential environmental impact, the ability of Sunnyside Avenue and Emigration Canyon Road
to handle additional traffic, cyclist safety, emergency egress for canyon residents, strain on the water
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 8, 2024
Set Date: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing: November 12, 2024
Potential Action: November 19, 2024
Page | 2
system, and density of the proposed project. Planning staff recommended and the Commission
voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss the benefits of additional housing versus challenges of developing
on the subject parcels and impact to the area.
2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if the proposed units would be for rent or sale, and if
any would be available for those earning less than area median income.
Area zoning map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. 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.
Page | 3
City Department and Division Comments
Transportation
It is the Transportation Division’s opinion that the zoning map amendment is inappropriate due to sight
distance issues for vehicles turning left (westbound) out of the proposed development. There is a nearby
curve in the road east of the subject properties which would cause difficulty for drivers to see westbound
vehicles.
Transportation is working on preliminary designs for a roundabout requested by UTA at the intersection of
Crestview Drive and Emigration Canyon Road. This would make it easier for buses to turn around and
could provide infrastructure for public transit at the location.
Fire Department
The Fire Department said an access road of sufficient size to accommodate fire apparatus and include a
turnaround would be required. The department reviewed a site plan for the proposed project and noted
there are several issues that would need to be resolved, including a likely requirement for a fire pump to
provide minimum water flow in the event of a fire.
Public Utilities
The Public Utilities Department has significant concerns with the proposed development for this site. They
noted there is inadequate utility infrastructure with the nearest sewer main 700 feet away, which would
require an extension to connect.
In addition, there are concerns about working within the floodplain, compliance with the Riparian Corridor
Overlay, and off-site infrastructure enhancements that would be required for a development at this
location.
Public Lands
The Public Lands Department is evaluating a potential extension of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail between
Lakeline Drive and Emigration Canyon. A preferred scenario would connect the trail to Rotary Glen Park
through an easement on one of the subject parcels. It is early in the trail design process and no discussions
have happened between Public Lands and the property owner about a possible easement.
Public Lands is also designing an improved and expanded trailhead on the north side of Emigration
Canyon across from the subject parcels. Included in the design is a new crosswalk at Crestview Drive and
Emigration Canyon Road for increased safety for residents of a potential development on the site and other
users of area trails.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the
Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff
report.
Consideration 1 – Existing General Plan Policies for the Area
The subject parcels are within the East Bench Master Plan area. Planning staff reviewed the proposed
zoning map amendment and how it meets goals and policies in the plan. The plan notes that low-density
residential is appropriate in areas with sensitive natural features, and medium-density (2-3 story
townhome or apartment) developments are more appropriate closer to Foothill Drive.
The plan calls for new development in areas with adequate infrastructure in place including transit and
Page | 5
transportation. As noted above, preliminary design work is being done for a roundabout near the proposed
development, but it is unknown when the roundabout might be completed. Until that time, the nearest bus
stop is approximately 1.25 miles away, on Arapeen Drive by the Post Office.
It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the zoning map amendment generally does not align with goals or policy
statements in the East Bench Master Plan.
Consideration 2 – FR-2/21,780 (Foothills Residential) to RMF-75 (High-Density Residential
Comparison)
Key differences between the current FR-2 and proposed RMF-75 include building height and density,
permitted land uses, as well as the purpose of each zone and where they are appropriate. A table with
additional information on the two zoning districts is included later in the report.
FR-2 zoning permits single detached homes with a maximum height of 28 feet and minimum lot size of
21,780 square feet. Planning staff estimates approximately 12 single-family homes could be built on the
site, but constraints including the Riparian Corridor Overlay setbacks and slopes exceeding 30% would
necessitate a planned development to achieve that number of units. Daycares and small group homes are
also permitted uses in this zone.
RMF-75 is high-density zoning with a maximum building height of 75 feet. Multi-family developments in
this zone on lots larger than one acre permit one unit per 500 square feet of lot area. Planning staff
estimates 335 units could conceivably be constructed on the subject site. Developments with 200 or more
units would require a second fire access road. The petitioner’s current plan is to construct a development
with 199 dwelling units.
Permitted uses in the RMF-75 zone include multi-family residential, small congregate care facility or group
home, single-family (attached or detached), and nursing care facility among others.
The FR-2 purpose statement says:
The purpose of the FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District is to promote environmentally
sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twenty one thousand seven
hundred eighty (21,780) square feet in size, suitable for foothills locations as indicated in the
applicable community Master Plan. The district is intended to minimize flooding, erosion,
and other environmental hazards; to protect the natural scenic character of foothill areas by
limiting development; to promote the safety and well being of present and future residents of
foothill areas; to protect wildlife habitat; and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds.
The RMF-75 purpose statement:
The purpose of the RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential District is to provide an
environment suitable for high density multi-family dwellings. This district is appropriate in areas
where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a maximum density less than eighty five
(85) dwelling units per acre. This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-
family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Such
uses are designed to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The
standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,
promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character
of the neighborhood.
It is Planning staff’s opinion the proposed RMF-75 zone is not appropriate at this site.
Consideration 3 – Development Constraints
As discussed above, there are significant development constraints on the property. The City code
Page | 6
restriction on developing or disturbance of slopes greater than 30% and a required 100-foot setback from
Emigration Creek’s high-water line limit the buildable area of the site to approximately 40,000 square feet,
or 15% of the total 262,780 square feet of the property.
Planning staff stated, “Navigating these challenges is conceivable, but accommodating the proposed
density is likely to impose significant impacts on the site.”
Consideration 4 – Traffic Study and Impacts
The Transportation Division requested the applicant conduct a traffic study for the site which is included in
Attachment B (pages 17-73 of the Planning Commission staff report) to assess potential impact a
development and increased density would have in the area.
After reviewing the study, the Transportation Division determined an additional acceleration lane for left
turns (westbound) out of the site would be necessary. This is due to a curve in the road discussed above
that would make it difficult for drivers coming down the canyon to see vehicles exiting the proposed
development.
Planning noted it is conceivable the challenges adding an acceleration lane to the road could be overcome,
but there is no guarantee the lane would receive necessary approvals. Planning recommends an additional
traffic study if the Council considers approving the rezone petition. Additional analysis would determine if
the reported traffic volumes were typical given that the study was conducted during a non-peak season and
day.
Consideration 5 –Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns
The Planning Division received significant public input and concern about the proposed zoning map
amendment. Nearly all the comments Planning received are in opposition to the rezone, citing concerns
like those expressed at the Planning Commission public hearing discussed above. Comments received by
Planning up to the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting are included in Attachment G (pages 88-
321) of the Planning Commission staff report.
Attachment D (pages 77-78) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the zoning
districts. A portion of the table is replicated here for convenience. Please see the report for the complete
table.
FR-2 (Current)RMF-75 (Proposed)
Building Height 28 feet.75 feet.
Setbacks Front: Average of block face
or a minimum of 20 feet.
Interior side yard: 20 feet.
Corner side yard: 20 feet or
average of block face.
Rear: 40 feet.
Front: 25 feet, except for single-
family attached or detached is
15 feet.
Interior side yard: 15 feet,
except single-family attached or
detached is 4 feet.
Corner side yard: 25 feet, except
single-family attached or
Page | 7
detached is 15 feet.
Rear yard: 25% of lot depth but
need not exceed 30 feet.
Lot Minimums 21,780 square feet.Single-family detached:
2,000 square feet.
Single-family attached and
twin-home: 1,500 square feet.
Two-family: 3,000 square feet.
Lot Width 100 feet.16-100 feet depending on use.
Building Coverage 25%60%
Analysis of Standards
Attachment E (pages 79-81) 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.
Does not comply
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Does not comply
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Partially complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Does not comply
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.
Does not comply
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Page | 8
• December 15, 2022 – Assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner.
• December 16, 2022 –
o Early engagement notice emailed to East Bench Community Council.
o Mailed notice sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property.
o Proposed zoning amendment posted to the Planning Division’s webpage as an online open
house.
• January 4, 2023 – Mailed notice resent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the
property due to an error on the original mailing.
• January 18, 2023 – Applicant presented to the East Bench Community Council.
• June 26, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted 5:0 to forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council.
• June 28, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• July 16, 2024 – Ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office.
• August 13, 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: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 8, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO SKI TRUCKS, LLC,
AT 1260 W NORTH TEMPLE ST.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Ski Trucks, LLC, at 1260 W North Temple St, for a full-service ski and snowboard shop. The
City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $300,000 loan at a 6.75%
fixed interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the creation of two new jobs in the next year and the
retention of 12 existing jobs. Funds will pay for working capital.
The interest rate reflects the 4.75% prime rate at the time of the application in 2022, plus the standard EDLF
four percentage points, and a two-percentage-point reduction based on its location within a priority area (North
Temple Project Area) and low income.
As noted above, the application for this loan was submitted in 2022. Ownership of the business switched hands,
and it took additional time to get its financial records up to acceptable standards to underwrite the loan. In
accordance with EDLF internal procedures at the time, the Department kept the 2022 prime interest rate as it
worked with the applicant through the application process. This rate is significantly lower than the current
prime interest rate, which is used for others who completed their applications recently (8.25 to 8.50%).
Economic Development explained that they have since updated internal procedures to prevent situations like
this from occurring and to ensure current prime interest rates are applied to future EDLF loans.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $300,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Ski Trucks, LLC.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 8, 2024
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates
for the first quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.85% for fixed-rate loans at urban banks
and 8.79% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey.i In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle
charging stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to
wind and solar, heat pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
The interest rate reductions applied to this application are detailed below:
Ski Trucks, LLC
4.75% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for location within a priority area (North Temple Project Area)
– 1% for low to moderate income
___________________________
6.75% final interest rate
C.Program. The EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the program's goals. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed
before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on
successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was $8,800,000 in June 2024, and outstanding loans totaled $3,233,641.53 on June 1,
2024.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
Page | 3
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to inquire with the Department of Economic Development about its updated
application procedures mentioned above and how prime interest rates are applied today.
2. The Council may wish to give staff direction on the lower interest rate that is proposed. The Council may
discuss how to balance the competing factors in this situation: the applicant proceeded with a certain
understanding of the interest rate; loans secured through a banking institution lock in interest rates for a
limited time; and other applications are currently being processed at higher rates. If the Council approves
moving ahead as proposed, the item can be scheduled for action on October 15. If the Council requests a
change to the interest rate, staff can work together to notify the applicant, update paperwork and schedule
as soon as possible.
3. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds and whether it makes sense to reevaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
4. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members evaluate how this application compares
to others. For example, are risk factors evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in
business, etc.?
5.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
6. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
i
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
Page | 4
i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards Continue
to Tighten. Consulted on July 1, 2024, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-
survey/new-small-business-lending-declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/2/2024 9:28 Debra Anderson sales tax increase and ryan smith's robbery City Council Members and Mayer Mendenhall, I am expressing my position on the .05% sales tax increase that the
legislature and you are so ‘generously’ offering to BILLIONAIRE Ryan Smith. This is unconscionable for many
reasons. As citizens you and the legislature have circumvented the voters who have every right to have had this put
to a vote for the people to decide if they want to fund a BILLIONAIRES billion dollar project. Raising the sales tax for
those in Salt Lake City is a penalty put upon us that the rest of the valley/state does not have to shoulder. Many
lower income folks just cannot sustain another tax increase with recently raising your salaries, utility cost going up,
cost of groceries and gas, and property taxes increasing! This is insulting that you are gifting $900,000 of taxpayers
money without our consent to a BILLIONAIRE! Your claims that this will benefit all is absurd. The ’sports and
entertainment district’ will benefit the wealthy and the developers. Trickle down economics has been proven a
fallacy. I am so very angry about this whole debacle!! Put this to a vote for the people to decide. Anymore, between
the mayor, city council and the legislature, the will of the people and respect for the people are being ignored!!
Make the right honest decision of putting this to a vote to the people! Debra Anderson
10/2/2024 9:32 Ricklen Nobis Abravanel Hall and the Participation Agreement
between Salt Lake City and the SEG
September 30th, 2024 Dear City Council Member Wharton, As you are aware, at the recent meeting of the
Legislature Revitalization Zone Committee the vote was unanimous to approve the Participation Agreement, and to
return it to the City Council with the recommendation that the Council add specific language to the Agreement to
protect and preserve Maurice Abravanel Hall in its current location and form. It was also at this meeting that
County Mayor Jenny Wilson publically committed to preserving the Hall (a County facility) and helping to find the
means for its maintenance and upkeep. I know you are also aware that on September 5th The Utah State Historic
Landmarks Commission board voted unanimously to forward the nomination of Maurice Abravanel Hall to the
Federal National Register of Historic Places. I served as the Principal Keyboards Player with the Utah Symphony for
over 26 years, and have had the opportunity and the privilege of performing on the stage of Abravanel Hall many,
many times. You are the representative on the City Council from my District, and I’ve written to you before
concerning Abravanel Hall. I’m writing you again now in order to urge you to add preservation language to the PA to
satisfy the Legislature’s intent to preserve and maintain Abravanel Hall. Sincerely, and with many thanks! Ricklen
Nobis
10/2/2024 10:01 Anonymous Constituent Sales Tax Increase Still couldn't make sense of why the taxpayers pay for private venue innovation. For the people don't care for the
games or don't want to go downtown (pay expensive parking fees), it is unfair. The temple construction has been
there for 4 or 5 years. Now more construction is coming. Can city do something really benefit the taxpayers for
real? The utilities bill just went up in July. Sales tax goes up in next year. Nice job for boosting the gov revenue!
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/2/2024 10:05 David Porter 1/2 Abravanel Hall and SEG Dear Chris, I listened with unsurprised disappointment to today’s work session regarding the SEG development.
While I know it is completely pointless, I will once again convey my complete opposition to both the 99-year land
giveaway and the .5 percent regressive tax increase. Oh, and the ticket tax too, which proportionally penalizes the
working class fan who can only afford the 25 dollar ticket compared to the loaded fan buying the 2000 dollar ticket.
The least you could do is make it proportional! At today’s work session, I learned once again how hard everyone has
worked at the City and how wonderful y’all are. What an utterly vacuous exchange of the same old talking points,
and the same self-congratulatory back slapping. I took the time to read through all of the comments sent to the
City Council. Have you? Do you think you are truly serving the interests of your constituents when the vast majority
of citizens who took the time to write in are vehemently against this elective stadium deal? You don’t like that term,
but 525 million of the taxpayers is going into the stadium, and there is not one sentence in the entire agreement
that states SEG has to put a dime of their own money into the district. Do you think you have answered their
questions and allayed their concerns? I don’t. Here are some questions I would want answered before giving a
billionaire almost a billion dollars in a type of investment that has been found again and again to be a bum deal for
the taxpayer. I would send you supporting links, but I won’t bother, as many of my fellow constituents already did,
and it seems our local liberals have embraced the same head-in-the-sand anti-science stance that our
conservative friends have on climate change. Speaking of which, how does this district tackle big issues like
climate change? Oh yeah, you get 100 million for the homeless thanks to your regressive ticket tax, or really for
whatever the city decides it wants to do with it. That’s eight percent of the 1.2 billion you are wasting on an
billionaire’s elective development. Way to illustrate our priorities. There are scant details of what this development
even entails. It’s like buying a vehicle sight unseen, with no details regarding color, size, model, type, brand, or
quality. We don’t even know for certain who gets to drive it, but we do know it costs the taxpayer 1.2 billion and
probably a few more billion down the line. Trust us though, the car dealer’s a good guy and only wants what’s best
for you. The idea that the City is being transparent and responsible is laughable. Either the City is giving taxpayer
money to a developer with almost no idea what is being developed, or it is knows what’s being developed but
hasn’t revealed it. One is irresponsible, the other opaque. My guess is that it’s a combination of the two. Here are
specific questions that should be answered before any vote takes place: 1. What is being built on the two blocks
west of the Delta Center? 2. The tax is expected to raise 1.2 billion dollars. What happens to the 300 billion that
isn’t going to SEG? 3. Why is SEG leasing the land on which Abravanel Hall sits? 4. Where is any supporting material
illustrating that this deal will be a net positive financially for the SLC taxpayer?
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/2/2024 10:05 David Porter 2/2 CONTINUED!! Abravanel Hall and SEG 5. Can you show me other examples of SEG developments to illustrate their building acumen? 6. Why did the
project area maps change? The Convention Center on the East block used to be in the area, and now it isn’t. Why is
the Convention Center out of it, but AH is in it? (Please see maps below.) New Versions: Old Versions: 7. How
much more than the 1.2 billion dollars will the taxpayer have to shell out to meet the terms of the Participation
Agreement, which includes tearing down and rebuilding the Convention Center, burying 300 West, “renovations”
to Abravanel Hall, and a new art museum? Three billion, or more like four? 8. Has the City explored other ways that
Salt Lake City could spend 1.2-4 billion dollars that experts would find would be a better investment than this
stadium deal? Could you give an example of deals that would be worse? 9. What other cities have even considered
tearing down their world-class, beloved concert hall for a sports mall? Is that responsible management? Was it
transparent and open for the city and county to attempt to conspire to move Symphony Hall to Main Street? If you
are going to vote “yes” to this abomination, I hope you will at least support Eva Lopez Chavez’s amendment stating
that "I move that the City Council recognizes the importance of Abravanel Hall as a cultural and architectural icon
in Salt Lake City and its significant role in the future of the Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District.
The City will continue to collaborate with the County, SEG, and other stakeholders and develop a comprehensive
plan for the preservation, renovation, and ongoing operation of Abravanel Hall at its current location. I further move
we recognize the value and importance of Utah Museum of Contemporary Art and look forward to its continuing
contribution to the district.” If you truly want to represent your district and what’s best for Salt Lake City, you will
vote “no” on this heist of taxpayer funds for a billionaire’s pet project. Sincerely, David David Porter
10/2/2024 15:54 Anonymous Constituent Salt Lake City Listened to the Lovers of Abravanel
Hall
After some reticence, the Salt City Council will consider an amendment to the Participation Agreement between
the City and Smith Entertainment group to develop the Entertainment District, tonight at the City Council Formal
Meeting, The amendment will commit the City to preserve Maurice Abravanel Hall. The amendment is sponsored
by District 4 Council Representative Eva Lopez Chavez. She has lined up enough support for this amendment to
pass. Here is the language of an amendment to the Entertainment District Participation Agreement. "I further move
that the City Council recognizes the importance of Abravanel Hall as a cultural and architectural icon in Salt Lake
City and its significant role in the future of the Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District. The City will
continue to collaborate with the County, SEG, and other stakeholders and develop a comprehensive plan for the
preservation, renovation, and ongoing operation of Abravanel Hall at its current location." I further move we
recognize the value and importance of Utah Museum of Contemporary Art and look forward to its continuing
contribution to the district. Thank you to Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez for bringing this language to the table.
• You may watch the Formal Meeting at this link. • If you wish to speak you may do so in person or online at this link.
The the Participation Agreement discussion and public hearing is the first Item of Business after the Opening
Ceremonies. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM, tonight, October 1, 2024. The effort to preserve Maurice Abravanel Hall
is not over. This language is a first step to making sure the Hall continues to delight music lovers for generations to
come. Thank you for being part of this effort. Your support and voices in support of preservation have been very
important in preserving this historic and artistic landmark. Next up is getting Salt Lake County to make an even
stronger commitment to Maurice Abravanel Hall.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/2/2024 15:56 Mark Hancock Capital City Revitalization Zone Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: My name is Mark Hancock and I am the executive vice chairman and one of
the founders of PACS Group inc which is a $6 billion public company (NYSE: PACS) based in Farmington Utah. We
are a healthcare services company with over 35,000 employees deployed at one of our 240+ affiliated healthcare
facilities around the country. Our home office in Utah employs all of our support services including finance,
accounting, payroll, HR, IT, legal, and tax. We have steadily been growing and expanding our office staff in
Farmington Utah since 2016 but recently engaged commercial brokers to evaluate relocating our home office and
service center to Salt Lake City. Over the past several months I have personally toured most of the available down-
town office space but to date have not found a good solution. The Capital City Revitalization Zone is excited for a
big employer like us as we look to consolidate office space in a vibrant downtown city. The proposed entertainment
zone solves for all the things we are looking for with quality lodging, dining, and entertainment options. Annually
our company brings thousands of staff from around the country to our offices for training and team building. Having
convenient, safe, and walkable access to hotels, restaurants, and sports entertainment will continue to drive our
success in recruiting, hiring, and retaining top talent. We have even held our annual leadership conference in the
city despite limited 5-star accommodations and conference/ballroom space in the central business district. In
summary, we are just one of many businesses that I am aware of that are super interested and excited about the
prospects of being part of a revitalized downtown Salt Lake City. Please add my company and me personally to the
list of supporters for this project. Thank you, Mark Hancock Executive Vice Chairman
10/2/2024 15:59 Elizabeth Watson Vote NO to create a Sports, Entertainment,
Culture, and Convention (SECC) District around
the Delta Center and increase citywide sales tax
to support its development
Salt Lake City Council Members, As a Salt Lake City resident vote I firmly request that you vote NO on a billionaire’s
proposal to create a Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention (SECC) District around the Delta Center and
increase citywide sales tax to support its development. I do not believe we should hand over the keys to any
individual or private entity and absolutely Salt Lake Citizens should NOT be asked to support such a crazy idea with
a sales tax for the next 30 years. Subsides to private entities never are fair and are only a handout to the greedy. And
the idea they entertained that the Abravenal Hall, a historic monument to culture and arts for almost 50 years is too
“old” and more important than a hockey rink. Seriously??? The mere idea that the SEG would have a major public
relations blitz yesterday that they will cut the $5 cost of bottled water in half is outrageous. Do they think we are
stupid. It should be free given that we already have paid for it through our taxes. I wonder how many pockets of
Governor, Mayor and State Legislators have been lined. This is an outrage. It is time for all of our elected officials to
stop the sale of our State, our County and our City. Vote NO, No, No. Sincerely, Elizabeth Watson
10/2/2024 16:01 Jim Ngo Shameful Dear Salt Lake City Council, Do you think that overpriced beers at generic sports bars or national chain restaurants
constitutes "culture?" Do you think that the poor and middle class residents of Salt Lake City can afford the $100-
$1000 per game for Jazz tickets, even though they will have to pay the incredible new tax rate – 9.25% – that is now
among the highest in the country? We are already suffering from high housing costs, high rents, and high property
taxes. What you've done is make Salt Lake City even less affordable for struggling families. The Salt Lake City
Council and Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall have let us down by putting the entire $1 Billion tax burden on
Salt Lake City businesses and residents and giving a blank check to one very wealthy billionaire to make himself
richer. Shameful. Sincerely, Jim Ngo
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/2/2024 16:03 Bernie Hart Please start walking the talk Mayor Mendenhall, Someone on your staff should maybe start rethinking your policies and the methods Salt Lake
City uses when engaging with the chronically homeless in our community. A whole bunch of stuff going on at a high
cost and nothing is changing. Last week I saw a number of police cars in Liberty Park. This morning I counted seven
(7) police cars on 300E engaging with the campers at Library Square... which happens to be right across the street
from SLCPD. Seven (7) times $1,500.00 to move a group of campers from Library Square back into Liberty Park.
The $10.5K may be a low estimate, plus 20K a day for SLCPD and emergency visits to the shelters and not even
considering calls to the permanent supportive housing locations in the city... it is a lot of money going into
programs that are not reducing the number of campers in the city. Please, unless you can start walking the talk,
stop talking about what a great job you all are doing. Bernie Hart
10/3/2024 10:55 Tim Richards Your vote on tax hike Hello City Council Members: I just wanted to express my disappointment on your vote to approve a tax hike to pay
for the “sports Area” forcing some people ( Non sports residents) to pay for something that they “will never use”.
This city is becoming unlivable for certain people, we have so many rising cost of living (rent, groceries, utilities,
and personal property tax’s) and now you raise the tax for all other purchases. I will not be making purchases within
the “Tax Zone” Salt Lake City as soon as the tax begins. I will drive to Davis County and purchase all my every day
living items, I will recruit others to do the same. This is a sad day for residents that want to support local business.
Disappointed, Tim Richards (Your neighbor)
10/3/2024 12:04 Margaret Holloway D1 Street Condition Concerns I have reported the issue on SLC MOBILE. A few times. Beautification BEFORE safety is unacceptable. There is
nothing wrong with the condition of 600/700. North. Except. The mayor wants bike lanes. You could have fixed the
section 1000w to 1400 west. Before it got this bad knowing 600 north was going to be fixed No other 3 block area in
the state has 5. Schools where kids are driven. So yes we know the mayor allots what gets fixed first. But they are
overlaying side streets that are not in need of repairs and telling us that. They don't have money to do this in a
temporary fashion . It is a shame I have to get this in the Tribune to get attention on this. We don't care if 600 is
being redone to add bike lanes . The amount of traffic on 1000 north will increase even more. But you know those
new bike lanes take precedent don't they. We have 5 schools on that street. 600. Has NONE..
10/3/2024 13:59 Richard Hendron SEG District vote/ "No" Thank You Dear Councilwoman Young- Salt Lake City is a wonderful city, with a great deal of potential. Today we are limited
by a lack of housing (as are many cities), aging infrastructure, and the need for a long-range plan (a new Master
Plan) to guide our future. We need: Two new high schools The Rio Grande Project to re-unite our city Park
renovations and updates for everyone A large number and wide variety of very affordable housing units With all of
that happening, we also need to preserve and protect our cultural resources, such as Abravanel Hall, Japantown,
and Greek Town. They have not alway fared well during our downtown projects. Balanced against those needs, we
have the request from Mr. Smith to cede a very large amount of financial and land resources for a sports team. As
we have seen over the past decade, sports teams are often transient investments. They frequently move from one
city to another, taking their promised benefits with them. Thus, I recommend that our financial resources,
including taxes, remain under the control of Salt Lake City's elected officials, for the benefit of all our citizens, rich
and not-so-rich. Salt Lake City should vote "no" on giving up all of these resources. Mr. Smith will still have his
funds to renovate the Salt Palace if he wishes. Or perhaps he could lease it from SLC. These are standard business
deals. This will preserve our heritage and resources, for our future. All zoning and financial decisions would remain
within the realm of our elected officials. I appreciate your time and resources, and the research and planning
materials the City has sent to me. They have been extremely useful. Best wishes- Rich Hendron
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/3/2024 14:35 Jerry Philpot (EXTERNAL) 2024 proposed revised bargaining
resolution **Attachement 1 - 4 pages
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I hope this message finds you well. On behalf of AFSCME Local 1004, I am
writing to express our concerns regarding the joint bargaining resolution currently under consideration. We believe
it is crucial to address specific issues that may impact our members and the broader community. Attached to this
email is a letter that outlines these concerns in detail. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward
to discussing it further. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Thank you, Jerry Philpot President AFSCME Local 1004
10/3/2024 17:58 Anonymous Constituent Smith center downtown Why did you vote that in? huh? the community members that have been here longer than Smith have been ignored.
I've been a good citizen of SLC by raising responsible sons and my volunteer inside this community has been
cheapened by your decision to back him not the least with a tax that already has added to the low to not so low
middle class family budgets. Greed once again reigns and not putting the resources toward saving the GSL, air
pollution, homelessness is dispicible. I am not going to proof this one bit as I hope my disappointment comes thru
this letter to all of you. Who the heck wants hockey downtown? No one asked us.
10/4/2024 10:30 Alyson Heyrend for Sarah Young - D/7 Dear Sarah - I'm a constituent who thinks you are doing a good job representing District 7. I'm concerned about the
fast decision-making timeline regarding SEG's downtown district proposal. I realize that much was controlled by
the state legislature. I hope you'll continue to be a watchdog for residents' tax dollars, knowing that we're facing
many increases from the school district, the city and the county. I'm skeptical of promises made by billionaires
regarding how much "good" they are doing the city. It's hard when there's so much commercial and institutional
pressure on the City Council, but please know I value your willingness to be a thoughtful representative. Best,
Alyson Heyrend
10/4/2024 11:48 Kristen Saad Voicing Opposition to Sales Tax Increase - D/7 Voicemail Transcription from 10/1/24: Hi there, my name is Kristen Saad, I am a resident of Sugar House. I'm just
calling because I just recently learned of the City Council meeting today that's actually going to have a vote on a
proposed tax increase to fund a Sports and Entertainment District. I just wanted to voice my really strong
opposition to this. I think it is actually ludicrous that there is going to be an increase of taxes across the board
without any real public weigh in on this issue. It was not very well publicized and I think that it's crazy that we can't
do things like fund school lunches but we will give billionaires handouts to build stadiums that no one really asked
for. I really hope that you vote against this. With how expensive everything has gotten lately and inflation I think it is
really crazy to think about this being a benefit to people who live in the area. I hope you are able to voice those
concerns on behalf of your constituents tonight. Thank you very much.
September 27, 2024
Sent via electronic mail (jonathan.pappasideris@slcgov.com)
Jonathan Pappasideris
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
451 South State Street, Suite 505A
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5478
Re: 2024 Proposed Revised Bargaining Resolution
Dear Jonathan:
AFSCME Local 1004 (“AFSCME” or “Union”) has serious concerns about the
draft of the proposed Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint
Resolution (“Proposed Resolution”) that is on the City Council (“Council”) agenda for
consideration on Tuesday, October 1st. AFSCME writes to share those concerns, request
that the Proposed Resolution be removed from the upcoming meeting agenda, and
propose bargaining to discuss alternate options.
The Union’s first concern is that Salt Lake City (“City”) administration first sent
this to the Council for its consideration on August 13th without consulting with AFSCME,
violating the agreement that currently exists between AFSCME and the City. Specifically,
the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) states, “The City recognizes the value of
collectively bargaining with AFSCME the terms and conditions of employment for
eligible employees . . . .” As discussed in detail below, the Proposed Resolution directly
affects provisions in the current MOU. Thus, it is a violation of the MOU not to have
discussed this Proposed Resolution with AFSCME.
Second, when we discovered the Proposed Resolution in the September 3rd City
Council work session materials, the Union inquired what changes were being made and
why. Both this inquiry and the public summary of the changes were misleading in stating
that the new Resolution was only to “create[e] a process to determine whether a group of
eligible employees should be represented by a different labor union or exclusive
representative.” Ostensibly, this was to allow for the Fraternal Order of Police to
challenge the Salt Lake Police Association, the current police union, as the exclusive
representative. This is not an accurate summary of the Proposed Resolution. Instead, this
proposal would do irreparable damage to labor-management relations at the City.
Attachment 1
- Page 1
Jonathan Pappasideris
September 27, 2024
Page 2
Third, the proposed Resolution takes aim at provisions of the 2011 version that are
not only fundamental to the current AFSCME MOU but eliminates many historical tenets
of labor-management agreements more generally. Specifically, it:
Eliminates “just cause” for discipline;
Eliminates paid union time for union officers, board members, and
stewards;
Confuses mandatory topics of negotiations;
Prohibits the expansion of job titles in the bargaining unit;
Eliminates the requirement that the City annually provide a list of
employees in the bargaining unit;
Eliminates closed door negotiations;
Alters impasse options;
Eliminates enumeration of unfair labor practices by the City, while listing
them for the Union; and
Includes a process to decertify a current labor organization.
While AFSCME expects that the City understands the import of each of these
changes, we will briefly explain the impact to employees of each of these proposed
modifications. A j ust cause standard for discipline is a key aspect of employee protections
to ensure job security for Union members. Removing a core protection for workers is a
massive change in the Resolution, and doing away with just cause discipline would
undermine labor management relations and expose City employees to arbitrary discipline,
even termination, without recourse.
Additionally, compensation of union officers, board members, and stewards for
their work is vital to successful labor management relations. AFSCME officers and
stewards juggle full-time positions and their role in the Union, and paying them for that
work is crucial not only to ensure that employees’ concerns are prioritized but also is a
message that the City values that work.
Further, the Proposed Resolution distorts the mandatory bargaining subjects
between the Union and the City. Historically, the mandatory bargaining subjects include
wages, hours and working conditions. These have been the very subjects that the parties
have bargained over. The Proposed Resolution muddies this history. Furthermore,
Attachment 1 -
Page 2
Jonathan Pappasideris
September 27, 2024
Page 3
because topics are limited to the extent the City determines it is a “management right,”
this perverts mandatory bargaining.
Also, the Proposed Resolution freezes the eligible employees for AFSCME
according to the job titles of Appendix A of the most recent MOU between the City and
the Union. Changing the definition of “eligible employees” significantly restricts
AFSCME’s ability to organize future types of City employees. Most immediately, this
would impact the current organizing drive among City library employees.
The problem with eliminating closed door negotiations, which is historically and
universally the way labor agreements have been bargained, is problematic for both the
City and AFSCME. Private negotiations allow the parties to fully engage without fear of
public backlash and allow the parties to be candid and direct. Taking this provision away,
would lead to more political and lengthy bargaining sessions.
The Proposed Resolution alters impasse by specifically allowing the Mayor and/or
the City Council to unilaterally bypassing the Union to impose a new MOU, creating a
sham of the bargaining process. This eliminates the effectiveness and ameliorates labor
bargaining power. This is highly problematic, as the City can simply refuse to bargain
with AFSCME and then implement its own plan through the impasse resolution process.
The Proposed Resolution maintains language on unfair labor practices for an
Exclusive Representative but removes the mirrored language that prohibits the City from
committing unfair labor practices. This inequity is unacceptable, as mutual protections
from unfair labor practices is fundamental to the agreements signed by AFSCME and the
City, and protects the employees from overreach of both labor and management.
Finally, the Proposed Resolution includes a process to change the labor
representative of bargaining unit members. No such process exists in the 2011
Resolution. While AFSCME is not opposed to such employee choice, decertifying a
current union has enormous impact on employees (and the City), thus, such should
require a higher threshold of legitimate interest before any decertification election is held.
For this reason, AFSCME proposes that decertification require 40% percent showing of
interest.
Because elections are being expanded to decertification, AFSCME must insist that
it receive annually a list of bargaining unit employees. Eliminating this requirement
hampers AFSCME’s ability to communicate with and fully represent its members. The
Attachment 1 - Page 3
Jonathan Pappasideris
September 27, 2024
Page 4
parties should have clarity, at least once each year, of those employees covered by the
MOU.
This letter serves simply as an overview of AFSCME’s concerns with the proposed
Resolution. There are further details and language that AFSCME would like to discuss
with the City and we look forward to working with you on this matter as we collaborate
to foster a positive relationship that best serves City employees. To that end, we request
that the City table discussion of this Proposed Resolution at City Council until we are
able to meet and discuss the impacts of the changes within it.
Sincerely,
SCHOLNICK THORNE HOLLAND
/s/ Lauren I. Scholnick
cc: Jerry Philpot
Brad Asay
Attachment 1 - Page 4
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/8/2024 9:08 Walter Denison Fwd: Concerns Regarding Excessive Train Horn
Noise
Dear City Leaders, My name is Walter Denison. I live at REDACTED. I am writing to express my deep concern about
the excessive train horn noise disturbing neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. The frequent and loud train horns are
significantly impacting our quality of life, making it difficult to sleep, work, and enjoy our homes. I understand the
new policy comes from federal regulations. And I understand the importance of train horns for safety. However, I
believe alternative solutions could mitigate the noise without compromising safety. Perhaps additional signage,
warning lights, or other measures could be implemented to alert pedestrians and motorists of approaching trains. I
kindly request you investigate this matter and consider implementing measures to reduce the noise pollution
caused by train horns in our community. Please addess this with federal regulators to work toward an amicable
solution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CC'ing my HOA Management who can provide more
information as requested on the adverse effect on resident quality of life. Sincerely, Walter Denison