The URL can be used to link to this page

08/23/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 Ms Bennett and Ms. Zollinger briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. Councilmember Penfold said he wanted to expand options for a sustainable city beyond what was available through State, County or Regional providers . He said if the City was going to be successful in reducing carbon footprint they had to come up with options not currently on the table . Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to encourage the City to explore transit passes . He said major transportation corridors served by transit still had unfriendly zoning associated with them. He said the City had focused on rail transit corridors but not on bus corridors . Councilmember Garrott said the public needed more choices when it came to transportation. • 2 : 57 : 38 PM ALENE BENTLEY, COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER Ms. Bentley and James Campbell briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. • 3 :45 : 10 PM SUSAN DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING FROM QUESTAR Ms. Davis briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. #3 . 4: 11:45 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN IDLE FREE ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 12 . 58, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROHIBITING IDLING OF VEHICLES WITHIN CITY LIMITS. View Attachments Russell Weeks, Bianca Shreeve and Vicki Bennett briefed the Council from the attached handouts . All Council Members were in favor of holding a public hearing. #4 . 4 :43 :48 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF EDMONDS PLACE AS A PUBLIC STREET AT APPROXIMATELY 346 TO 362 NORTH (640 WEST) PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2009-00591. (THE APPLICANT' S PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IS TO USE IT AS ADDITIONAL YARD SPACE. IT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A DRIVE APPROACH FOR 362 EDMONDS PLACE) . View Attachments Jennifer Bruno and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #5. 4 : 51: 04 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE CITY' S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM. THE PRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH A CITYWIDE PRESERVATION 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 PHILOSOPHY, IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITYWIDE PRESERVATION PLAN AND PRESERVATION POLICY STATEMENTS, TOOLS AND PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY' S PRESERVATION GOALS. View Attachments Joel Paterson, Cheri Coffey and Wilf Sommerkorn briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. Councilmember Love asked if the preservation philosophy described the historic preservation program desired by the City. Council Members said it was close. Councilmember Love asked if the current philosophy was complete. All Council Members said no. Councilmember Love asked if there were concerns about structure. Some Council Members had concerns . Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted zoning ordinance standards and design guidelines strictly enforced on all facades of buildings or if flexibility should be allowed on secondary facades . She asked if the Council wanted to be that specific within the philosophy. Councilmember Penfold said he felt if it was not visible at the street it was of less concern. Councilmember Love asked if the preservation philosophy should uphold the principles of historic preservation yet provide flexibility. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted a statement in the philosophy about size of districts . Council Members were in favor of certain guidelines . Councilmember Love said another discussion would be scheduled with a revised philosophy based on feedback tonight . #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 . BUDGET AMENDMENTS HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES EACH YEAR TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY' S BUDGETS, INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. View Attachments This item was not held. #7 . 6 : 16 : 54 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE BUDGET RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS, PARKS, STREETS OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS AND COST $50, 000 OR MORE. View Attachments LuAnn Clark, Karen Halladay, John Naser and Tim Harpst briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said they would schedule this issue with additional time on a briefing to finish 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 the discussion. She said they would vote on it the same night. She said the Mayor wanted to talk about 200 South as part of the CIP. #8. 6: 08 : 13 PM INTERVIEW STEPHANIE JENSEN PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT OT THE HOUSING TRUST FUND BOARD. Councilmember Love said Ms . Jensen' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal approval . #9 . 6 : 13 :28 PM INTERVIEW CASEY O'BRIEN MCDONOUGH PRIOR TO HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. Councilmember Love said Mr. McDonough' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal approval . #10. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; e) FOR ATTORNEY- CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . This item was not held. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 37 p.m. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 Lk)\)\ L35 %\r-t COUNCIL CHAIR �4.='" cri�� IN -TY RECOR R ` �•tn�kl��S��i This document along with the digital ecording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held August 23 , 2011 . bj 11 - 5 f Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights Ben Winchester, Co-Chair bwinches a,us.ibm.com Susan Hansen Porter, Co-Chair susanhplcsw@hotmail.com August 18, 2011 VIA EMAIL: council.comments@slcgov.com Salt Lake City Council Members Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Re: Salt Lake City's Evaluation of Aesthetic Zoning Tools Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: The Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights (YCPPR) submitted an application last year proposing to amend the Yalecrest Infill Overlay District and historic district ordinances (petition PLNPCM2010-00665). Among other things, YCPPR proposed criteria that should be met before initiating an application to create a new historic district. While petitions regarding the Yalecrest neighborhood cannot be advanced until next spring, the City is now evaluating planning tools to address historic preservation as discussed in a June 29, 2011 City memorandum, which will be presented to the City Council on August 23, 2011. In its June 29, 2011 memorandum, the City discusses how it can pursue historic preservation using general planning tools that impose zoning based on aesthetics. However, the City does not adequately address key issues about aesthetic zoning that raised contentious concerns in the Yalecrest neighborhood. These key issues are basic questions that will arise whenever any neighborhood considers aesthetic (character or preservation) zoning. YCPPR urges the City and other government leaders to focus on these key issues: • When considering aesthetic (character or preservation) zoning, City standards should give first priority to implementing the desires of most of the affected homeowners. Aesthetic zoning can be restrictive, subjective, and costly, and the City should not impose measures that most homeowners oppose. • When considering aesthetic zoning, the City also should create procedures that can be used to verify support and implement the zoning in a way that protects Salt Lake City Council Members August 18, 2011 Page 2 residents from unnecessary conflict. Meaningful procedural protections are as important to residents as the zoning itself. • As the City evaluates tools and sets goals involving aesthetic zoning, it should make meaningful community participation a part of that evaluation. Community input is necessary to establish planning goals that the community supports. As noted, when considering aesthetic zoning the City should create standards that give first priority to implementing the desires of most of the affected homeowners. Aesthetic zoning differs significantly from more objective requirements. It maintains a neighborhood's appearance in detail by seriously restricting the vested property rights of existing homeowners, and those restrictions can impose costly and burdensome requirements on homeowners. The City has an obligation to be guided by what most homeowners want when making decisions about zoning for appearances, and City standards should clearly establish that priority. Neighborhoods also have strong concerns for the procedures used to implement aesthetic zoning. YCPPR's zoning application sought to address those concerns by requiring voting procedures at the outset of any process in order to protect residents, including requirements to verify that most property owners (70%) support the zoning and that most affected homes are actually historic. The City's memorandum does not discuss protective procedures. It only states that the City intends to give the Historic Landmark Commission authority to initiate aesthetic zoning (without regard for community opposition). Concerns about procedures created extensive difficulties in the Yalecrest neighborhood. As noted in the City's memorandum, under existing ordinances the City only seeks public input after a process to impose aesthetic zoning has already been initiated, even if it is initiated by a single individual. Input is also relegated to a "public hearing" process, which allows residents who happen to attend a meeting to make two-minute statements just before the City makes decisions. This approach leaves residents frustrated and convinced that they haven't been heard, and it only serves to pit neighbors against each other and lead them to seek relief from perceived inequities. Preliminary procedures would determine the desires of the neighborhood in a meaningful way before the City pursues aesthetic zoning. They would protect all City residents from the problems experienced in Yalecrest, and we ask that the City Council and administration place a strong priority on process issues. The City's June 29, 2011 memorandum also does not discuss how the City will obtain community input to guide its current evaluation of aesthetic zoning. The memorandum asks the City Council for guidance, but it appears to assume that no other input is important to determine planning goals that may severely impact homeowners. Community input would help the City create planning goals that are more tailored and better accepted, and that are thus more effective. Salt Lake City Council Members August 18, 2011 Page 3 For example, the memorandum appears to assume that historic preservation is the only goal of our community, and it focuses heavily on the use of an historic district as the proper tool to achieve that goal. Historic districts, however, preserve historic accuracy at a significant cost to homeowners, and it is not clear that most residents would agree with the City's assumption or would want such a district applied to their homes. The memorandum also notes that broad tools exist to address other goals, such as concerns for character. However, it does not focus on how the City can help residents address specific concerns using the least invasive means. The City should not determine planning goals in a vacuum, but should give residents a meaningful opportunity to participate in the current evaluation. These three issues are not unique to the Yalecrest neighborhood. They are fundamental concerns for any City residents who are facing questions about aesthetic zoning. Aesthetic zoning decisions need to implement what most homeowners want based on meaningful and transparent procedures and clear community goals, or every neighborhood will be subject to the disruptive conflicts and problems experienced in Yalecrest. These issues should be properly addressed in any City-wide planning program, and we ask that the City include them in its current evaluation and give them priority. Very truly yours, Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights Ben Winchester, Co-Chair Susan Hansen Porter, Co-Chair cc: Mayor Ralph Becker Wilford Sommerkorn Wayne L. Niederhauser Charlie Luke Tracey Harty Roger Little 1 • c3 E 0 U Sr! a0 c W I I AL i U) C 0 0 0 -05 ._ C Iiii 0 ..t=. CO L. E o �' U �„0 0 Eo m cp 0 a) M O U> O . O O 0 E U a , u) i U /) (n G1 Q (O (f) Q . . Questar's Businesses About $4.4 billion enterprise value Development & Production Transmission Distribution Wexpro Questar Pipeline Questar Gas ,,A, .f,,, .,,,..-- . ----.),. „,,,,t„.,, ,_ .._ 444 Aa Iti I 44% ' 34% 22% Net Income Contribution 1 -_J-1.._ % II 0 a O rj 00 41 MN E 1W 06 O al C ON AM a) bO w as II. WN W gS IM H I Sw NI v 11 = IIIWI NMI VI 0 IW CO AN T.. �10 CZ VM 2 AM I- NI II:ldi IMN SN v rN * CD yl L HN C. AN V) I NMI (1) HO 3W CD Vd VIN lib' 401 Oa N aW N NO AN /� ON V/0 ON la lV 3a ZV I?1 CI) immmenummenneolm OS lJ Ve 0 I.0 Ln o O Ln o 0 << 9` O m ``Gin o E ' ol,n O 6 t!N ' 6o�G�n a • 6o0 ar) ' 8°�`OiG CA s°6 s M 0 ' 'POIb V ' .-. s°fin - • 90 Gn N 3 ' so , L. N •• • do.r' C CD `� >fmiCZ N 'y • CO Gtn i0 0 • OO G�yn (I) SGn/ Q0 • l6, �'n • ,96, ,, t • .96,Gin G� N 26, n d .O •i f6, t� 3 I i j o C • �6 G`On F- r GG .I 0 06 Gn N tell ' G6)Gn niN i I 1 i t I t 9� `6n ■- ♦�1 Q O O O O1. O O O O O O O �'G: IA • System requirements demand increasing infrastructure replacement $159.6 Million $225 Million* $50.0 $45.0 ■ ■ i $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 -_ $0.0 � • III 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Capital-Expenditure Forecast lic- — co • E . •. . 4 .., . 0 . ,0i: .,. Cl) , ,• ,,,,,•4: >, >% •A - r- e- - ''' • • L ., ... , > iftir 0 6 •s, >, - , •-2, - 12- E (13 . ,._ E 0 -0 ,0 •- .-- a) = • 411 c u .. . . ... 0 CL 6 , .. 'iY,:i,..!-- ./.' = Ct- tri \ • - - im C - - : CD W MO =MO it; 0 C En (13 A,.4..., .., .. C >111 .•‘.. iie . 4.1 uCD II MI CZ . - _ ,. '.i ; J ?' - , -,. .,....r.•' t- ': .-‘"\ CI Cle I— ' '' If IP. li FL 12 Replacement SALT LAKE CRY CALIFORNIA AVE. CNlYENNE VAN BUREN AVE 1700 SOUTH 1-111 SOUTH SALT LAKE m 140 i (z1S) 0 0 z 0 • a 0 3300 SOUTH $/Dth ry w cn COoo co COs May '07 _ a tD July '07 - = 73 Sept '07 I NI gat, Nov '07 - CD n Jan '08 I CL CD March '08 1 Q G May '08 - C CD July '08 1 M .a Sept '08 1 '"} m Nov '08 1 Jan '09 - a C March '09 = ' 0 May '09 = 3 July '09 - 0, w Sept '09 I 3 = Nov '09 - � Jan '10 - N a) March '10 I _ May '10 - 'a Ertl I July '10 I y Sept '10 I _ Nov '10 T. 2) Jan '11 I 0 March '11 - May '11 - July '11 I _ . 0 Z 14 O I- CO72 o1,, oi. (I) a60. tab 3 ". 4 - 60. OZ a 7 60. 01. to co 80. Dti 0 > L.L. ....� 'a 80, D£ • = 90. OZ .. , nor to LO. OP CL 0 : ------ .' , j L0, OZ V - 1. j 1 L0, D I. 0 _ 90. 0£_ 90, OZ t: 90, 01. r . I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O O O 00 I` CO Lo CO N N- x- The U.S. has ample natural gas resources: 100-year supply IMP LEGEND _ No access 41,0 Limited access ‘111111111 Traditional 1,727.1 Tcf I Coalbed I 156 3 Tcf I Annual U.S. consumption - New Shale 742 Tcf 22 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) 0 • • • rn o Cl) o N CD a > W 6I- U 3 0 I. Co "CD N a) .0 0 V - oZOZOoTt u stair N 0 A c Ill \\\/ ,/ CD • A n— II To. O O O O 0::) 0 0 0 0 • 0 O LU O In o Ln O LU O o Ea Ea Ea ea ea ci U I I I I I I • L LOZ/1/9 ` LLOZ/L/£ - 1.1.0Z/L/1 0 II 7 OLOZ/L/LL 111 Ct ' I 010Z/1/6 i OLOZ/L/L z 0lOZ/1/9 0 OLOZ/L/£ 7 OIOZ/1/l 13 600Z/1/11 CD E� ; 600Z/L/6 .V L CZ 1 - 600Z/L/L fl- E 1' %%�� 600Z/1/9 "Do' 600Z/1-/£ C) , ic' I 600Z/14 N .... 900Z/L/LL E '�.• ,"'+ - 800Z/L/6 ' (INDI � 900Z/L/L` Z %.%% 800Z/1/9 t ' • 800Z/L/E -0 �+ I 900Z/111- VI) � •• = L00Z/L/Il ,V LOOZ/1/6 Cr) ��° 1 LOOZ/1IL 0 6. �� ` L00Z/L/9 L00Z/U£ lid i _..._ L00Z/L/L Ncf.) O O O O O O O O O O CD= O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v� j O� O in O in O in O 4- 4- co co N N JPI - A I . c''I r flPf 1 \*---*'—'40 1 s r p I �_� jgI 1 + '1\4"V N fII r-- . . a .." i .. ,w 4 ‘ -40 ,1 :.-- , � R . _ii C N a m ti i 3I I I y g N i ZCl) o ;. VCD C ._ y.... u) ci) c c . in 0 .- U += I ..� la = = wco as6 (i) CO > tQIli cc, > .L (2 Co d- X N CO Z (1) Worldwide NGV growth y 10 0 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 4 3 2 - 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Sources:IANGV +SpEItA.:tt f ThermWise-program results c 2500 - • 340,199 rebates paid through 2010 • About one in five customers participated 2000 - •Annual natural gas savings of about 2.5 million Dth • Equivalent of 31,000 residential customers 1500 - 1000 - 1069.1 500 - 656.8 428.3 0 203.5 MMDth 2007 2008 2009 2010 saved Mankind's Greatest Challenge • We will have to figure out how to meet the energy needs of a planet that: - Has 6.5 billion people on it, two billion of whom have never flipped a light switch (yet) - Will have 9 billion people on it by 2050 - Whose energy demands will double by 2050 — we'll need every Btu we can get IP . , �'_ I i Meeting the Challenges • Natural gas is consistently abundant, clean , affordable and American - Natural gas WILL be part of the solution to environmental and energy concerns - Natural gas is being overlooked - Informed and involved Americans can help fix this ki CS Summ / of City's Greenhouse Gas Reductior rogram w In August 2008, the Mayor and City Council passed a resolution committing the City to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emitted by City operations. These GHGs are primarily carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumed for heat, electricity and transportation. Since that time, the City has tracked its annual carbon emissions, and used this information to implement a wide variety of projects that reduce City energy use and GHG emissions. Between 2007 and 2009, the City reduced its GHG emissions by over 9%, and is well on its way to meet the Mayor's and City Council's reduction targets for 2020 and beyond. In 2011, the City became only the 6th city to become "Climate Registered" with The Climate Climate Registered' Registry, a widely accepted standard for GHG reporting in North America. By publically recording and tracking our emissions through this site, the City provides leadership and support for other cities that are working to establish their own goals and reduction strategies. Salt Lake City Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal 100,000 -- -- 90,000 20% reduction by 2020 80,000 70,000 50%reduction by 2040 60,000 50,000 City establishes reduction goals, 2008 Goal CO2e 0 40,000 I Actual CO2e 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year Summary of Community's Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan In 2010, the Mayor convened an Energy and Climate Action Committee to advise the City on how the Community wished to tackle energy conservation and GHG mitigation. The Committee, whose members represent citizens, businesses, educational institutions, government agencies, faith groups, the legal community, and other non-profit organizations throughout Salt Lake City, helped inventory the energy use and GHG emissions from the entire community. This group then debated reduction goals and strategies, settling on a community-wide target of reducing GHG emissions 17% by 2020. The Energy and Climate Action Committee selected six main, over-arching strategies to tackle as a community. These six strategies are: -Re-commission commercial buildings to improve energy efficiency •Provide targeted energy information to consumers •Encourage voluntary above-code adoption in new construction •Pursue compact, transit oriented, mixed use urban form Reducing GHG Emissions in Salt Lake City "Reduce parking supply within the City 5.1 'Promote commuter reduction programs 49 Salt Lake City's 2009 GHG Emissions by Sector EN Existing practices v 4.7 Salt Lake City Strategies 4.5 Reduction Strategies by c Others 2 4.3 — c 4.1 — 0 Business as Usual W 3.9 .Waste dis [iuildingt 1% 74% Salt Lake City Goal 3.7 \.0ther 1% l 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 - • • Gre 11,14•14 rr t �� tb / 1111! A ss ,s• //Isw, Is mu, se ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Ps.) v�-A 10 _.1 • ' : .4. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy August 201 1 A CALL TO ACTION . , iim . Salt Lake City has completed its first ever The Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan community greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and covers the energy and transportation components of the Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan. In Sustainable Salt Lake vision, which includes ten topics. 2009, the city emitted 4.75 million metric tons of This plcm aims to establish a framework for increased carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e ) GHG efficiency and sustainability in the community and to emissions - or 26 metric tons per person, which is provide the initial stepping stones toward these goals. just above the national average. Most of these However, it is ultimately up to the collective actions of the emissions, 54 percent, resulted from electricity use. entire community to make Salt Lake City more sustainable. Consequently, there is great opportunity for Please consider doing your part. drastically reducing GHG emissions if we can improve energy efficiency, particularly in buildings • Participate in existing building assessment programs for where most electricity is consumed, and use cleaner your home and/or business. sources of electricity. • Request more access to utility information from your utility providers. Armed with this information, we are committing to • Support green building in your next purchase or reduce our GHG emissions to 17 percent below building project. 2005 levels by 2020. The Energy and • Consider higher density options and proximity to your Transportation Sustainability Plan details how six workplace in your next home purchase. key strategies and a host of supporting strategies • Seek alternative means of transportation for your next will get us to this goal. The strategies reduce our trip downtown or commute to work. contribution to climate change; clean the air; • Review the full plan and get involved in implementing it. provide greater energy security; support a green g�nenergy economy; reduce traffic; and protect our Visit Nw.slcgov.com slcgreen, to learn e. water supply, wildlife, and other natural resources. Salt Lake City is proud to be a leader in the area - • of sustainable development. We believe that our _ k-1 . _ n 4101116+ ' thoughtful, collaborative, and quantified approach • will ensure even greater success in the future. 1 , i _' ",= ; Ih ii `.. , - ... . . -sm. «.. Thank you for all you do, - - - 14, " Mayor Ralph Becker - $ # , "_ '0i4i - -,f_ .j )L. 0 . THEHALLENGE AND PA1H TO ACTION ' • „ . , MM. Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reducing GHG Emissions in Salt Lake City The recently completed GHG inventory, or s_1 Community Carbon Footprint, revealed that Salt 0.9 _ .. Lake City was responsible for 4.75 million MTCO2e =Existing practices o emissions in 2009. Electricity consumption accounted . a' for 54 percent while natural gas combustion to Salt Lake City Strategies a.s accounted for 20 percent. The building sector E Reduction Strategies by c accounted for nearly three quarters (74 percent) of Others E. a.3 .. all emissions, followed by the transportation sector E c 0.1 (24 percent), with waste disposal and other sources .N � accounting for less than 1 percent each. Business as Usual W 3.9 Salt Lake City Goal 3.7 3.5 ,1 , , : , Salt Lake City's 2009 GHG Emissions by Sector 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 A Means to an End • Our goal of reducing our GHG emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 will mean changing what we do enough to eliminate 1 .3 million MTCO2e in 2020. These reductions will be achieved through existing practices and community programs, additional strategies proposed in the Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan, and changes outside of Salt Lake City's direct control but that Waste disposal can still be influenced, such as improved vehicle fuel efficiency ;.Buildings 1% standards and reduced carbon intensity of electricity. These actions, 74% taken together, can advance Salt Lake City significantly toward Other 1% achieving its GHG reduction goal. The strategies in the Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan could reduce an estimated 1.1 million MTCO2e in 2020, leaving a gap of about 0.2 million MTCO2e to be addressed in annual reviews of new best practices and opportunities. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGIES Commercial Building Re-commissioning Recommissioning, or building tune-ups, addresses lighting, HVAC, and other building components to ensure that a building is operating in the most energy efficient manner possible. To help achieve the Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan's goal, the community should aim to recommission about 10 percent of small buildings (-700) and 10 percent of large buildings (-25) each year between now and 2020. Targeted Energy Information for Consumers Providing consumers more information on how much energy they use can lead to behavior changes that reduce consumption. The OTHER STRATEGIES community should aim to offer information to all residential utility customers, both electric and gas, with sufficient tips and messaging >Energy Efficiency for Low Income Residents to achieve a 3.5 percent reduction in projected residential energy ➢Energy Efficiency for Large Institutions >After Hours Lighting Control at Businesses consumption by 2020. More Stringent Building Codes >Reduced Carbon Intensity in Electricity Supply Voluntary Above-code Adoption in New Construction Municipal Opportunities in Renewable Energy The community can encourage voluntary adoption of above-code or >See the full plan for more strategies that were third-party green building certifications, such as LEED and Home considered... Performance with ENERGY STAR, using incentives such as reduced permitting fees and expedited permit reviews. This strategy calls +_. .• •.. A for 75 percent of all new homes to be constructed to ENERGY STAR GHG Reduction: 494,000 MTCO2e certified standards or equivalent and 30 percent of all new • commercial buildings constructed to at least LEED Silver standards or The majority of these reductions are the result of equivalent. reducing the carbon intensity of electricity. 1 While this is a very important strategy—it is not highlighted at left because it is outside of the BENEFITS OF THESE STRATEGIES IN 2020 direct control of Salt Lake City. 1 - e•uction: °1 •,000"MTCO2e TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY STRATEGIES S Compact,Transit-supportive,Mixed-use Urban Form A city that is compact,provides access to transit,and incorporates -1 mixed-use development can help reduce vehicle miles driven and support other modes of travel,such as walking or cycling.It can also provide more choices in housing,shopping,and employment. Under this strategy,the city would aim to achieve a compact(>10 • • e. residential units/acre),transit-supportive(<1/2 a mile to transit), mixed-use form for all new development between now and 2020. Parking Supply Reduction Reducing parking supply can benefit the city's transportation x - •' system by encouraging transit use.This includes limiting parking by specifying the maximum amount of parking for new development ➢Increased Bike Infrastructure ➢Parking Cashout Program and increasing the price of on-street parking downtown by 25 to >Remote Parking/Park&Ride 50 percent. ➢Local Circulators for"First Mile/Last Mile" Travel Commuter Reduction Programs ➢Improved federal fuel economy standards A Commuter Reduction Program(CRP)helps employees use See the full plan for more strategies that were alternative modes of travel and provides both carrots,such as considered... ride-matching assistance,and sticks,such as priced parking. The ` goal for this strategy is to reduce commuting vehicle miles by 6 BENEFITS OF OTHER STRATEGIES IN 2020 percent for about 50 percent of the commuting population. The majority of these reductions are the result of the increasing fuel economy of vehicles due to federal standards. While this is a very important strategy—it is not highlighted at left because it is BENEFITS OF THESE STRATEGIES IN 2020 outside of the direct control of Salt Lake City. SUSTAINABILITY VISION .„ ..-.,., ingiiiiiiiiiiiiimowila .,,,,,ri.„. ,,, ,, •._ 2 / .. J� O ...., .. O Q Cod 9) z o �`o� `alp IP +r .� y '�o� 9 trl c , c `,�.�° The Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan ,�'�1 d - f ,�, ��t covers the Energy and Transportation & Mobility topics, `sdf '`' s' ��e. 2 of the 10 topics covered by the broader Sustainable e -0_, 4r y ba�Fe.1 ' y Salt Lake vision. sty 'Sustainable �` Open Space Salt Lake Energy To learn more about the Energy and Transportation Sustainability Plan and the other Sustainable Salt Lake Topics visit: A. w f..;icyvt.com/slcgreen/ "Ippr ILI4 ke .'„"Ps Ensuring the future 1 livability of our community U 0 III . r Or Gti� G eeeyl This plan is the result of extensive collaboration with the following individuals and agencies: /, SE Sall Lake City Energy and Carbon Advisory Committee Salt Lake City Division of Sustainability El Jason Berry,State Energy Office and Environment 1lB.'.; se L11 Ann Ober,Salt Lake County Mayor's Office Vicki Bennett,Director .1,;;i „r Kim'Barnett,Salt Lake County Renee Zollinger,Environmental Programs FA �11 t 1r» Lis Cohen,Governor's Energy Office Manager Rusty Lundberg,Department of Environmental Quality Debbie Lyons,Recycling Program Manager Myron Willson,University of Utah Bridget Stuchly,Outreach Coordinator For more information,please see the full Kerry Case,Westminster college Eric Hunter,Salt Lake Community College This project was prepared for Salt Lake Energy and Transportation Sustaina bility Greg Libecci,Salt Lake School District City Corporation by Brendle Group Alene Bentley,Rocky Mountain Power Judy Dorsey,Brendle Group Plan at Steve Bateson,Questar Gas Becky Fedak,Brendle Group Laura Briefer,Salt Lake City Utilities Seth Jansen,Brendle Group ciov.com/slcgreen Jeff Edwards,Economic Development Corp.of Utah Bill Krause,Salt Lake Convention&Visitor's Bureau Additional Thanks to the Partners and Sarah Wright,Utah Clean Energy Sub-consultants Salt Lake City Corporation Sarah Baldwin,Utah Clean Energy Maria Vyas,Fehr and Peers Carrie Giles,Utah Clean Cities Julie Bjomstad,Fehr and Peers Division of Sustainability and Environment Alan Matheson,Envision Utah Kyle Cook,Fehr and Peers City&County Building Jeff Grant,Utah Chapter of the Green Building Council Joyce Allgaier,Clarion Associates Doug Hattery,Wasatch Front Regional Council Erika Brown,Independent Consultant 451 South State,Room 145 Kip Billings,Wasatch Front Regional Council Salt Lake City,Utah Kevin Young,Salt Lake City Transportation Division Funding for this project was provided by Patty Neils,Salt Lake City International Airport an American Recovery and Reinvestment Kevin Staples,Salt Lake City International Airport Act grant through the U.S.Department of Mailing Address Dan Locke Utah Transportation Authority(UTA) Energy. PO Box 145467 Jeff Sokol,Varian Medical Systems J.C.Smith Varian Medical Systems Salt Lake City UT 84114-5467 Bobs Delay,Urban Utah Homes&Real Estate Phone 801.535.6470 Ryan Evans,Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Dru Whitlock,CH2M Hill Fax 801.535.6663 Jim Hoitkamp,Holland&Hart Diana Johnson,Interfaith Power and Light Email green(C7�slcgov.com Ron Daniels,Energy Advisor's Office for the Governor Hours of Operation 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday MEMORAN DATE: August 18,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Vehicle Idling in Most Cases in Salt Lake City CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Tim Harpst,Bianca Shreev Jennifer Bruno,Alden Breinholt,Kay Christensen This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would limit vehicle idling for all vehicles City-wide in most cases to two minutes.There is no limit to the time drivers may idle vehicles in Salt Lake City,although improving air quality in the City has been a concern for successive administrations and City Councils.The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council at the Council's August 23 work session.The work session is scheduled to start at 2 p.m.in Room 236 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. After the briefing the City Council may forward the proposed ordinance for formal consideration at a later meeting. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes with the following amendments:(Council Members may propose amendments they deem necessary). KEY POINTS o The proposed ordinance would prohibit the idling of vehicles for more than two minutes city-wide in Salt Lake City.There currently is no prohibition on the extended idling of vehicles except for an executive order pertaining to City government vehicles and a Utah law that prohibits people from leaving a motor vehicle unattended when its engine is running,and a key is in the ignition.' 1 o The proposed ordinance contains a variety of exceptions most of which were contained in Mayor Ralph Becker's executive order in 2008 pertaining to City-operated vehicles and which appear to conform to prohibitions on idling in other states and cities. o If the ordinance is adopted,the Administration proposes to initiate a campaign to inform the public about the ordinance and the need for it.The campaign would include a grace period where the ordinance would not be enforced to give the City time to fully inform people and businesses about the ordinance.The campaign would include outreach through the media,a variety of educational materials,and an outreach to businesses that might particularly be affected by the ordinance.' o The proposed ordinance contains lower civil fines for violations.The lower levels were the result of public comments after a review last year of an earlier draft ordinance, according to the Administration's transmittal letter. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The Parking Enforcement Division is designated in the transmittal letter as the main agency that would enforce the proposed ordinance.How would the division carry out that duty? BACKGROUND DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance would be a component of the City's efforts to"aggressively work to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality through programs that conserve electricity and natural gas,encourage individuals to drive down their personal motor vehicle miles,and reduce other sources of air pollution.The City has been working to reduce both its own internal fleet emissions,and the vehicle emissions generated by the community."' It also is an outgrowth of previous City policy.In 2007 Mayor Ross C.Anderson issued an executive order prohibiting City-operated vehicles from idling more than five minutes.In 2008 Mayor Ralph Becker issued an executive order prohibiting City-operated vehicles from idling no more than 10 seconds.'The City also has managed a public campaign urging people not to idle vehicle engines unnecessarily. It might be noted that both executive orders contained exemptions.The 2008 executive order included exemptions such as: o Being stopped at traffic control devices and signals. o Being stopped at the direction of a police officer or air traffic control official. o Idling to allow windshields to defrost or air conditioners to cool off the interior of a car. o Idling to determine if"a vehicle is in safe operating condition and...that all equipment is in good working order. o Idling for fire apparatus to keep pumps running and water circulating and for police vehicles when necessary for police officers are performing their assignments. The exemptions and others in the executive order make up the bulk of exemptions that would be allowed in the proposed ordinance.It should be noted that the proposed ordinance would allow idling vehicles when the temperature outside is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit where the health or safety of vehicle passengers could be at risk. 2 The proposed two-minute limit appears a little shorter than limits enacted in other cities Council staff looked at during research on this item.In many cities the limit generally was three minutes to five minutes.However,it should be noted that several cities cited a U.S.Environmental Agency statistic that said today's fuel-injected engines"warm up"in less than 30 seconds. A draft of the proposed ordinance was made available for public comment in September 2010. One result of the comment was the proposed ordinance forwarded to the City Council contains lower levels of civil fines.The original proposed fines were:first offense—warning;second offense—$210;and third offense—$410.Fines in the proposed ordinance are:first offense—warning;second offense—$160; and third offense—$210.In addition,fines paid within 10 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$110.Fines paid within 20 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$70,and fines paid within 30 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$40. Utah Law 41-6a-1403. 2 Please see attached public education outline prepared by the Administration. Sustainability Office website front page. Please see attached executive order. 3 Proposed Idle Free Ordinance Public Education Outline Key Components: • Idle Free Grace Period—Opportunity to educate the public about the ordinance,and provide time for initial educational efforts witpomt,#nforcenlent taking place. • Media Outreach o Media *lit ith's-Mayor Becker and City Council o Shprit#043tional ma goy !f, • Educational Materla:47,4 serve as tools for city employeis:**Fatethititiblic about the facts of the ordin#4410,,the importance of everyone doing tliejipart. o Brochure 7--45/2 Wbbfrity distribution. , o Letter-jr residential reports of vehicle idling on private probe* o Fact***-7,e comri#0,4istribution. o Hotifek* it individuals idling or areas where idling occurs frequently o Website—to se tire&a "one stop shop"for all pertinent idle free documents, FAQs, . . information and Othi01.,resourcei,and to report idling. o Video-to q laln.tbe pw of.**1.10apce and as an education tool o lertAii:digiiiee signs throughout the city stating that an enform410VeiCrfsikg, Exist*Progthmmlc ReôfATcesr. kite:Free:0db:http://idlefree.utah.aov • Park City's Idle Free Ordinance: hit0*VWw.aarkcitv.ora/indekasaAiaae=622 • i;ikv'W:slcaov.comlidlefree .•_ • Business Outreachargeted,utreaph 10 local businesses of other organizations that may be affected by the Idle Free Ordinance(6/ready been contioi-thef9r comment on proposed V; ordinance). „ o Stress best business practice stories from UPS, FedEX& Kennecott that emphasize the cost savings associated with a reduction in o Key areas for outreach(customers possibly affected): • Airport Park&Wait parking lot. • Fast food park&serve areas(Hires,Sonic,Curbside to go restaurants,etc) • Bank and dry cleaner drive-through windows(likely longer than 2 minute wait) • University of Utah and Salt Lake Community College Student Parking lots • • Elementary School Pick Ups and High School Parking Lots • Distribution centers and companies with loading docks o Key business types for outreach (fleets affected): • Businesses with large fleets • Private bus companies(Le Bus,etc.) • Utah Transit Authority • Delivery truck companies • Mobile Businesses • U of U • Food delivery companies ■ Community Partner Outreach—Enlist`icey parinerilo spread the word:to;their constituents, contact lists. o Some examples:.: • Utah'bean Cities • Salt`Lalce Chamber • Breathe Ute 1. oms for Clean Air • Salt Lake's Air Quality Partners Team • SC ;i -nTeam= • Community:Councils, • Wasatch Front Regional Council • UofU. t.i.. .•.iw • Salt Lake.City�t i c i lst: h .: T . Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles Page 1 of 3 Executive Orders Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCY: Office of the C.A.O. KEYWORDS: Transportation, Fleet, Anti-Idling Preface Air pollution is a major public health concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. In Utah over 50% of air pollution is a result of mobile sources. Air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. In addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life. Exhaust from vehicles is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley. Vehicle exhaust also is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change). Salt Lake City can play an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines are allowed to idle and thereby lead the effort to improve air quality by adopting a prohibition on unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees. The purpose of this Executive Order is to protect the public health and improve our environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. Therefore I enact this Executive Order: 1. Definitions 1.1 "Driver" means any employee of Salt Lake City Corporation who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. 1.2 "Idle" means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. 1.3 "Vehicle" means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the department of motor vehicles. 2. General 2.1 This Executive Order applies to the Mayor and to City employees in City departments under the direction of the Mayor. 2.2 No driver, while (a) operating a City owned vehicle or(b) operating a privately owned vehicle while on City business, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than ten (10) consecutive seconds, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. idling as needed by City employees to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency; 6. idling as needed for a fire apparatus that must be kept running when outside to keep the pumps running and circulating water. B. Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed; C. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes; D. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to cool down a turbo-charged heavy-duty vehicle before turning the engine off; http://www.slcinfobase.com/ppareo/WordDocuments/prohibitionofidlingon... 8/1 7/20 1 1 Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles Page 2 of 3 E. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU), lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed concrete mixer, or other auxiliary equipment, except a heater or air conditioner; F. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and unloading of goods or people; G. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle/ equipment; H. Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals; I. Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. Background: On August 7, 2007, Mayor Ross C. Anderson signed an Executive Order prohibiting the idling of Salt Lake City(the "City") vehicles for more than five (5) consecutive minutes, except in certain circumstances. Afterwards, the City began collaborating with the various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air, that all stress a lower idling time limit. Accordingly, and for the reasons further explained below, the August 7, 2007 Executive Order is amended to require that the idling limit be lowered to ten (10) seconds. Why a Change is Needed: Several reasons support the City's decision to lower its idling time limit to ten (10) seconds. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reports that the average vehicle will use more gas and cause more emissions if they idle for more than 10 seconds than if they are turned off and restarted. oak In addition, the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reports that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources; and environmental pollution. Engine Damage: Research shows that the wear rates of an idling engine are double that of running an engine under load. According to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), an hour of idling is equal to 80 miles of driving. Waste of Resources: The EPA reports that fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines will use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines. Environmental Pollution: The unnecessary idling of cars and buses contributes to the amount of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we all breathe both at the point of idling (often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere. By lowering the City's idling limit on City vehicles, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and preserves the longevity of City property. Additionally, the City maintains consistency with other governmental agencies and private sector interests groups that already subscribe to a 10 second idling limitation. EFFECTIVE DATE 8 22, 2008 (Date signed by Mayor): August 7, 2008 http://www.slcinfobase.com/ppareo/WordDocuments/prohibitionofidlingon... 8/17/2011 :r.: t SCANNED TO: SCANNED BY: RALPH BECKER SS � ll QJ DATE:. MAYOR ".a ''► til f o/vft OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL EITCEUTTrlli MAR 28 2011 Date Received: B __ David v 'tt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: Milk. TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff (801) 535-7732 SUBJECT: Idle Free Ordinance STAFF CONTACT: Bianca Shreeve, Assistant to the Chief of Staff DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends that the City Council adopt an Idle-Free Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal,non-material budget impacts to Public Services Department and Salt Lake City Airport. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Due to the harmful effects of unnecessary emissions on local and regional air quality,the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office recommends that the City Council pass a city-wide ordinance that would prohibit vehicle idling over two minutes. This ordinance provides exemptions for certain situations and for certain types of vehicles. Many local and state governments throughout the country(recently including Park City, Utah)have similar laws that limit idling. The Idle-Free Ordinance allows a six-month grace period to educate the public and issue warnings for first violations. The emphasis on education of the ordinance complements the City's ongoing participation in the"Turn the Key Be Idle Free"campaign. The Administration recommends that enforcement responsibility be given to Parking Enforcement officers as they fulfill their primary duties throughout the city. Salt Lake City Airport staff will enforce the Idle-Free Ordinance at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Budgetary impacts of the ordinance are minimal and one-time, for purchase of some hardware upgrades in Parking Enforcement, signage,brochures and development of a webpage to report vehicle idling. Because first violations are warnings,minimal revenues should be expected. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com Awk PUBLIC PROCESS: Public comment regarding the proposed Idle-Free Ordinance officially began on September 9,2010 as part of"September Idle-Free Month."The draft ordinance was made available for public comment on Salt Lake City's website through Open City Hall for a six-week period, from September 9 to October 21,2010; the City also received emails and phone calls during this comment period. Social media and the Mayor's e-newsletter were additional tools used for sharing information about the idle-free proposal and encouraging input from the community. A public comment report is included in this transmittal. During the six-week public comment period,the Administration sought input from various stakeholders. Air quality advocacy groups such as the Utah Chapter of the American Lung Association and Utah Moms for Clean Air were engaged and expressed their support for the City's idle-free proposal. The Utah Transit Authority(UTA) and shipping companies UPS and FedEx, all of which already have self-imposed idling restrictions,were consulted regarding the City's proposed idling limits. Rocky Mountain Power and Qwest also contributed feedback regarding exemptions needed for utilities companies to properly operate maintenance and service vehicles. The Administration also met with or presented to the Mayor's Community Council Chairs meeting,the Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board and various City departments. Community feedback and input from stakeholders demonstrates high public support for the idle-free proposal during the public comment period. Of the comments captured on Open City Hall as well as phone and email, 104 responses expressed support, 16 responses expressed Amok opposition and 18 neutral responses were collected regarding the Idle Free Ordinance. Responses were received from groups and individuals from both inside and outside Salt Lake City. Public comment prompted several significant changes that were implemented in the final draft ordinance: • Reduction of civil fines from$210 to$160 for second offense, and from $410 to $210 for third offense, with reductions if penalty is paid within 10, 20 and 30 days. • Exemption from the ordinance during extreme temperatures (above 90 degrees and below 32 degrees)where health or safety of passengers could be at risk. • Exemption to operate defrosters to ensure visibility. • Added exemptions for emergency vehicles as well as installation and maintenance vehicles to properly operate machinery or equipment. Public feedback also urged the Administration to develop an education plan to assist residents, visitors and businesses in understanding the Idle-Free Ordinance during the six-month grace period. The Administration's education plan outline is included in this transmittal. p 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting Idling of Vehicles Within City Limits) An ordinance enacting Chapter 12.58, Salt Lake City Code, prohibiting idling of vehicles within city limits. WHEREAS, air pollution is a major public health and environmental concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution; WHEREAS, for 2009 the Utah Department of Air Quality reported eighteen (18) Yellow Air Days and seventeen(17) Red Air Days during"Wood Burning Season" (November- February) and twenty-one (21) Yellow Air Days and four(4) Red Days during "Ozone Season" (May-September) in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, over 50%of air pollution is a result of mobile sources in Utah; WHEREAS, the unnecessary idling of cars,trucks and buses contributes to the amounts of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we breathe both at the point of idling(often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere; WHEREAS, air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer; WHEREAS, in addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminates, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change); WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has played an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines in City-owned vehicles are allowed to idle and thereby has led the effort to improve air quality. The City has accomplished this by executing two prior Executive Orders prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees and now by enacting this ordinance prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling within city limits; WHEREAS, the prior Executive Orders were signed by Mayor Ross C. Anderson on August 2, 2007 (the "2007 Executive Order"), and by Mayor Ralph Becker on August 13, 2008 (the "2008 Executive Order"); WHEREAS, the 2008 Executive Order amended the idling time from five (5) consecutive minutes, allowed under the 2007 Executive Order, to ten(10) seconds, except under certain circumstances. This amendment was based on input from various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air; WHEREAS, several reasons supported the ten(10) second maximum established by the 2008 Executive Order. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reported that the average vehicle would use more gas and cause more emissions if allowed to idle for more than 10 seconds than if shut off and restarted. Additionally,the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reported that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources, and environmental 2 f pollution; WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines; WHEREAS, the City Council believes that a less strict standard of two minutes for permissible idling time is appropriate for the public at large; and WHEREAS, by prohibiting idling as defined in this ordinance within city limits, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and thereby preserves the health and promotes the prosperity, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting Motor Vehicle Idling Within City Limits: That Chapter 12.58 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.58 IDLING OF VEHICLES 12.58.010 Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health and improve the environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. 12.58.020 Definitions: 3 For purposes of this Chapter, these definitions shall apply: A. "Driver" means any driver who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. B. "Idle"means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. C. "Vehicle"means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the Utah Department of Motor Vehicles. 12.58.030 Idling Restriction Within City Limits: No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than two minutes, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. for airport landside and airside operations requirements. B. Idling as needed to operate-heaters or air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees fahrenheit or above 90 degrees fahrenheit, as measured at the Salt Lake City Airport and determined by the National Weather Service, for the health or safety of a driver or passenger, including service animals. C. Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other 4 equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure visibility while driving. D. Idling as needed for emergency vehicles to operate equipment. E. Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed. F. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, installation, maintenance or diagnostic purposes. G. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo- charged heavy-duty vehicle. H. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was primarily designed or equipped, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU), lift, crane,pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner. I. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and uploading of goods or people. J. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. K. Idling as need for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. L. Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. 12.58.040 Penalties: A. Violation of Section 12.58.030 is a civil offense and shall be penalized as follows: 5 AgOVIk 1. First offense: a warning but no fine. 2. Second offense within twenty four months of the first offense: a civil fine of$160. 3. Third and subsequent offenses within twenty four months of the first offense: a civil fine of$210. B. Reduction of Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be subject to the following: 1. Any penalty that is paid within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of one hundred ten dollars ($110.00). 2. Any penalty that is paid within twenty(20) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00). Avow 3. Any penalty that is paid within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of forty dollars ($40.00). 4. Receipt of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice"means the affixing of a notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof. 5. Other Fees and Assessments: A forty five dollar($45.00) administrative fee shall be assessed for the city's cost of collecting past due debts. C. Strict Liability of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable for 6 such violation and the penalty therefore. D. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of the streets pursuant to Section 12.56.570 and is subject to Section 12.56.570G. E. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of Section 12.96.020. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 3 Bill No. of 2011. 8 Published: HB_ATTY-#124 81-v4-Anti_Idling_Ordinance.DOC 7 Public Discussion Draft September 9, 2010 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 201-02011 (Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting of-Idling of Vehicles Within City Limits) An ordinance enacting Chapter 12.58, Salt Lake City Code, prohibiting efidling of vehicles within city limits. WHEREAS, air pollution is a major public health and environmental concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution; WHEREAS, for 2009 the Utah Department of Air Quality reported eighteen (18) Yellow Air Days and seventeen (17) Red Air Days during "Wood Burning Season" (November- February) and twenty-one (21) Yellow Air Days and four(4) Red Days during "Ozone Season" (May-September) in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, over 50% of air pollution is a result of mobile sources in Utah; WHEREAS, the unnecessary idling of cars. trucks and buses contributes to the amounts of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we breathe both at the point of idling (often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere; WHEREAS, air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer; WHEREAS, in addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley; 0' WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminates, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change); WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has played an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines in City-owned vehicles are allowed to idle and thereby has led the effort to improve air quality. The City has accomplished this by executing two prior Executive Orders prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees and now by enacting this ordinance prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling within city limits; WHEREAS, the prior Executive Orders were signed by Mayor Ross C. Anderson on August 2, 2007 (the "2007 Executive Order"), and by Mayor Ralph Becker on August 13, 2008 (the "2008 Executive Order"); WHEREAS, the 2008 Executive Order amended the idling time from five (5) consecutive Amok minutes, allowed under the 2007 Executive Order, to ten(10) seconds, except under certain circumstances. This amendment was based on input from various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air; WHEREAS, several reasons supported the ten(10) second maximum established by the 2008 Executive Order. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reported that the average vehicle would use more gas and cause more emissions if allowed to idle for more than 10 seconds than if shut off and restarted. Additionally, the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reported that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources, and environmental pollution; 2 WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines; WHEREAS, the City Council believes that a less strict standard of two minutes for permissible • idling time is appropriate for the public at large; and WHEREAS, by prohibiting idling as defined in this ordinance within city limits, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and thereby preserves the health and promotes the prosperity, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting efMotor Vehicle Idling Within City Limits: That Chapter 12.58 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.58 IDLING OF VEHICLES 12.58.010 Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is-to protect the public health and improve the environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. 12.58.020 Definitions: For purposes of this Chapter, these definitions shall apply: 3 A. "Driver" means any driver who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. B. "Idle" means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. C. "Vehicle"means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the Utah Department of Motor Vehicles. 12.58.030 Idling Restriction Within City Limits: No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than two minutes, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. idlingfor airport landside and airside operations requirements. B. Idling as needed to operate heaters or air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees fahrenheit or above 90 degrees fahrenheit, as measured at the Salt Lake City Airport and determined by the National Weather Service, for the health or safety of a driver or passenger, including service animals. C. Idling as needed to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health ensure visibility. D. Idling as needed for emergency;vehicles to operate equipment. 4 6. idling as needed for fire apparatus that must be kept running when outside to keep the pumps running and circulating water. 1 :1 . Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed;_ GI'. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, installation, maintenance or diagnostic purposes;_ 1).(r. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo- charged heavy-duty vehicle before turning the engine off;_ .F711. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed or equipped, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit (TRU), lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner;_ 1� 1. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and uploading of goods or people;_ (LI. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle;_ 1-1-1‹.. _Idling as need for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals;_ _, 1 I Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. 12.58.040 Penalties: A. Violation of Section 12.58.030 is a civil offense and shall be penalized as follows: 1. First Offense. Aoffense: a warning but no fine. 2. Second Offenscoffense within twenty four months of the first offense,4_ a civil fine of$240l 60. 5 3. Third and subsequent offenses within twenty four months of the first offense--A: a civil fine of$41-0210. B. Reduction of Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be subject to the following: 1. Any penalty that is paid within ten(10) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of one hundred ten dollars ($110.00). 2. Any penalty that is paid within twenty(20) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00). 3. Any penalty that is paid within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of forty dollars ($40.00). 4. Receipt of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice"means the Avow affixing of a notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof. 5. Other Fees and Assessments: A forty five dollar ($45.00) administrative fee shall be assessed for the city's cost of collecting past due debts. 1 C. Strict Liability of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable for such violation and the penalty therefore. D. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of the streets pursuant to Section 12.56.570 and is subject to Section 12.56.570G. 6 i 14, E. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of Section 12.96.020. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 7 a Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 24102011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. otikk MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 20102011. Published: HB_ATTY412481-v-2 v4-Anti_ldl ing_Ordinance.DOC 8 „ IDLE FREE ORDINANCE `- .. 3i`Itf '.5 i 3fiu, Public Comment Report • ''�� -'.'"b: This report summarizes the public comments received regarding the `•tr 'I:: ., k,1 , proposed Idle Free Ordinance September-October 21, 2010. , 44 G i. • _ IMF' w${&y:” .: .....:..::i t s A, your „ „� '"`c`,"„,. 4. .„,,,,,,7„..,,,,,,,,„, .,„,,..,,„,..„,„3..„,,,..:, / .‘41t h.,..;. :',N4-,r,•00.!:,1,,, / it‘i. T>sii. \ \ : ,L,IrV.1:•:,•)•,,W .?'..p.t.,-., / A. 1 ..'''."..7;`'.24',!1 .' 4 ,-:: 1,C.,,,..11,,.:'7'..p.it & ') f'-' ,:m-1.1 -1.,,'T,'4,24, ,Ir�p�ti �E'�aaee��:,,,,,wY" 1.,,,,L: it r. °illilli'l') i c.,b y ,•Iv "p- i- \ . ,,‘,, .'l'APT 4;":' , zr i'''!:'t.,,t?,:..,,15.,, ,,P;:,15:,":"li:.,.'1'''':‘#'''';.;:..';i' .. 45 \ : ,, ,,, idle ivf---- „, ,, ,, ,.r =„: ,n. 5,,,,,,it,:-..,,:,igf c'4-.K fir 3 ,y. " 'h�d ram}! J� �l k+lE J Kate Lilja, Sustainability Division g,� ,,.. 4 ; a `7f November 2010 .� s s �y November 2010 Table of Contents Background 2 Findings 2 Location 2 Reasoning 4 Recommendations 4 Summary of Revisions 6 APPENDIX A—Stakeholder Comments i APPENDIX B—Public Comments vi dosik 10 November 2010 IDLE FREE ORDINANCE Public Comment Report Background Poor air quality, especially during temperature inversions, is a serious issue within the Salt Lake Valley and affects all residents regardless of basic demographic indicators. With over 50%of air pollution coming from the tailpipes of motor vehicles, a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach to reducing motor vehicles emissions is vital to addressing this important issue. In an effort to improve air quality along the Wasatch Front,the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office proposed a draft Idle Free Ordinance that would be a city-wide prohibition on idling more than two minutes. The following report contains content analysis of all feedback received through the Office of the Mayor and the Office of Sustainability as of October 21, 2010.Appendix A contains all stakeholder feedback.Appendix B consists of all comments made both online and directly to city contacts. Findings Of the total 138 comments received during the public comment period, the vast majority voiced support (See Table 1.1). 13% of comments received did not make their position known, instead expressing a miscellaneous opinion on the matter. Table 1.1 Oppose Support Undeclared Total 16 104 18 188 12% 75% 13% 100% Location Of those who stated whether they support or oppose the ordinance, a full 97%indicated or provided their location.In the following sample,those who provided their location are classified into two separate categories—resident and non-resident(of Salt Lake City). Represented in the non-resident sample were cities located in Utah including:Riverton, Cottonwood Heights,Bountiful,Murray,Draper,Holladay, Sandy, North Ogden, Orem and Herriman. 2 November 2010 Table 1.2 —�� Oppose Support Total 13 84 97 Resident 13% 87% 100% 3 18 21 Non-Resident 14% 86% 100% Resident Pie Chart—Table 1.S • Fi Support ■Oppose ❑Miscellaneous Ate. 3© November 2010 Non Resident Pie Chart—Table 1.4 H. p" r�':�1'WYp CYO` :li f ®Support ■Oppose ii 0 Miscellaneous .Y 4 s -tn - Reasoning Individuals who voiced support mainly did so based on air quality concerns.Those who voiced opposition generally based their argument on limit of government,waste of government resources,anti-business rationale. Recommendations Non-Stakeholder Summary of nonstalreholder recommendations provided by opponents and supporters: Table.2.1 SuPPort Opposition • Include specific provision for drive- • Public awareness thru windows. campaign/voluntary effort Instead:of regulatory. • Require Idle Free signs at all drive- •thru windows • Include information ti ; i .;,.o a on�or:'exempt :for catalytic converters/combu non. • Ban drive-thru windows • science. • Lower fines. • Lower fines. • Simplify fine structure. a 4 0 November 2010 • Decrease idling limit to: — '• o One minute o 30 seconds A • o 15/10 seconds ry, • Clearlyt ,, fi;gy tY ' ,!'":-` define safety exe o_,p�¢¢L1'",,y '4':;1}e `L[':";r^�_ ` • Add traffic signaltuners(co�]{ntd0 clock). :i x • • ImproV@'trc'!ffiCSlgllal timing/optimization. = wk • UtilimP a large public awareness = ':$14-AW:M4- :., campaign Those that were undeclared recommended: Table 2.2 Undeclared • Add traffic signal timers • Improve traffic signal timing/optimization. • Ban drive-thru windows. • Do not exempt police officers. • Require permanent signs at schools. • Get community councils involved. • Make the ordinance apply at rail signals. a _. Public awareness/educationprogratu: • " Rotary powered vehicles; osook 5 0 November 2010 Stakeholder Recommendations Stakeholders, including Rocky Mountain Power,Qwest,Gold Cross Ambulance and the Salt Lake City Airport,provided specific recommendations. Table 2.3 Stakeholders ■ Add exemption for"installation& maintenance." • Add exemption for"safety or regulatory authority." • Add exemption for ambulances and emergency vehicles. Summary of Revisions Responding to feedback and incorporating constructive suggestions from public comment resulted in several revisions in the draft ordinance language. To summarize: • "Idling while stopped in accordance with regulatory authority"was added to Exemption 12.58.030 A.5 as requested by the Salt Lake Airport. • "Idling as needed to operate defrosters and other equipment to ensure visibility"was as Exemption 12.58.030 B to clarify safety language. • "Idling as needed for emergency vehicle to operate equipment"was added as Exemption 12.58.030 C as requested by Gold Cross Ambulance. • "Idling as needed for installation and maintenance"was added to Exemption 12.58.030 E as requested by Qwest and Rocky Mountain Power. • "Warm up"language was added to Exemption 12.58.030 F at the request of the Salt Lake Airport. • "Idling as needed for vehicles for hire during active loading and unloading(10 minute maximum)was added as Exemption 12.58.030 L to accommodate buses and other vehicles for hire. • Penalties were decreased to$160($50 if paid within 10 days)for a second offense and $210($100 if paid within 10 days)for a third offense. 60 November 2010 44401111b:N400P" Snit Loke City Department of Airports INTER-OFFICE MEMO Nanning& Date: October 18,2010 Erwin ieental To: Kate Ufa Salt Lake City Suetainability Program Manager From, Men McCandless Sub Draft idle-Free Ordinance I am submitting Salt Lake City Department of Airport's.comments relating to the proposed Salt Lake City Idle-Free Ordinance. The September 9,2010 Public Discussion Draft ordinance vats reviewed. It is essential that ell airport support vehicles are allowed to continue to operate without an idling restrkxion. Some airport support vehicles are covered under seedlon12bS.030 exemptions,and others are not. For example.the airport has numerous types or vehicles that are required to provide necessary services for the airport and aircraft during all times and all days during the year. Examples of same of these vehicles Include: passenger shuttle buses fire and police emergency response vehicles operations vehicles engineering vehicles maintenance vehicles emergency response vehicles deicing twits vacuum trucks road swooping equipment aircraft refueling trucks ground service vehicles and equipment cater/food kucks construction trucks and equipment paint vehicles airline vehicles oonmeroial vehicles snow removal vehicles and equipment I recommend adding exemption J.under section 12.58.030 that would cover ail required services at the airport. The following text may be considered. °J. kling at required to provide all airport operations.maintenance.emergency response,construction,and other required airport and aircraft support services." Thank year for your oonsideration. ij o Alene Bentley Rocky Mountain Power I understand you're working to finalize input today on the proposed Idle-free: ordinance. Rocky Mountain Power would like to offer the following: We appreciate your efforts to include exemptions that recognize vehicle engines must be left running for a number of reasons. Utility service vehicles often require auxiliary power to operate hydraulic equipment,communication equipment,power tools,computers,etc.,which may require the truck to be running to operate. Rocky Mountain Power's line crews are trained to make prudent decisions about when to leave company trucks running and to ensure idling is necessary for a work-related purpose. We recommend adding language to ensure that activities directly related to utility operations are explicitly included in the exemptions. Please consider adding"utility equipment installation and maintenance"to Exemption#5. 5. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed,other than transporting goods,such as:utility equipment installation and maintenance,operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU),lift,crane, pump,drill,hoist,ready mixed equipment,except a heater or air conditioner; Eric Isom .Qwest y,_ ., After discussingtheissue:in4ema1ty oi r'network.attorney-recommended including°Installation.anii".n1ainter:ance::h(exertipticinf34=` lie said:that"servicing" might:Include:m Intenance :butt <be l ar she recvrnmen s ad iingthe language .;We would aP if P'� 1 ate" .eeitbatkat4stiiinsyeu°may.have on these suggestions' • .Yx , Allen McCandless Salt Lake International Airport I am submitting Salt Lake city Department of Airport's comments relating to the proposed Salt Lake City Idle-Free Ordinance.The September 9,2010 Public Discussion Draft ordinance was reviewed. . November 4010 it is essential that all airport support vehicles a allowed to continue to operate without an idling restriction.Some airport s, . rt vehicles are covered under sectionl2.58.030 exemptions,and others are .For example,the airport has numerous types of vehicles that are required to provide necessary services for the airport and aircraft during all times and all • . during the year.Examples of some of these vehicles include: passenger shuttle buses operations vehicles maintenance vehicles deicing trucks road sweeping equipment refueling trucks cater/food trucks paint vehicles commercial vehicles fire and police emergency response vehicles engineering vehicles emergency response vehicles vacuum trucks aircraft ground service vehicles and equipment construction trucks and equipment airline vehicles snow removal vehicles and equipment iv© November 2010 I recommend adding exemption J.under sectio 12.58.030 that would cover all required services at the airport.The following t xt may be considered. J. Idling as required to provide all airport operat ons,maintenance,emergency response,construction,and other required airp rt and aircraft support services. Thank you for your consideration. Salt Lake.International Airport Meeting Suggestions Meeting'SuggeStibns'- . . Add"warrtrie totiemOtion Add Idling niek'safetY or ieguiaiOrYileeds" v Proposed Idle Free Ordinance - Salt Lake City .{' ?r 'T"eYy c>xfi '��' ,�i�',c°� .� 'i� °,�"�B'.''�"c,�, i. - n,s�r.�y...;,s .*c fa. 4 ,.ems<y. ;'- �^�. ,i ny u ti 7 i �Nl i 2t• �' <r. .k 7' d 4'+h °''F 'f, $ `iE�K��''y.° x..'��e;;.'.1;` i `f A o �' 1 _in.. ', �,. .. �. ; it h. , gill %Armin r a X x 9 Q a v u� s ;,%; M Person. Address Comment, Oran Owen 2023 North 800 West,Salt Lake City In agreement with the proposed ordinance,very sympathetic that it will cost a 84116 lot to enforce. Suggestion—pass an ordinance to create a moratorium on drive up windows. For example,six months down the road drive up windows would not no longer be approved.The elimination of drive up windows would encourage business owners to provide 5 minute(short term)parking,which they would then enforce on their own. Other cities have modeled this behavior(example—Portland). Marian Florence salt Lake City 84102 I support the restriction of idlingres:weil as the pettelties for:those who idle. I think the time-lirtlit'should:be one Minute,not two.rninntes. Call to Council Office Does not live in Salt Lake City A lady called the Council Office this morning regarding the Anti-idling ordinance. She does not think that this ordinance will benefit Salt Lake City in any way and states that when she comes to Salt Lake City to buy items for her business she does not have time to take public transit because she is very busy and needs to get in and get out.She also says most of our stop lights are longer than 2 • minutes.This ordinance will cause her to find other locations outside of SLC to buy her products. She also stated that her sister refuses to fly into Salt Lake anymore as the City has made It inconvenient and the City is too expensive.She states that her sister lives in Florida and for her to say SLC is unfriendly,inconvenient and costly says a lot. Novembei i0 She thinks a good idea is to build more p.rking structures to make it more convenient to visit Salt Lake City.She did of want to leave her name or contact information. Call to Mayor's4`. ... ,E,W'r• Office Unknown(likely SLC) �.,�: -�' Man.*all•.e;ti0-to piress`.- `s ii+ k rwho has,on'-at'least .r,�t. 7y. v it t 0. '>: .-th`r�eyd�ti �ro �I r ,�;� 1 �tsxilt� t`^area ., .,off r.+",L .v y r:.�, ,r .Ya�» y.if,n, cp,, ' :,'.'( ! F.A'. fie`' •�,, ..,b,, ?t k ,ft ih�;�'1 hnk"" � 1 r ti �� fFx � y??�,,J,, .s �p�� Y y r x 'ti"Hw 2 ,,1 r"a"7r �r ,3,�i•;"`wr " " a a ''+. ro-ede:,.,,•�,y'�,,� r _ - F�14S•{p;eyr "!.. d �'f ,.y"�,+ +� , '{ij.xd,``i,.f.,z ib' e �'. �h�tN,}".�,4,�A_„,.A�.- ^�•y �: �. �of1;4the f, � . �x,.+7 2+'. ,ti` !'y�r t�'tyt J,. 13ti 'yF f!'�� , f }.0 ,� .,:.5"S'c , -; .. �'� w}• • "n�9,�yy. �{.t. A...�„1�;,ryn°y '"�l;r ^�- Q s r ,.y i1 Hugh Johnson Salt Lake City Mr.Mayor-Absolutely the stupidest idea I hav= ever heard. An unenforceable law and No money or personnel for enforcerne t. If you want to save the whales or hug some trees do it on your own tim and on your own dime. Now we are FORCED recycle our yard waste wit accompanying threats of fines and citations for putting it in the regular garbs. can. Garbage Police?Really? Who is going to pay for that? I did not know s• tation workers were also officers of the law and able to issue citations. Why can't city government fix the potholes in e streets and maintain the infrastructure we have now instead of creating Grand Boulevards"with trees and flowers built on the backs of struggling pro, owners and business owners. Nice of you to soak the taxpayers for a new Bro: •way theatre so you can give it to your brother in law,you must be so proud. viii November 2010 Never in my lifetime(47 years in SIC)have I see a local elected official with such unbridled arrogance and delusions of gran eur. What color is the sky in your new"POLICE STATE"? Do you even know e meaning of the word Fascism? It is the regimentation of private lives y government. You are a and self absorbed ayor this city has ever had. Harvey Rowley Unknown fascist and the most corrupt; .t .... .,..,,... Harvey,Rowley;would tO.Mako*sdggestionfOtarding liketheIdle Free reduc tion;H e thi( #the t t Ifr st I •Ould reduce +. S �light3 ft ry Idle time for.vehi i,M sit at a d rrf i l f' Rf= 'minutes to change.Nam , " ':'!'tikitiiittaitittcithangeA4ith no other catssg!fig;hi * 4 it i 55-1221.He'l3 es.downtown. Joe Bussey Unknown For anti idling. Email:Jo33sey@comcast.cnet Tamara Fled. Does not live in Salt Lake City The andkidlit* ,> '1dberoenere., aware of C { creating t. . pW`chast 4 C YJ q h i a tr � 3 ' tamr'aY1rIF�e, } i 2S aaG<: k is 4r g 4 >xla ` Zoe Perry Unknown Turn the key,be Idle freel With waste or money and our environment.Vote for this! Arianne Prina 5585.Neighbor Lane,Salt Lake City I would love�t =hiave.�tl is�or,'rd n � '`.�hr` _' . _ :.{, �tn>:�,; ��ifear-�tbrtyele: �l�if_t�odld�Wa#t�in 84117. line.at.the t �%. .;. e I a k t r.; rlr iiii ti relit' it i iti g, flisFltN d:bermiictt; ier:and health! r G' l r �> . �:.:. : . . ::... .. A.N.M.Imroz Choudhury 250 South 900 East#9A,Salt Lake City This is a good idea,both for the immediate pro ction of two public goods(air 84102 quality,public health),as well as raising awaren ss of a simple way to save on fuel costs while simultaneously helping the pub c.It's not too often that the individual and the public have an aligned incent a to act the same way-might be good to act on this one. November 2010 Linda Gregersen 1557 West 2250 South I think this Would be.a,great-.way:,to improve air quality:in our.city.I support this proposition.Email:°Iucyinf awaiitigrnail:cUM , ' Debbie Millward 688 Crestview Dr. I agree with no idling.Email:debbiek millward(�yahoo.com Carole Macleod •425 South 1300 East,Salt Lake City we thought'it,w4•aire /taflew tawtreasi iss It!) .84102: Mary Moody 668 F St.,Salt Lake City I am for an anti-idling ordinance. a.... Patty Sturge 1403 Watst.Jardan Walk Way . , , f1 :1 ;bk- ail^ jgaiitlil Jennifer Gardner Does not live in Salt Lake City 1 support the idle free ordinance for SIC.As you know,you have a smog problem.I moved here from the Ray Area,CA a grew up in IA so!know smogi I don't want the valley smog to creep up canyon to Park City.Thank you. • Amy Wurt 1603.Harrison Ave.,Salt Lake City I would love alai*.that Woilit =idling. , Terence Duff 544 South 1000 East,Salt Lake City Please make the idle free ordinance happen.I a for the passage of the proposed idle free ordinance. I Charlotte Fuens Does not five in Salt Lake City Yes to no moreidlingl Paul Carpenter 48 West 300 South#1105N,Salt Lake Pass the ordinance banning idling of vehicles f more than a minute. City 84101 sure.in liesd ll Salt lake CityT, -- d -: -273 K Strea!t, ` -.We need:to`alrfati`:tf .iir:' ;irt''�tC.��3d�e°�fFe�"`favor viiill�� ut:e pollution._Please pass'it ''` ::, - Robyn Raming 2527 South Imperial St. Please supportbeingidle free!Save our lungs! .1 Pam-Silberman= ifliiiitit 600 Ea. " Ti_r 'a , -fi, _ r .. ast,Salt lilt`s-City _f thirilt�ari�r�t�iili�iii�.tahrll� �=i�a �e! i�r'` era!;*tit terrible is ` ;'444-4,4';04 � . ?. " ' Gertrud Carpenter 48 West 300 ,„„. ,,,..i , ,,.,�:`=. +=xI...- :. i :-th,fie�.a. .t i.. F„ : ,aA�.. -_ .. -',r,,: .. rp South#1105N,Salt Lake Please stop the idling for more than 1 minute. City 84101 ,Ta P # ' = i . '}� 1t i kd{� 6 � y�� :�f a 7. .. {7 e � -�"1 �rn: >}ti"`i' � .4a�.473:0,&_:.4,. , y,-',- ;;;Iit r..n , , , g.k* ! x w. } - Anne Asrnan Salt Lake City Do it!Soon!Please support the ordinance! x© November 2010 • Heather Long 1870 Meadow Dr. Please stopildlingJtit,hattfOrthemnyitanrrient and our health!Email: ileathitiliingOtal)Ofnient Jane Nelson 8680 Russel Park Rd. Love the idea for anti-idling law. I _ . .. _ . , .... .... _,__ .........,_ ,_•-• • —. Eric Ungten -Diiiiiqt'live in Safi take City er!cliPgrentoto4c*ftY.:....,,_,,:Z,,.,m-,,,N,,,,;,‘"2.0.e..-1':.:12'•,',.,d;;',40x:1",...18?-.:;4:4:.7.,ii'114;;.r1..*:.'=- - Juliette Sutherland 5542 Walker Woods In. We love this valley and our lungs!This is great! lease put this into action! Email:jullettesutherland9Cornsn.com sii.,, ,iliciiii: _. 4alekiiiiit1iftf7 - ' t-,,iioifsjit,-wowvivt,,,„,.,,,,77,7::,,,,,--T--:-.,- --- , ,„., Cathleen Zick 1331 East 600 South,Salt Lake City Please support the anti-Idling ordinance!We ned to improve SLC's air quality. Thanks! Elizabeth Killii 7' : 042-Wiiiki:Oiltiiiis.6. 'weliiviiTTC:ailigilit eiWttiiiktIlidri*";i4' IfiraiiiiiikiiciiiiiiiiiitIftii.,.....; e the environtnent:Yeah?Pel0i,,,t,6**11,0-11*i.,00*-ti , () xi ) Idle Free Report - Appendix B Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance, penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? Public Comments as of November 1, 2010, 12:33 PM vent 61 ram. Rirs„ SPAry, \\,\\::11 :11:119,//' "y/F' 414. fit tj • aJflTIf $eir rif .. 1174 i Salt Lake City Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance, penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? Introduction In an effort to improve air quality along the Wasatch Front, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office has proposed a draft anti-idling ordinance that would be a city-wide prohibition of idling more than two minutes. .444 www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM'from all participants. 1 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? As of November 1, 2010, 12:33 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 382 Participants: 101 Hours of Public Comment: 5.1 As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population,nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 P1vtfrom all participants. 2 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Daniel Salmon in Salt Lake City October 20,2010, 11:50 PM I support this new ordinance,however,I think the fines are a bit high for the offense. I think a fine closer to$100 is sufficient.Also,who will be enforcing this matter and how will violations be identified?Additionally,I would like it to be enforced more stringently toward police/fire personnel.I am regularly aware of significant negligent/unnecessary idling by these entities and feel their adoption of this ordinance will speak volumes to the community as a whole. Thank you. Daunte Rushton in Riverton October 20,2010, 1:03 PM This ordinance will be a service towards improving our air quality and hopefully reduce the january inversion. meghan brumby in Salt Lake City October 19,2010,4:50 PM This seems silly if the city doesn't ban drive-thrus as well... Uta von Schwedler in Salt Lake City October 19,2010, 2:13 PM I completely agree with mayor Becker that idling should be forbidden in Salt Lake City. I would like to see steep penalties,and NO exceptions for trucks,construction equipments etc. I would also like to see a city-wide campaign to make the new law known to the average citizen and to Akis companies employing drivers and operating heavy equipment.And possibly a hotline for reporting offenders against the idling law,as well as polluting offenders,i.e. drivers of vehicles that emit heavy exhaust fumes and operators of construction machinery with heavy exhausts(as recently seen in the LDS parking lot next to Clayton Middle School on 1900 E/ca. 1400 S,thick black smoke as if a whole house was burning). Jason Burch in Salt Lake City October 17,2010, 10:55 PM I strongly support this ordinance. Jessica Steed in Salt Lake City October 13,2010, 12:01 PM I strongly OPPOSE this ordinance. Like most people,I am in favor of cleaner air in the valley, but I detest this method of trying to do so. There has to be a limit to government. There has to be! This ordinance crosses that line. Jessica Steed Craig DeMordaunt in Salt Lake City° October 12,2010, 12:40 PM I do not support this ordinance. However,I agree with the idea of not idling and improving our air quality. We need to positively encourage all citizens to stop idling and improve the air quality. As everyone knows, SLC has consistenly ranked high as a poor air quality city. Nevertheless,I don't believe a city ordinance and fines are the correct approach to getting our citizens to do the right thing. Gee,the next thing we should look at is fining people for eating too many hamburgers because they have high fat content and it contributes to the communities health care problems. Amok Ordinances,regulations, and fines are not the way to promote citizens behaviors on an action like "idling my car" You will get more buy-in and actual change in peoples behavior with a positive marketing campaign. The city will be wasting resources and time trying to enforce the www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM'from all participants. 3 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements ordinances rather than promote good behavior and cleaner air. George Kelner in Salt Lake City October 11,2010, 12:43 PM George and Cathy Kelner from Salt Lake City We wholeheartedly support the proposed idle free ordinance. We're concerned however with the policy currently in place that city vehicles shouldn't idle. We jog the neighborhood almost every day and frequently see city vehicles,both occupied and empty,with their engines idling. We always ask why they're idling and the answers typically range from "I'm ready to pull away to I have to idle to give my laptop power or to make my rooftop lights work". We have concluded that city employees are either blatantly disregarding the Mayor's directive or the directive can't be followed because work functions can't be maintained on the road without idling engines. To us neither scenario is acceptable and if the city is really serious about prohibiting idling in an effective way then city staff need to set a much better example for city residents. Esther Stokes in Salt Lake City October 8,2010, 12:19 PM I support Idle free ordinance.For clean air and healthier life. R.Gene Moffitt in Salt Lake City October 8,2010, 11:42 AM Emergency Medical Vehicles(Ambulances)will need to be exempted from the Idle Free Ordinance. They need to Idle to keep medications and other supplies safe from heat and cold. Support vehicles and small generators that are used to support Medical or Fire Emergencies should also be exempt. Kimberly Deneris in Salt Lake City October 7,2010,3:18 PM I strongly support the ordinance. Everyone in Salt Lake City who likes breathing and who doesn't want to get cardiovascular disease, supports the ordinance. Motor Vehicles are not entitled to equal protection under the law, in case anyone was wondering. T Draper in Salt Lake City October 7,2010,2:39 PM Having reviewed the proposed ordinance I have to say that I can not support it. The ordinance is flawed and does little more than provide a new"revenue source"for Salt Lake City. Although I do support laws and efforts to clean out air I do not believe that this one will work,and creates the potential for too many other negative impacts to health safety and welfare of citizens in other areas. For Example: 1. Parents picking up children at school would not be allowed to leave the motor running on hot days or on cold days in order to utilize the climate control systems to provide for the comfort and welfare of younger sibling(s)in the vehicle. How convenient that this proposed ordinance could provide an out for a parent or caregiver that got caught leaving a child in a parked car on a hot day in a parking lot. Used the other way around, someone who got a ticket under this ordinance could sue(costing the city much more in funds)claiming that the ordinance is in www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 4 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements conflict with child endangerment statutes. 2.Potential lawsuits over the calculation of the "idle time",and lack of available evidence for the court. How do you prove that the car is on and was not shut off and turned on again?Are they video taping the entire time?How do you prove that a specific amount of pollution was emanating from the tail pipe without touching the vehicle or violating other constitutional protections regarding property and unwarranted search of property? 3. Potential lawsuits over discrimination in enforcement. Does not apply equally to all types of motor vehicles,and all other situations. Utah Moms for Clean Air in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 11:41 PM Yet another reason to ban idling--it has potentially been linked to increased breast cancer risk! See partial article below and/or follow link for the full text: The results,published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives,were"startling,"the researchers said. Even after taking risk factors such as family history into account,they found that the incidence of breast cancer was markedly higher in more polluted zones. "Women living in the areas with the highest levels of pollution were almost twice as likely to .440 develop breast cancer as those living in the least polluted areas,"said Prof. Goldberg,a researcher with the McGill University Health Centre. The researchers examined exposure to smog-causing nitrogen dioxide,and found the risk for breast cancer rose about 25 per cent with every increase of nitrogen dioxide of five parts per billion. Air pollution wasn't only a problem for people living next to busy downtown streets or expressways. It also rose on neighbourhood streets if there was a school nearby and parents left their cars idling while dropping off their children. "These are small pockets of air pollution,"said co-author France Labreche, an epidemiologist at the University of Montreal. The findings add to the weight of evidence linking air pollution to a range of health problems. Research has already established a connection to lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/breast-cancer-linked-to-traffic-related-air- pollution/article 1746484/?cmpid=rss 1 Mark Jemmett in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 8:55 PM As a chemical engineer and one who understands combustion processes fairly well, I think this 040 law is not only harmful for safety reasons,but may have a negative impact on air quality in the "° valley. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM-from all participants. 5 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements An inefficient engine state leads to increased VOC(Volatile Organic Compound)emission due to improperly and insufficiently burned fuel. These VOCs are released in high amounts at startup, and diminish as the engine temperature increases. The byproducts of efficient engine operation are CO2 and water,with minimalized VOC(each component of fuel is a VOC)and other pollutant levels.A cold engine will seem sluggish and slow,but the engine is still receiving a normal amount of fuel(newer car models have improved this aspect,but not everyone has or can afford a new car); as such,the cold engine will not burn a portion of the vaporized fuel,which goes into the exhaust and into the atmosphere. Some of you may have noticed the alkane smell when you walk behind your car just after a cold start; these are the excess VOCs being released.By failing to warm up the engine prior to increased power demands(i.e. driving),a large amount of VOCs will be released.It should be noted that VOCs are significantly more dangerous and harmful to the body than the byprodcuts of a warm, efficient engine,and are a major factor in the brown haze frequently seen in the valley(along with NOx,an unavoidable byproduct that is reduced with efficient operation,particularly in newer vehicles). Of course,the faster one gets the engine warm,the lower the released VOC levels; however,this is where one of the safety aspects come into play.Most mornings when a person warms up the car,it is for a very specific reason: ice on the windshield. Even with scraping,this ice can avoid the blade and severely disrupt vision should one try to drive around the block to warm the engine faster. Furthermore, freezing temperatures affect a person's response time and behavior, and can lead to driving accidents.De-icing washer fluid is a means of getting by this problem, but it isn't the end-all answer,particularly if the fluid ports are iced over. Some vehicles(as mentioned by other respondents)can have adverse reactions to frequent shutdown and startup.Many small motorcycles fall under this dilemma, as well as older and vintage vehicles.Additionally,a very frequent cause of startup failure is a dead battery,and repeated startups will lead to decreased battery life,dangerous situations(particularly in traffic situations,which it appears are subject to the two-minute rule if I read correctly), and increased pollution due to increased battery usage and disposal. As a final note,I personally feel that this proposed law does not seek to do good to the people, but rather is a method to enact further and more invasive laws in the future. It needlessly places restrictions on simple and seemingly innocuous freedoms.I do not support it,and I implore the deciding body to reject this ordinance. Common sense dictates that a better means of warming an engine before driving is to gently press the accelerator while the drive gear is disengaged and the brakes are applied;this may be noisy in the morning hours,but it will speed up the warming process without endangering drivers and avoiding idling time.It has been mentioned that this means "no miles are gained"and gas mileage decreases. While true,the same could be said for driving around the block to warm your car before hitting the busy roads with a fogged-up windshield. This ordinance should be rejected. Susan Fleck in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 9:01 AM We whole heartedly support this ordinance for an Idle Free SLC!! www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 6 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, oak idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Susan and Tim Spier Brad Duncan in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 9:51 PM I do not support this ordinance. However,I absolutely love the idea of not idling and personally can't remember the last time I idled my car beyond two minutes.From the way the proposal is drafted,I can't think of any time in the past few years where I would have even been breaking this proposed law.But I absolutely do not support it in the way it is proposed to be implemented. I think the fines are way out of line compared to the costs associated with the average person idling a modern vehicle for an average length of time(maybe 5 minutes). The safety exceptions need to be defined more explicitly.I don't believe hybrid vehicles should be exempted from this as they pollute nearly as much when idling to charge batteries as a comparable non-hybrid car. If this law is implemented,and I don't think it should be,why should the city subsidize one car's idling but not another car's idling when they both pollute? It would be much better to put the effort into the idle free campaign and encourage key locations to admonish their patrons to not idle(fast food locations,schools, etc.).I believe that many drivers would turn off their engines if they were simply reminded more often. The few that would not turn off their engines without the law would likely still not turn them off with the new law if there were no enforcement officer nearby to punish them.Why are we trying to create a punitive system that does not sit well with the morale of the majority of the populace instead of a positive-reinforcement-type system based on education? For example, elsewhere in the world, small LED signs exist at large intersections notifying the driver when he/she should start the engine because the signal is about to turn green. These are extremely effective and are good,positive reminders which allow the citizens to make a choice and feel some ownership in that choice.Peer pressure is powerful and if one car is the only one idling at an intersection(or school, etc.),they will feel the pressure to also turn off their engine. If the public awareness and education campaign is done right,more overall good will be done and more people will stop idling out of their own free will rather than being forced to do so. When people start to do things by their own choice,they actually begin to believe in them,that's human nature. By making it a punitive law,it simply drives the wedge deeper which already exists between those who legitimately care about the environment and those that feel these types of punishments are just a way of controlling the citizens'lives. One problem with Utah is that there are many of those types of citizens here. This law will do more harm than good in the long term due to reasons not related to idling,but rather,related to dividing Utah politics further and cementing many citizens'currently erroneous and entrenched beliefs that"government is only there to control our lives." This is not the time nor the place for a law of this nature. We must instead implement actions that will truly allow people to learn and modify their fundamental behavior and beliefs rather than simply punishing them for a symptom of their current 401. 1'" behavior. www.PeakDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 7 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Thank you, Brad Duncan Michael Hardie in Salt Lake City October 5,2010,6:24 PM As I tell people at the airport all the time: "I would rather have you spit on me than have to breath your exhaust. At least I can wipe off your spit." I don't think I would get a warning for delibrately spitting on someone, so why give a warning for deliberately polluting the air? The ironic part of this ordinance is that some of the greatest idlers are the law enforcement personel who will be in charge of enforcing the law. I was so tired of all the excuses related to cleaning SL Valleys air that I moved to Evanston,WY. Leah Moses in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 5:17 PM I STRONGLY support an idle free ordinance! Susan Passino in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 6:54 AM Having moved here from the San Francisco Bay Area,I was spoiled by the air being cleaned by the ocean breezes and the fog. The first time I experienced an inversion,I wanted to jump on a plane and leave.The air here is hideous.I would love to see all drive-through windows go away as well! Perhaps if people had to get out of their cars and walk to get unhealthy fast food,we would all make better choices about the earth and our health. The people and the future generations of Salt Lake deserve breathable air; not what we currently have. I'm grateful for Utah Moms for Clean Air for alerting me to this opinion page.I'm not a Mom but I am someone who appreciates the beauty of the earth and how imperative it is for us to preserve it for the future and future generations.Imagine if we do nothing-it's conceivable we won't even be able to see the mountains shrouded in polluted air! James Guilkey in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 9:57 PM I am in favor of this ordinance. Air quality is probably the worst thing about living in the Salt Lake valley. Implementation of this ordinance will not negatively impact anyone's life,but will help improve everyone's quality of life. Jim Guilkey Anne Holman in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 7:02 PM I strongly support the Idle Free Ordinance for Salt Lake City. T Sofarelli in Salt Lake City October 4, 2010, 2:08 PM I support the idle free oridnance. Caroline Olson in Cottonwood Heights October 4,2010, 1:39 PM I am in full support of the anti-idling ordinance for Salt Lake City. In fact,I think it should apply to the whole valley,since I am a resident of Cottonwood Heights. I am very concerned about air quality in the SLC area and I am an active voter on this issue. Ultimately,turning off your vehicle is such a small thing for a person to do,but as with so many small actions,when everybody does it,the gains really add up.I'd like to think we live in a society that could police itself on such matters as these,but we don't. Passing this ordinance will send the message to www.PealcDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM.from all participants. 8 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? 40.41 All Statements shape up and protect our air quality. Marie Green in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 12:43 PM I fully support the idle free ordinance&would like to encourage those who buy fast-food to bypass the drive-through&park. Rachel Bishop in Bountiful October 4,2010, 12:40 PM I am in total agreement with the "Idle Free Ordinance". This is a great idea and even 15 seconds of going idle free can make a difference in air quality. Thanks for taking a step to cleaner air. Ross Chambless in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 12:24 PM As a resident of Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front I am absolutely in favor of this proposed ordinance. In fact, it is long overdue. As someone who grew up in Salt Lake City for the last 30 years,I have noticed our air getting worse, especially during the winter months,and occasionally the summer months too with high ozone levels. As a result I have developed asthma and have stopped running outdoors during these times. I also wear a mask now when commuting by bicycle.Last winter the mask accumulated an amazing amount of black and disgusting particle matter on its filter which I was glad I wasn't breathing in. But I was shocked to think that all of us are breathing that stuff in, even when we don't realize it. I believe the proposed ordinance and its penalties for idling is a good start,although ultimately maybe not stringent enough. If this ordinance gets passed,I also hope there would be ways for residents to report idling trucks or cars in our neighborhoods who don't qualify for the exemptions,as I often see cars idling for no reason. Maybe such a reporting method has been considered in the proposed ordinance,but I did not see it. Thank you. Sally Miller in Salt Lake City October 4, 2010, 12:03 PM I am in full support of this ordinance.As a mom who bike rides and walks my children to school,I am surprised by how many parents leave their cars idling while picking up or dropping off their kids at school. Alice Bain in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 11:38 AM Mayor Becker,please support this ordinance. Our air is so bad and our children are getting sick because of it. thank you, Alice Bain R Martin in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 10:58 AM I agree with Mayor Becker's Idle Free Ordinance.We need to improve the air quality along the Wasatch Front. I do hope that part of this effort is a vigorous campaign effort,to educate the www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM From all participants. 9 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements citizens along the Front about idling.I don't believe most people understand the severity of the issue,or what to do. For example,my husband still believes that it take more gas to turn a car on and off versus turning the car off after 10 seconds. The Turn Your Key Be Idle Free campaign is great. I think following it up with"When In Doubt 10 Seconds and Out"would help educate when we're supposed to turn the cars off. Of course,we'll always have people who will idle because they feel it's their right to get in a warm car or cold car during the extreme temperatures. For those that do feel right polluting,this ordinance and fines will be the perfect solution. Jesse Millen-Johnson in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 10:32 AM I am in support of the strongest penaltites for idling violations. This is one of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce particulate pollution and CO2 emissions. It's not just an environmental issue,it's a public health issue. C Bills in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 9:53 AM I think this is a great idea-not so much to punish people but to raise awareness about the how detrimental idling can be.Of course there needs to be exceptions for health and safety-on very cold days and very hot days. However,I find most people just aren't aware of the negative impact of idling on our air quality so when it's not necessary,they'll now be armed with the information to make a healthier choice. I fully support the government's role to create and enforce laws that protect the common good (clean air,clean water,etc)from forces that are either stronger(businesses that answer only to the financial bottom line)or are just habitutal bad practices(idling or littering). If that is an encroachment on my liberties, so be it. People don't live in autonomous bubbles but must accept that their actions affect others. Heather Buck in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 9:30 AM I fully support this effort to help reduce pollution in the city. It is a well-known fact that geographically, Salt Lake is not suited to the multitude of emissions from cars and factories. Multiple inversions attest to this fact. I also am more sensitive physically to poor air quality and can tell you the air can be palpably awful. I have made the mistake of walking at night in areas where the poor air seems to accumulate and have come home coughing and feeling a filmy layer on my skin. A very hot bath seems to help with my skin,but the effects on my lungs are longer lasting. I like that this ordinance helps individuals to see what part they play in air quality,however it seems to be a small step in actually curbing the problem. I would also like to see steps taken towards curbing the emissions from factories, oil refineries, trains,busses, etc. Perhaps this would help eliminate some of the concerns that individual freedoms alone are being targeted. Kim C in Murray October 4, 2010, 8:28 AM www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 10 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I am in favor of an anti-idling ordinance.While I live in Murray, I believe that Salt Lake City can lead the charge so that other communities will be more likely follow suit. If you can educate the public about the benefits of turning off the car,there will be much greater support for and adoption of the ordinance. For example,compare the amount of gas used and pollution cretaed by 2 minutes of idling vs. turning off and then restarting the engine. Another example is how one can scrape the ice off their car windows in just a couple minutes in the morning,while it takes about 15 minutes(and X pollution/gas)to let the car's defroster do the same job. Thanks and I hope this is adopted! -Kim linda burr in Draper October 4,2010, 8:12 AM I strongly agree there should be an anti-idling ordinance,and that it should be enforced! I recently moved from living in a downtown condo where semi-trucks were allowed to idle all night to wait to make a delivery next door. It was loud with noxious fumes just outside my door. I called the police dispatch and I e-mailed the city,but it only worked intermittently to stop them.Maybe a fine would work?! Amok Kelli Bellon in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 7:12 AM I support the idle free ordinance and feel it's the perfect way to raise awareness about the detrimental impact that letting your car idle has. amy albo in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 6:20 AM I fully support an idle free ordinance,although looks like some people have raised thoughtful ways it might be amended.Most importantly,it will help raise awareness about this important issue. I hope any public awareness campaign that goes along with the ordinance will focus less on the punitive aspect,and more on how we'll all benefit from the cleaner air. By staying positive,I think we'll get more buy-in. Kathleen Wilson in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 10:05 PM I support this ordinance wholeheartedly. The exceptions to the ordinance seem very reasonable, and the benefit from increasing awareness and enforcing idle-free streets would be significant. Holly Porter in Salt Lake City - October 3,2010,9:44 PM Please make an exemption for idling in your driveway or on the street in front of your home on cold winter mornings.Idling is the only way I can completely defrost my windows before driving in the winter mornings. I would not have good driving visibility if I am restricted to idle for defrosting car windows and I may cause a collision. Thank you for hearing my concern. Jennifer Hamilton in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:35 PM I am in full support of reducing idling in Salt Lake City, and I believe that having designated no- idling zones at schools,parks, libraries,government buildings,and other public spaces would A"""" make the ordinance easier to enforce and thus more successful!! Amy Dall in Holladay www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 11 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements October 3,2010, 9:22 PM I am 100%behind this ordinance. I encourage Mayor Becker to broaden the Idle Free Ordinance to any idling vehicle anywhere. Drive thrus and school pick ups are a good place to start. Thank you. Alyssa Kay in Salt Lake City October 3,2010,9:19 PM As a mother of a child with air-quality induced asthma I am so excited about this ordinance! It is time to take on our dirty air problem. I would like this ordinance to go further,I think it should include waiting at trains as that is often a long period of time when people tend to idle (light rail being an exception). That being said,there are obvious concerns with the vagueness of the language regarding letting vehicles idle for safety and health concerns. Citizens should be clear about whether they are breaking the law or not. I realize that there will not be much of a concern with being ticketed in our driveways as our cars are warming up on a cold winter morning... that would just be too difficult to patrol. Still,it seems there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed. A possible way to alleviate concerns might be to have this ordinance apply only to "idle-free zones" such as schools,rr crossings and other areas where idling is most likely and least necessary. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to address the vagueness issue... would love to see some more comments regarding solutions for rewriting that portion. Julie van der Wekken in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:14 PM I am strongly in support of an anti-idling ordinance. I think this ordinance would help to educate the public about the negative impacts in regards to pollution and health risks associated with the unneccesary idling of vehicles. Filip Chepelak in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 12:02 PM I think the idle free ordinance is a good idea and I fully support it. Douglas Gibbons in Salt Lake City October 2,2010, 9:39 AM As an Avenues resident I have no off-street parking. In the winter I scrape windows every morning;however,if the car is not heated sufficiently when I begin my commute,the inside of the windows fog over due to condensed breath. This creates a dangerous driving situation. If I am not able to idle my car to heat the inside of the vehicle it is no different than driving without scraping at all. Two minutes is not enough time to heat the inside of a vehicle to prevent this problem. Exemption A5 attempts to address this issue by stating,"idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners,or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency".However,what constitutes a"safety or health emergency"is overly broad and open to interpretation. This type of language is confusing for the public and those tasked to enforce the ordinance.It does not adequately address the example identified above. Please revise the language in this exemption to something more specific and enforceable, such as"for the safe operation of the vehicle as defined by Utah code".This will eliminate potential citations for citizens who are heating their vehicles in an attempt to be safe during their morning commute. www.PeakDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 12 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Douglas Gibbons Daniel Horns in Sandy October 1,2010, 5:36 PM Thank you for enacting this ordinance.I am always bothered by the noise and smell from idling vehicles at bus stops, school pick-up zones etc. I understand that some people feel they have the right to waste gasoline and emits fumes if they want to,and they think that this sort of ordinance is an imposition on their lives. To those people,I'd like to point out that it is one of the jobs of government to protect peoples'health. Asking you to reduce the amount of air pollution that you produce is no different than asking Energy Solution to carefully store their waste,or asking your neighbor to not burn trash in his yard. Virginia Gowski in Salt Lake City October 1,2010,3:04 PM I think this is a fantastic idea! I am so tired of seeing maintenance and work trucks with their engines running for hours.I have young children and would love to have the car warmed up for them,but they can be chilly for a few minutes-it doesn't take long for the heat to kick in. Can't we suffer a little discomfort so we can all breathe better? Tim Brown in Salt Lake City September 27,2010, 11:54 AM I fully support the Idle Free ordinance.However,it should be clarified that the high fines listed in the ordinance are actually$100 less if the fine is paid on time. This is a very confusing way to ANN present a fee structure. William Ungerer in Salt Lake City September 23,2010, 12:57 PM I agree with the comments of B.W.Bulloough on 9/11/10 and Bill Cockayne on 9/10/10 and several others that come before them. I am sick and tired of the city shoving things down our throats. Mayor Beckor is very passionate about bicyclists and environmental issues and does not care or know anything about anything else. His passions give no consideration to civil liberties and I hope that if this ordinance/law is pushed down our throats that the ACLU will take it on. The Mayor simply does not get it,it is not really the intention but the way he trying to mandate things and force them on us. I feels like Hitler has been re-born and is running SLC. Gary Kunkel in Salt Lake City September 23,2010, 8:41 AM Anything to help clean up our air is worth doing,this is a reasonable, if small,proposal that should be implemented. Gary Kunkel,MD Susan Dolan in Salt Lake City September 23,2010,4:24 AM I am supportive of the Idle Free Ordinance. We can taste the pollution in our air burning our eyes and making it more difficult to breathe. I live near the University and am wondering if, after a football game, for example or other large event,if there could be a coordination among law enforcement and the University that attendees could be trained to keep their cars turned off while dismissal from each parking area was coordinated? If people"got in line"turned their cars off knowing when their turn comes,20 cars would be dismissed then everyone would move up and turn their cars off again. Instead of idling while each car inches along the perimeters of the University. www.PealcDemocracy.com/5 1 7 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 13 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, . idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Paul Diegel in Salt Lake City September 22,2010, 1:31 PM I support this proposal-it is a great way to reduce non-essential emissions and raise awareness. There are no downsides. I think special attention needs to be given to minimising exemptions for city vehicles and law enforcement. Those 2 groups appear to be among the worst offenders and the reasons that I have heard given have no technical merit. Public employees should act as examples rather than hold themselves above the law and common sense. Caralyn Buehner in Draper September 21,2010,3:38 PM I'm all,ALL for this ordinance. It's such a small thing to do,and it can make such a big difference. I would like the mayor and city council to also consider ways to address idling in drive-thru lines. I can only hope that this spreads to all of the cities in the valley. Kevin Emerson in Salt Lake City September 21,2010,9:11 AM I support the proposed Idle Free Ordinance for Salt Lake City. As a City resident,I believe that this Ordinance is in the public interest to protect public health and the environment. The Ordinance as drafted is very reasonable and provides numerous,appropriate exemptions. The inclusion of a warning for 1st time offense provides an opportunity for residents to be educated about the Ordinance and the reasoning for it. As a downtown Salt Lake City resident,this Ordinance would directly benefit me and my family by requiring vehicles,which I often hear (and smell!)idling within a few hundred feet from my condo,to turn their engines off,therefore improving air quality around and in my home. I appreciate Salt Lake City's leadership on this smart public policy! Thomas Benhard in North Ogden September 21,2010,9:05 AM I agree with the Governor's ordinance for idling. When people can't voluntarily restrict their consumption habits then unfortunately a mandate must be put in place. I frequently see people idling their vehicles while pumping gas. The worst offenders are the diesel pickups. I think they think that a diesel needs to be running all the time.We saw a lady the other day that started up her SUV after getting groceries and let it run while she was loading the vehicle. Beverly Hanson in Salt Lake City September 20,2010, 10:38 PM This is a great step towards awareness. We've become lazy,and so dependent upon our cars,yet we complain about the inversions and general air quality in the SLC Valley. Turn off your ignition,get out of your car,get some exercise-and help be a part of the solution to clean our air,and make this place healthier for all of us-especially our children. Liz Merrell in Bountiful September 20,2010, 2:23 PM I am thrilled to hear that we are thinking about health integrity for ourselves,our families and our community as we go about our daily activities.I favor a recommendation of leaving a vehicle to idle for a few seconds,while I favor actually ticketing and fining a driver only after 2 minutes.I encourage our leadership representatives to conduct a careful review of all the related health and mechanical issues so that the problems mentioned in the other comments are fully addressed. I also feel strongly about protecting vulnerable populations. I would hate to see this policy used for police to ticket immigrants, elderly,teens, and economically disadvantaged without proper margins and attention to education and a grace period. As with all police issues, I www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 14 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements have considerable concern for the treatment of vulnerable populations. As long as it is done respectfully,this policy can be educational as well as mandatory because polluting our public resource is a public issue no mater how private your property of land or vehicle,therefore it is only logical to encourage better use of our publically shared resources that impact our public health services and our productivity as a state. Wise management of our resources is essential in order for our state to remain strong and our citizens healthy. Thoughtfully worded and respectfully implemented,this policy can help to preserve our beauty and get us on the road to clean air. I expect that this is a sign of our pathway toward the goal of clean air and not a band- aid expected to remedy the problem. I definitely support additional clean air measures of improved public transport and subsidies for renewable energy choices. elise lazar in Salt Lake City September 19,2010, 11:58 PM Three suggestions: 1) Schools-Yes,have campaigns with student involvement but,since changing habits are difficult and campaigns are short-lived,have permanent signs,placed prominently, esp at elementary schools.I realize this is being done,but at present it is on a limited basis and only on a request basis.This definitely should be expanded and mandated for all schools throughout the state. 2)Community Councils-Get community Councils involved.Have them identify 10 locations where idling occurs,e.g.banks, drive-in fast food restaurants,etc in their area. Have them write letters to these establishments recommending that they post signs requesting that engines be turned off while waiting. 3)Train Signals-At present,the ordinance does not apply to waiting for a train or trax to pass. I encourage this to be reexamined.I believe it should be mandatory to turn off the car's engine while waiting for the train to pass. This is not a safety issue,since you can easily turn your engine on as the gates go up. Laurie Mecham in Salt Lake City September 19,2010,2:14 PM Thank you for taking this on. I have two nephews who suffer from serious asthma. The 15-year- old has a deformed rib cage as a direct result of struggling to breathe while growing up in the Valley. I feel that the ordinance is right on target. I agree with others that an education component is key. Perhaps talks`(or a video)with pediatricians,geriatric providers,pulmonologists,and asthmatic kids would get the message across. I also strongly support a useful public transportation system and incentives to get people to use transportation alternatives. Some businesses offer discount bus/Trax passes. At Oregon Health& Science University, employees who ride a bike to work are eligible for cash or other incentives:http://www.ohsu.edu/parking/pages/bikeincentive.html We need more public transportation,not more parking lots. Esther Hunter in Salt Lake City September 19,2010, 8:53 AM Ash I support the concept of this ordinance but would like to see it do more with not only some of the comments/suggestions posted on this site,but also I would like to see it include specific www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 15 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, . idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements language that calls out those areas of highest concern/impact. Coming home from Provo last night,I-15 was a sea of stop and go traffic across all 10 lanes as far as I could see for a good 20-25 minutes. Date night? It brought to mind that this ordinance is a good start,but we have a long way to go to help ourselves,not hurt ourselves by focusing on this important topic. I do not know what the top ten specific areas of impact are,that if changed,would really make a difference,but I can guess at a few that impact our air in my neighborhood: -1300 East since the lane reduction -Foothill Drive -The number 2 on 200 South above 900 East -UU shuttle vehicles -Drive throughs(especially when it is a business where 99%of the customers remain in their cars such as teller lines for banks and credit unions,fast food,the favorite neighborhood coffee shop,dry cleaners,etc.). On one hand I am concerned for the air quality and on the other the competitive advantage needed for a small and local business in our rush,rush life style. The airport park and wait is a creative way to solve this and other problems at this location. Maybe there could be an incentive built into the building/permitting code that would begin to address drive throughs for local neighborhoods. I'd like to see how the business community weighs in on this concern. I do believe that because there are a vast amount of law abiding citizens in our City, that just by adopting this ordinance,idling will decrease. Because of this,would calling out the top ten worries add to the all important education piece? Since it seems enforcement will be a problem for the City(other than maybe at concentrated locations such as the airport and schools)the public education component will be very important and needs to be strong. Maybe the level of the fines and the want for more education could be tied by giving a reduction to a ticket if people take an education course(could be a computer course to eliminate the need for an instructor). Regardless,a good beginning step. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM.from all participants. 16 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Cameron Cova in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 9:29 AM Thank you for this ordinance and for opening it up for public dialog. I am strongly in favor of this ordinance. Idling is almost always unnecessary and contributes to our air quality problem. Often people simply idle out of habit,and hopefully this will cause people to rethink their usual unnecessary idling habits. The penalties seem fine,but this must be accompanied by a community education component. People will only support this if they realize the consequences of air quality degradation and if they realize that idling is unnecessary. Some people genuinely believe it is better/necessary for their vehicles to idle in the winter. That is false,but we need to educate people about that fact. Driveway idling is a big problem and not addressed by this ordinance. All the more reason that the education component is so important. If people are educated about not idling,hopefully it will alter their at-home habits as well. Ellie Brownstein in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 9:08 AM I fully agree with the ordinance a d support it. I am a pediatrician who cares for many children with asthma. When the air gets bad in the valley we see many children in the office and hospital 00144,4, with breathing problems. Idling cars produce a lot of unnecessary pollution which we can prevent by turning off our cars. I am also a mother who takes her kids to school,pick up and drop off can be done with the engine off or far less than 2 minutes of idling. We have poor air quality in this valley and a geographic set up making cleaning our air hard enough as it is(a valley and air inversions). We need to take whatever steps we can to help, and this one is easy. k. gee in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 7:06 AM ABSOLUTELY,I support the ordinance. But the real culprits are fast-food and coffee drive up windows. They should all be made illegal in the state which has some of the dirtiest air in the nation. hugo rodier in Draper September 17,2010, 1:27 PM Hello,this is Hugo Rodier,MD chairman of the Utah Medical Association's environmental committee.The UMA has unanimously endorsed anti idling legislation due to health/air pollution concers and energy conservation. Karin Lee Hughes in Salt Lake City September 17,2010, 12:49 PM I support an anti-idling ordinance. I am a local physician with young children and feel this is one easy action we can take to decrease our air pollution. .0004. Richard Kanner in Salt Lake City September 17,2010, 12:49 PM As a former member and Chair of the Air Quality Board and as a physician/lung specialist who www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 17 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements has done research on the health effects of air pollution I strongly endorse the anti-idling proposal. Two minutes may be too long. Thirty seconds may be more appropriate. In some cities in Europe you are required to turn off your engine at a stop light.Idling just 10 seconds produces more air pollution than turning off the engine and then restarting it. Randy& Stephanie Colquitt in Bountiful September 17,2010, 12:40 PM All for this ordinance.Will it really be enforced?It should be.Agree to it all except NO REDUCTION of fines.If you're going to fine someone for a violation, fine them.Also,this should be announced so that the public begins to understand that they should not idle cars either. If it's too cold to sit in a car while waiting for someone,go inside and wait. The public needs to understand the health consequences of toxins in our air. Emina Alibegovic in Salt Lake City September 17,2010, 9:28 AM I love the idea,and I hope we can enforce it. The question is how we deal with parking enforcement,police cars,and so forth. They are very quick to give us reasons why they can't shut of their cars,and honestly those are less than convincing. Emina Alibegovic susan stewart in Salt Lake City September 16,2010, 11:15 PM One of my pet peaves are people idling their carsm sitting in them talking on cell phones or just idling their cars for seeming no reason other than they can't find the key. I think a still idle ordinance is important and necessary.Idling busses and trucks as I understand it have a short idle window and then must shut them off. This is nationwide for trucks as I understand it. I see trucks idling as they deliver things all the time incuding SLC official vehicles that I've asked to shut them off. Many people don't understand the 30 second--turn it off--rule. I think that an education program would be helpful. How about a billboard on this issue? Bringing up the health issues of air pollution and that 50%pollution is from cars. Brad Bartholomew in Salt Lake City September 16,2010, 5:37 PM Good intentions,I whole heartedly agree that people should not leave their cars idling. But is an ordinance really necessary? Seems like a waste of city resources to even take it this far. Is this what our cities job is?To set ordinances for every aspect of our lives?Watching too much tv is bad too,is SLC going to limit the amount of tv we can watch?There are more pressing issues to address and while I agree,pollution is one of them this is the wrong way of going about it. Lynne Olson in Salt Lake City September 14,2010, 8:55 AM I wholeheartedly support this initiative.It will be very beneficial,especially in areas where large numbers of cars collect at one time. The DAQ's air monitoring station at Hawthorne Elementary School documents the spikes in air pollution that occur during drop-off and pickup times. I think the ordinance should include cars idling in driveways,with allowance made for the time it takes to warm up a vehicle or cool it down as needed. Leo Chan in Orem September 13,2010, 6:00 PM I think this is a great idea! The smogs created by idling cars are dangerous to people, particularly during the yellow and red air quality alert periods. If nothing else,a stiff fine should www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 18 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements be imposed during yellow and red air quality period.Hong Kong is considering a similar ordinance.http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/idling-engines.php Lori Fitzgerald in Draper September 13,2010,4:56 PM I believe the Ordinance is well meaning but misplaced. One of the largest contributors to our air pollution problem stems from the open gravel pit at the point of the mountain. The loose gravel is regularly being poured into the valley via the wind and what is known as the Jordan Jet Stream. These particulates carry silica and the dust storm is visible. The ordinance should be directed at this business and we as caring citizens should monitor our own emissions. Bob Brister in Salt Lake City September 12,2010, 5:44 PM Good idea! Clean air is a human right. Marion Klaus in Salt Lake City September 11,2010,4:26 PM Thank you Mayor Becker for bringing forward a proposal to curb idling. I am particularly appreciative of the fines associated with it since I believe they are the only way to generate a valley wide behaviorial change in idling. I agree with the 2 minute suggested idling time. It would help to know how long a red light will last so engines can safely be turned off while waiting.I hope roundabouts will eventually replace our stop lights because they keep traffic moving and don't require electricity. , Keith Slade in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 1:39 PM I agree with the ordinance. It's irritating to have a car parked out front of my place with the car idling for long periods. Two minutes is a bit short though. I'd say more like five minutes. Keith Slade, SLC resident B.W. Bullough in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 1:10 PM I am seeing more laws,more fmes,more fees,more taxes,more ordinances... The leadership of this city is steadily turning it into a sort of mini police-state. It makes us all constantly have to look over our shoulders and wonder what law me might be breaking next. The fines for this new law are extremely high,which tells me it is more about gaining a new revenue stream rather than actually affecting air quality. Who is actually going to be targeted with this rule?Mothers picking up their children after school this winter as they try and keep warm? Are such people that much of a threat to quality of life?Are there not actual crimes and violence that we should be focusing on instead? I am realizing that my long-term future cannot be in this city the way it is going. With no future here,I accordingly tend to care less about the city and my local community. Go ahead,pass your laws,and give the hard working producers of this city one more reason to live elsewhere. I want Liberty,not this fortress of draconian rules and regulations. ' Terry Marasco in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 11:07 AM wwvv.PealcDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM•from all participants. 19 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I fully support the ordinance. SLC needs to have a discussion with UDOT regarding traffic lights.Many times left turn red arrows do not change for a number of green straight changes and the car sits idling for 4-5 minutes. I was just stopped by a policeman today for waiting at a left turn red arrow,the straight went green while the red left remained red. I moved into the straight lane and the policeman pulled me over. The other issue is that red left arrows turning green are too sort for many intersections. The result is you have cars running the red for seconds after,a safety hazard. Liz Sorensen in Salt Lake City September 11,2010,4:52 AM I support this ordinance.I know it's cold in the winter here and I know I'm guilty of idling my car in the winter months to warm it up before I head off to work.I'm sure this will help motivate me to bundle up a little extra and spare myself the extra(albeit small)cost in gas and the(albeit large)cost in air quality. Kevin Shumway in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:12 PM I completely agree with the proposed ordinance. I ride my bike through the Temple Square area several times a week,and for years I have been frustrated by the great number of idling vehicles. Many times there is an open window,which means that there couldn't be a need for heat or air conditioning. Perhaps an open window would be one way of determining whether the ordinance had been violated. At other times,the weather is very pleasant,but the driver has created a solar oven with their windows up and the engine humming away in front of their feet,creating a need for air conditioning,and they just don't think about the consequences of thousands of people burning petroleum so unnecessarily. On occasion,I will try to be helpful and ask drivers if they know that their engine is idling,and they always smile and say "yes,"while taking no action. For this reason,I believe that this bad habit cannot be changed only with feel good public relations campaigns,but by instituting some kind of penalty. The health of our families depends on it. Thank you city government! Shane Carlson in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 2:47 PM While I support the aim of this ordinance(including mitigation of the health impacts on those with respiratory disease)and I turn off my vehicle whenever possible,I am concerned that some of the language surrounding exceptions is vague and that people with health conditions that are exacerbated by even moderately elevated temperatures(severe immune and inflammatory conditions)will be unfairly impacted. Unplanned impacts on the disabled could include unnecessary risks to health, fmancial hardship,arduous appearances before an administrative judge,or increased isolation as patients become less inclined to leave their homes out of fear of additional hardship during warmer weather. How will"idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters, air conditioners,or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency"be defined? Will I simply say to the traffic enforcement officer-"Sure,I look OK right now but I have a health condition that requires I not subject myself to excessive temperatures"-and he'll say OK,no problem? Will I be required to have a note from my doctor? Will I need a handicapped parking permit? And what if I continue to drive home(against my better judgment—say I went out and started feeling ill sooner than expected and before making it back home),when I what I www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 20 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements really needed to do was to pull over for 20 minutes and rest but I was afraid of being ticketed while idling(or having to use several days worth of energy for a hearing before a judge)and I cause an accident and someone gets injured? Please DO NOT leave this important portion of the ordinance as vague as it is now. Do not leave this up to the discretion of the traffic control officer and most importantly,do not leave the details of this section to work themselves out by trial and error at the expense of a portion of the disabled community. Curtis Haring in Salt Lake City September 10,2010,2:27 PM I agree with the proposed ordinance as idle cars contribute a large amount to our yearly inversion. As the largest city in the state,we should take the lead in reducing air pollution in one of the smoggiest places in the nation. I do think the fines are too high,however.I agree that an idle car does create societal problems in the same way running a red light or speeding might,but not to the tune of$210 or$410-It seems as if this ordinance is just a way to pad the cities coffers.Perhaps a maximum of$100 for the first offense(sliding down for early payment)after a warning,$175 after the second, and $250 after the third in a six month time frame. I also suggest the fees collected go directly towards improving non-automobile related `o*"" transportation infrastructure in the city. Finally, as a policy question,how does the city honestly plan to enforce this ordinance? Robert A Jones in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 1:06 PM This is a great idea. Do it! Rick Oliver in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 12:33 PM I think this is a good idea however there should be an exception for natural gas vehicles. David Folland in Sandy September 10,2010, 12:09 PM I completely agree with the anti-idling proposal.It costs us nothing to stop our cars from idling. In fact,it saves us money,as we use less gas.It will improve our air quality.It's a no- brainer! David Folland MD Sandy,Utah Lucy Knorr in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 11:17 AM I applaud the idea,but take exception the cost of the fines.I think they are extremely out of line with the cost of living in Utah and the state of the economy. They are way too high! Also,the exceptions need to be defined better. If I am in stop and go traffic trying to get out of Red Butte, is that a traffic signal condition?The traffic signal is far away from the congestion. Stop and go traffic getting into a venue is also a problem and to put a timer in the car so you can track how many minutes you have been idling is a responsible action,but not very reasonable. Safety needs more defining as well. Do my dogs in the car count as a safety condition? My elderly www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 21 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements mother?Is this my word against the officer's? Why not also encourage drive throughs in the city to post"idle free" signs on their order boards? Many drivers would turn off their engines if they were reminded. Why not create a positive culture instead of a punitive system and way to feed the city budget? Thank you Miriam Harper in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 10:25 AM I wholeheartedly support this proposed ordinance.I live across the street from an elementary school and this is a real problem. Thank you for initiating such a measure. Miriam Harper SLC Dave Rathofer in Salt Lake City September 10, 2010, 9:46 AM While I understand the goal of this bill,I believe that it is unfair for owners of older vehicles, motorcycles and modem rotary-powered cars. My family owns a Mazda RX-8,a rotary powered vehicle that cannot be turned off until the engine reaches normal operating temperature. The unique properties of a rotary engine mean that if the engine is started and then shut off(such as backing out of the garage),the engine will flood and the vehicle must be towed to the dealership or specialized shop to have the condensed fuel drained out of the combustion chamber. The rotary engine does not have a traditional valve and piston configuration that allows heavier traditional motors to start-stop-start while cold. Another group that will be harmed is motorcyclists. There are still new motorcycles and scooters being produced today that use carburetors rather than fuel injection. In Utah's rarefied air and cold temperatures, small carbureted motors must be warmed up before they can generate enough power to be safely operated on city streets. The Kawasaki Ninja 250, a popular motorcycle with commuters,is a perfect example of this. The Ninja 250 is the best selling small motorcycle in the US(to the point that it is almost the only street legal 4-stroke motorcycle in the segment). If a rider attempts to take small-displacement motorcycles or scooters on the road prior to the engine being warmed up,they can experience a dangerous loss of power or stalling. Since most 250cc scooters produce less than 15 horsepower,the rider may find him/herself in a dangerous situation or involved in a crash due to the lack of adequate power. Even at sea level,larger-displacement motorcycles have trouble running while cold and must be warmed up prior to riding;this problem is exacerbated by altitude. Most motorcycles up to the year 2000 were carbureted,and many of these bikes are still on the road. The operator's manuals for these types of vehicles state explicitly that operating them prior to warming the engine can be dangerous or cause damage to the vehicle. Owners of older carbureted vehicles,rotary-powered vehicles,motorcycles,and scooters will find that this proposed ordinance,if passed,may cause damage to their property and potentially www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 22 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, ok idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? "' All Statements put owners of scooters and small commuter motorcycles in potentially life-threatening situations. Bill Cockayne in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 9:43 AM Interesting how liberal thinking government always manages to push some "feel good" ordinance down the throats of the citizenry with threats and coercion. Why not go the incentive route instead of the usual heavy handed baloney. Once this ordinance is passed---and you know you will have your way---I want to see an immediate reduction in winter smog ! Assured?? Guaranteed?? Doubt it. This ordinance will just turn out to be another stupid law inflicted on us "earth hating"worms out here that accomplishes nothing but good feelings for a chosen few. Way to go Becker: forcible trash cans,forcible non-idling, forcible bike lanes,more spending, more punishment. Gee,what's the next inane thing on your mind? Alice Rathofer in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 9:41 AM I have a car that CANNOT be turned off prior to the engine reaching operating temperature. If the engine is turned off I have to have a tow truck take the car to the dealer who can then deal with the flooded engine. No thank you. Vehicles with catalytic converters run cleaner and produce fewer emissions when the converter is hot. Heat is what makes the catalytic converters work. The engines of modern cars function better and with greater fuel efficiency when warm so turning off the engine will make the cars less efficient and produce more pollutants. The only time this makes sense is when parking for longer periods of time. For example all the UTA buses that park and idle for half an hour or more. Shutting off the engines of the buses would make a big difference. I cannot see stopping and starting engines at every stop light as that will wear the starter motor at an unacceptable rate(for me,that is). I don't want to have to replace starter motors every few years. Not well thought out at this point and I oppose this ordinance. Christi Baum in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:43 AM I oppose this ordinance. I feel it is infringing on human rights in a way that will not improve our city. It would be better to spend money on improving public transportation or reducing the cost of alternate energy vehicles even more. To get to my home near Rose Park,to my work on Foothill/2700 South takes me 2.5 hours on UTA,time I won't waste away from my family. Luckily my employer lets me telecommute 2 days a week. Use your resources wisely. Kathleen Clark in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:05 AM I agree with the proposed ordinance. Improving our air quality is a major issue for our city and country as a whole. The proposal is fair and has many exemptions for idling when necessary. William Newkirk in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 11:59 PM .0 This is the most ridiculous idea ever! Imposing no idling while at a drive through?Am I supposed to turn my.car off and on 10 times while I wait for my turn,utter nonsense. And as for wwvv.PealcDemocracy.com/5 1 7 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 23 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements private property,I can and WILL do whatever I like on my property. I'm all for not idling in schools and other such places where parents sit for 5 or more minutes,that makes sense,but to spend my hard earned money to put out more vehicles(which will cause more emissions to be released into the environment)and more employees to pay their ridiculously high salary is unthinkable. what about sitting in traffic on the highway,should i turn off my engine on I-15 or should you improve our roads so I don't have to!! The prices for the proposed fines are outrageous!! More than a speeding ticket?That is disgusting! How about we work with the city employees and vehicles and public transportation and run more fuel efficient/pzev/hybrid vehicles and conserve! Also lets save the tax payers some money by having employees that work,and not waste time at their office,if you don't have work to do,then don't come into the office. I don't know if the city offers this,but others do...offer FREE not discounted,but FREE public transportation pass to the employees to encourage them to utilize this resource and not use their personal vehicles Stephen Roberts in Herriman September 9,2010, 7:58 PM Pass this ordinance and I will never drive into Salt Lake City again. This ordinance proves that you are anti-business. While everyone else is trying to encourage business in the city,it is obvious that your are not.Foolish. Alexandra Parvaz in Salt Lake City September 9, 2010, 5:06 PM I fully support the implementation of the Idle Free Ordinance and believe it represetns a good step towards curbing air pollution. In the future,I hope to see more progress made in the realms of reducing vehicular traffic,the increase in bicycling and the desigining of our cities as more walkable Jim Catano in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,4:08 PM What would help is a countdown clock near the red light that shows how many seconds until the light changes. Shutting down on red is something I already do,but sometimes I don't if I'm unsure of the time or don't want to be the cause of a back-up while I get my car restarted. A countdown timer would eliminate those concerns. Jim Catano, Salt Lake City. Bryan Bale in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 3:50 PM As a previous commenter said,the law doesn't go far enough. Or rather,it doesn't target the primary source of idle emissions. One of the exceptions listed in the ordinance is idling at a traffic signal or other official traffic control device. Unfortunately,the vast majority of idling happens while people are waiting for those signals. I'm in favor of an effort to improve the timing of traffic signals,or perhaps investment in a"smarter"traffic signal grid,to help traffic flow more smoothly;that would save commuters time and money as well as helping clear the air. Pax Rasmussen in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 3:33 PM www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 24 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I support this ordinance strongly. But,I feel it doesn't go far enough. Additionally,I would like to see "Do not idle" signs(or some variation thereof)REQUIRED for all drive-up and drive- through businesses. I'd also like to say that to compare Ralph Becker to Hitler is disagreeable and reprehensible and offensive on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. We live in a city. Cities make ordinances.Overall,I despise civilization in general—but as long as we accept the idea of cities at all,we should probably get used to the idea of regulation.Especially when it comes to things like pollution,which when it comes to idling a car is something the individual does that directly and eminently affects the group.I can't see how regulation of such behavior can be decried by an denizen of any city. Marcia Dibble in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,3:33 PM I support an idle-free ordinance. Why don't we implement it based on the"10-second rule" supported by the science(and the "rule of thumb"in your own link)?Not only does it seem more rationally determined,but it would be easier to enforce.Many people will think"Two minutes is plenty of time to [get this prescription filled,get my french fries,etc.]"And two-plus- minutes would be harder to observe and cite an offender. Ten seconds is much clearer. Essentially: "If you stop,turn it off." Thanks, Marcia C.Dibble Salt Lake City American Lung Association in Utah in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 3:32 PM The American Lung Association is 100%behind the efforts of the City of Salt bake to curb idling and air polution. Natasha Seegert in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,3:15 PM I am THRILLED that the city is considering an anti-idling ordinance. As an asthma sufferer I support actions which have the potential to clean our city air. We live in an amazingly beautiful place-I would like to both see the mountains surrounding our valley and breathe clean air. This is an act which has the potential to bring people together around the improvement of our air quality and it serves as a public education tool regarding the role automobiles play in air pollution.PLEASE pass this ordinance! Kathy Van Dame in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 12:36 PM Thank you,everyone involved in bringing this ordinance forward. Idling contributes pollution to our overloaded airshed without any benefit[0 mpg].Past educational efforts have targeted the majority who are willing to voluntarily limit idling,now we need something with teeth to get additional emission reductions. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM-from all participants. 25 of 25 Proposed Idle Free Ordinance Public Education Outline Key Components: • Idle Free Grace Period—Opportunity to educate the public about the ordinance,and provide time for initial educational efforts without enforcement taking place. • Media Outreach o Media Event nth Mayor Bicker and City Council o Share;.eduuational mate-fals}ti rough'sbcial.'media,SLCTV • Educational,Materia±srTo"serve as tools for city employees to educate-the Public about the facts of the ordinal ce,,a`nd,the importance of everyone doing their part. o Brochureforco'nnunity distribution. o Letter;-for residential reports of vehicle idling on private property o Fact Sheet;-for community distribution. o Hotl ne"-to:Mp© individuals idling or areas where idling occurs frequently o Webslte—to serve as a "one stop shop"for all pertinent idle free documents, FAQs, { • information and other-resources'and to report idling. o Video-to;explain:tl e.purpose.ofthe ordinance and as an education tool o Additional6:Signage=to'retr`ofit current idle free signs throughout the city stating that an enforceable-ordinenceA..in pioce.: Existing Prograrrifc Resources' • Idle Free Wilt:http://idle free.utah.aov • -- park City's Idle Free Ordinance: http:/i www.parkcity.ora/index:aspx?pane=622 • Salt Lake City`s idle'Free Page:'"www.slcaov.com/idlefree • Business Outreach Targeted outreach to local businesses or other organizations that may be affected by the Idle Free Ordinate(already been contacted for comment on proposed ordinance). o Stress best business practice stories from UPS, FedEX& Kennecott that emphasize the cost savings associated with a reduction in o Key areas for outreach(customers possibly affected): • Airport Park&Wait parking lot. • Fast food park&serve areas(Hires,Sonic,Curbside to go restaurants,etc) • Bank and dry cleaner drive-through windows(likely longer than 2 minute wait) • University of Utah and Salt Lake Community College Student Parking lots • Elementary School Pick Ups and High School Parking Lots • Distribution centers and companies with loading docks o Key business types for outreach (fleets affected): • Businesses with large fleets • Private bus companies(Le Bus,etc.) • Utah Transit Authority • Delivery truck companies • Mobile Businesses • U of U • Food delivery corn}ames.. ■ Community partner Outreach-Enlist key**Op spread the word.to their constituents, contact lists. , o Some examples • Utah.Clean Cities • Salt Lake Chamber • Breathe Utah/Moms for Clean Air • Salt Lake's Air Quality Partners Team SLC-Green Team: • Community-Councils • Wasatch Front Regional Council • UofU. • Salt.Lake City.School Distinct,'. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2009-00591-A request by Brian Park for closure of portions of Edmonds Place, located at 346/362 North and approximately 650 West. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 3 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie, Senior Planner COUNCIL PROCESS/NOTICE: This item is scheduled for a Council Work Session briefing as well as a Public Hearing on August 23,2011. Pending questions that may arise, the Council may wish to consider deferring action on this petition to a future Council Meeting. KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been submitted to the City Council that would close a portion of Edmonds Place as a public street at approximately 346 to 362 North. 1. This petition was submitted to the City by the property owner to the South,Brian Park, who would like to incorporate the subject right-of-way into his property. 2. The property owner to the North of the subject portion does not support the petition as proposed by Mr.Park(See letter in Attachment C in the Administration's transmittal, as well as item D below). If the subject property is closed,the property owner to the North would like to buy the full subject right-of-way, as he currently has a driveway that is the sole access to his property that runs along the southern border of the subject property(see map below and detailed picture below ma.). 4 Sp'RF `_ ii.) - 4 -4.4 , 1- .4/ ki 18 f '3 ..i il l l 4t} .., '. 1 . f A , , i. o. SR-3 S R-'I A ,4 9 �a=., i t i Subject ;' . . .. ' •- ' Property _1 :1 1./ M"I. I .,y. I yr s '*:: yft S. as §t • r—._ .91 _.-a. ,- #, - ! -, {fit ' 1 1 The following shows a more detailed view of the current layout of the subject property and abutting property owners rs 46 > - ill,' 1 i4 i,l, s if I 6 d 1 z r•4 111 — 61 i 111- 11W , , ., .# _,. .. ..., ,, ,, L. i n;13 , .71. , _ ,_% _,, .. 1 .. li lier t itial.. .e �,p Mr Bolinder s Pr ert 1 , (362 North) *+i II ' 1 1;. " r If 1; Driveway Accessing t ' 1 Mr.Bolinder's House i 1/ -.are»" ,, * I I. Subject '*r' , S .i.t f I. Right-of-Way E le 4 ijIII Ai'. i 4111* Si - r r t :7t• ; yam , x PETITIONER— iT t • _ups i it MN c a Mr.Park's Property a, , + u 346North -V # '_ (illustration not reflective of exact legal boundaries) B. Key points from the Administration's transmittal are as follows: 1. The Petitioner,Mr.Park, currently has access to his property from Edmonds Place and does not require the subject property for access. The petitioner has stated that crime is an issue in the area and he would like this property in order to enhance the safety of his property and add yard area. 2. The subject right-of-way is a remnant of a public cul-de-sac that was previously the terminus of Edmonds Place. In the 1980s,Argyle Court(connected to Edmonds Place on the southern end)and Edmonds place were turned into a single thru-street as laid out in the Argyle Court Block Redesign Plan(see transmittal attachment E,also Master Plan/Policy Considerations item A). 3. The subject property is technically a public right-of-way but would appear to the casual observer to be a part of the property at 362 North,as a driveway accessing the home at 362 North, spans the length and width of the subject right-of-way. 4. The property at 362 North has a variety of complex parcel ownership issues, as there is a strip of property bisecting the house that is owned by a separate owner(this was the result of a tax sale). The owner of the majority of the property intends to purchase this remaining strip of property when it becomes available. 5. Public Comments—Public Comment regarding this petition has been mixed: Amok i. In addition to the public process detailed in items C and D below,planning staff received three comments from the public directly. Two comments supported the 2 closure but felt that the property should be sold to the owner to the north(362 North Edmonds Place)and not the petitioner. ii. The petitioner provided a petition listing signature of eight property owners on the street who support the street closure. iii. Planning staff held an open house and two individuals attended from Neighborworks, an active organization in the redevelopment of the Guadalupe Neighborhood. They expressed concern that should the property be declared surplus and sold, it should be given to the property owner to the north(362 North Edmonds Place)and not the petitioner. iv. The Fairpark Community Council was notified of this issue on November 6,2009 and no response was received. Community Council presentations are not required for street closures. 6. The subject property is outside the functional street,as a result of the street being developed in accordance with the adopted Master Plan(see Master Plan/Policy Considerations). 7. The Planning Commission Staff report notes the following findings in relation to this petition: i. Selling the full portion to Mr.Park(346 Edmonds)would effectively eliminate 362 North's street frontage on Edmonds Place. All new residential lots require a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. Council staff note: The subject property is approximately 80 feet long along Edmonds Place, and the driveway serving 362 North runs along the southern border of the subject property. Complying with the Planning Commission's recommended requirement that the driveway remain functional would require the property to be incorporated into the property at 362 North Edmonds. ii. The subject right-of-way will be sold at fair market value(to be determined by Salt Lake City property management). Planning staff's role is not to determine who the property is sold to. Planning staff recommends that at least 50 feet of frontage along Edmonds be retained for the property at 362 North Edmonds,and that enough land be sold to 362 North Edmonds to ensure that the driveway is functional. iii. Staff finds the property to be unnecessary for transportation purposes and would be better in private hands where it would be maintained as part of a developed parcel. Council staff note: due to the recommendation outlined by Planning Staff and confirmed by the Planning Commission in item B.7.ii., the full subject right-of-way would likely need to be sold to 362 North Edmonds. C. All necessary City departments and divisions reviewed the proposal had no concerns about negative impacts on City interests(see Attachment B of Administration's transmittal for detailed comments). D. On February 10,2010,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council closer the subject property on the condition that enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds to ensure that the property had at least 50 feet of frontage on the deeded street, and the current driveway remain functional and is accessible to the property(Council Staff note: if the conditions were met, the remaining subject property to be sold to the petitioner would be about 1 foot wide, and the majority of the property would be sold to 362 North Edmonds—this is not what the petitioner is asking for). Items discussed at the Planning Commission were as follows: 1. The petitioner spoke in favor of the petition, and spoke about issues relating to enforcement on the property at 362 North Edmonds, and crime in the area in general. 2. One member of the public stated that if the property is sold to someone other than the petitioner,that person should pay the application filing fee,not the petitioner. 3. A representative from Neighborworks Salt Lake testified that the property should remain with 362 North Edmonds,as the driveway should remain with the house that it serves. 4. The Planning Commission clarified that if the subject right-of-way was sold to the petitioner, the driveway would have to be reconfigured,and the petitioner has not stated whether they would cover that cost. 3 MATTERS AT ISSUE A. Divisions of streets and alleys that are considered surplus are typically handled so that each abutting property owner is entitled to buy half of the surplused land. Because this is a semi-triangular piece of property,there are two abutting property owners. a. The property owner to the north has a driveway that runs along the south side of the subject right-of way. If the property was divided in half,the property owner to the North would lose access to his driveway. The driveway could be relocated to another portion of the property, although at this time the property has not indicated a desire to do this. The property owner to the north has stated that he would prefer to purchase the entire property. b. The Council may wish to defer action on this petition until a legal remedy can be found that protects the legal interests of both property owners. c. The Council may wish to ask for further research from the City Attorney's office regarding this petition,including how this issue would be handled legally if the property owner whose driveway encroaches does not elect to buy the property. d. It is not clear'to Council staff whether the Administration has evaluated the issue from the perspective of management of encroachments on City property and attempted to resolve this issue with the property owners whose driveway encroaches on the right-of-way. e. The Council could request that this matter be considered further by the Administration to determine how to appropriately address the encroachment issue,and whether it would be in the City's interest to assure that the title of the abutting property is clear in terms of the apparent lack of access to the actual property. f. The Council may wish to ask whether these are enforcement issues that need to be addressed on the encroaching property and whether addressing those would help mitigate the concerns of the abutting property owner. Amok, B. The Council may wish to consider the following Council policies related to street closures,that don't all seem to be met with regard to this petition(see Master Plan/Policy Considerations for full stated Council street closure policy): • It is Council policy to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when that action would deny all access to other property. Council Staff analysis: While the property at 362 North Edmonds Place would have some access fronting Edmonds, it would not have the minimum-requirement of 50 feet of frontage on Edmonds if this property were to be sold. • There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street, and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street would accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Council Staff analysis: While closing the subject property may enhance the safety and security of the property to the South,the property to the North will effectively be cut off from the street. This may run counter to the goals of reducing crime and stabilizing the whole neighborhood. • The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the street. Council Staff analysis: The public right-of-way has functioned as a driveway since the streets were reconfigured in the 1980s. Taking away the driveway access to 362 North would not necessarily help in achieving any public policy goals. It is also unclear as to how much property each property owner is entitled to—more legal research would be needed. 4 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Capitol Hill Community Plan(1999)identifies the need to stabilize and improve housing in the Guadalupe area through the use of rehabilitation and the creation of infill housing. B. The Argyle Court Block Redesign Plan was developed in the 1980s, and recommended strategies for redeveloping the Guadalupe neighborhood, including the reconfiguration of Argyle Court/Edmonds Place. • The block redesign plan states that the streets (which were previously cul-de-sacs) be joined, but no recommendations are made about final lot width or size. • The block redesign plan does state that zoning code enforcement should continue, and that appropriate redevelopment programs should be used to improve deteriorated housing stock. A. Edmonds Place is identified in the Transportation Master Plan(2006)as a local street. The Transportation Division has determined that the street as it is currently constructed is sufficient and the extra right-of-way is not needed. B. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: 1. It is Council policy to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when that action would deny all access to other property. 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,whether the abutting property is residential or commercial. 3. There are instances where the City has negotiated with private parties to allow the parties to make public improvements in lieu of a cash payment. The Council and the Administration consider these issues on a case-by-case basis. 4. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street,and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street would accomplish the stated public policy reasons. 5. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the street. C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting. 5 CHRONOLOGY: . . Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed alley vacation. • May 18, 2009 Petition submitted to the City • June 1,2009 Petition assigned to Doug Dansie • February 10,2010 Planning Commission Hearing • January 2011 Transmittal received in Council Office cc: David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Neilson,Rick Graham,Jeff Neirmeyer,Tim Harpst, Frank Gray,Wilf Sommerkorn,Mary De La Mare Schaefer,Cheri Coffey,John Anderson,Karen Hale,Nick Tarbet,Janice Jardine File Location:Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Street Closures,Brian Park,346/362 North Edmonds Place(approximately 650 West). .fie 6 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2010 SCANNED TO: �� SCANNED E :AFL ' av a � 'ogyr ;: i u,��hj; '.II C� p � � ID" FRANK B. GRAY �� T�RA H ECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR D ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL O C T 13 2010 B Date Received: 101 t?12M o David eritt, C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: to I I& 17-6 I a TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 11, 2010 JT Martin, Chair �- FROM: Frank Gr , CED Director SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2 - . A street closure request by Brian Park for portions of Edmonds Place, located at 346 North. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance COMMISSION MOTION & FINDINGS: The Planning Commission transmits a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and City Council that the property be declared surplus and sold with the following conditions: 1. Enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds, to insure that the property has at least 5o feet frontage on the deeded street and the south driveway remains functional and is accessible on the property. 2. The remaining land is sold according to the City regulation relating to disposition of the real property. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Brian Park has requested that Salt Lake City close and sell portions of Edmond Place which is located at approximately 346 and 362 North. This portion of the street was a former cul-de-sac that was used prior to the connection with Argyle Court in the 1980's. It is now a through street and the cul-de-sac is not constructed or in use. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114.5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED Analysis: This is a request to narrow the width of the Edmonds Place right-of-way at approximately 346/362 North where it abuts the applicant's property on the southeast side of the road. Edmonds Place was formerly a cul-de-sac until it was extended through Argyle Court in the mid 1980's. Now that it is a through street, the surplus portions of the former cul-de-sac are not integrated into the roadway. The property is adjacent to the applicant's property but appears to the casual observer to be part of the neighboring property to the north at 362 North Edmonds Place. The applicant's property is used for a residential building. The applicant's plan for the proposed closed street right-of-way is to use it as additional yard space. The property located at 362 North Edmonds Place is presently vacant and has an enforcement history. There have also been complaints of trash and dumping on the site. The home is built at an angle to the present street because it originally faced the cul-de-sac. The property has unusual property lines; the home sits on three parcels. The southern portion of the lot was acquired though a tax sale, but the original owners still own a 6 foot parcel through the center of the house. The owner of the southern parcel also acquired a property to the north, therefore the predominant owner of the building owns both the north and south ends of the property separated by a 6 foot strip of land down the center(through the home) owned by a separate owner. The predominant property owner has stated that he wishes to acquire the City property to integrate into the site and also plans to purchase the remaining 6 feet dividing the property when it becomes available at tax sale. He states that he is in the process of installing a furnace to make the home inhabitable. The property proposed for surplus is being used as a drive approach for 362 Edmonds Place (there are two drives—one on each side of the home). Master Plan Considerations: Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, adopted in 1999 The plan identifies the need to stabilize and improve housing in the Guadalupe area through the use of rehabilitation and the creation of infill housing. Argyle Court/Edmonds Place was a pioneer infill housing project designed to stabilize the neighborhood (see attached Argyle Court Block Redesign Plan). This particular property is a remnant piece from the connection of Argyle Court and Edmonds Place. These streets were connected in order to accommodate infill development consistent with the master plan. Currently the street is constructed and the land in question is outside the functional street. The land is already effectively part of a private front yard. The current street configuration supports the goals of the Capitol Hill Master Plan, and the excess property is not needed. Inclusion of the excess property into the adjacent lot or lots would facilitate ongoing investment in the adjacent properties, which would in turn stabilize the neighborhood. Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan or Major Street Plan, adopted in 2006 Edmonds Place is identified in the Transportation Master Plan or Major Street Plan as a local street. The Street is presently constructed and the Transportation Division has indicated they do not need the right-of-way in question. Selling the unused portion of the right-of-way will not impact the use of the street or the ability to carry the traffic. RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00320-South Temple Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council presentation is not required for street closures. However, the Fair Park Community Council was notified of this petition and given the opportunity to schedule it on a community council meeting agenda, which they did not do. The application material was routed on June 15, 2009 for a request to close portion of Edmonds Place. The comments received from pertinent City Departments and Divisions are found on Attachment B of the staff report. There were no major concerns expressed and all departments felt that the land could be sold as surplus with no negative effect on City interests, with the exception of the need to acknowledge that the land was actually in front of the neighboring property owner, who had an enforcement history. Planning Staff received several comments from the public supporting the closure. Several also noted that the land was in front of the neighbor's property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 10, 2009. The Planning Commission passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and City Council that the property be declared surplus and sold with the following conditions: 1. Enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds. to insure that the property has at least 50 feet frontage on the deeded street and the south driveway remains functional and is accessible on the property. 2. The remaining land is sold according to the City regulation relating to disposition of the real property. The vote was six in favor; zero opposed. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Street Closures are guided by the Salt Lake City Council Policy and Guidelines for Street Closure RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00320- South Temple Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK January 28, 2010 B) STAFF REPORT February 5, 2010 (publication date) C) AGENDA AND MINUTES February io, 2010 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00320 May 18, 2009 Petition submitted to City for consideration and processing. June 1, 2009 Petition assigned to Doug Dansie Senior Planner for staff analysis and processing. June 15, 2009 Routed petition for review to applicable Departments and Divisions of Salt Lake City. January 28. 2010 Mailed public hearing notice for the June 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. February 5, 2010 Published Planning Commission Staff Report. February 10, 2010 Planning Commission conducted public hearing and voted 6-0 to transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council. February 24, 2010 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for February 10, 2010. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2010 (Closing a portion of Edmonds Place) An ordinance closing a portion of Edmonds Place as a public street at approximately 346 to 362 North, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2009-00591. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on February 10, 2010 to consider a request made by Brian Park ("Applicant") (Petition No. PLNPCM2009-00591) to close a portion of City-owned right-of-way on the east side of Edmonds Place at approximately 346 to 362 North that such property may be declared as surplus; and WHEREAS, at its February 10, 2010 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the portion of the street described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closing the portion of the City-owned right-of-way will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and NOW. THEREFORE. be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City. Utah: SECTION 1. Closing a Portion of Edmonds Place. A portion of the east side of Edmonds Place at approximately 346 to 362 North, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2009-00591. and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, hereby is. closed declared no longer needed or available for use as a street. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or .•rk rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This street closure is conditioned upon the following: a. Enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds, to ensure that the property has at least 50 feet frontage on the deeded street and the south driveway remains functional and is accessible on the property. b. Payment to the City of fair market value of those portions of the street, or its equivalent, and title to those portions of this street shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value, or the receipt of equivalent value, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58; and c. The street closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all Amok public utilities now located on, under or over the subject property; and SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2010. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office CITY RECORDER Date 0 7 7(2j/a By. ae.te, aul C Nielso ' iuory1C,h Attorney'— / (SEAL) Bill No. of 2010. Published: IIIi .\III'- I-LII4-\I-c)i,fi nee I ,in a_poi Lion ol_Comond; Place DOC 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2009-00591 a street closure request by Brian Park for portions of Edmonds Place, located at 346 North. As part of its study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing. will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)* Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please call Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at doug.dansie@slcgov.com. slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing.. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (801) 535-7971: TDD 535-6021. ALI, AHMED&ADAM, NASEEM;JT ANDERSON,JEFF 616 W 400 N 14764 HERITAGECREST WAY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 RIVERTON, UT 84065-4887 ANDREA& HERB ENTERPRISES LLC ARCHULETA,TERESA&CULLIS, ARVIZO,JOEL 34011 PO BOX JEANINE;TC 422 HODGES LN PHOENIX,AZ 85067-4011 626 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 BECERRA,JESUS; ET AL BENAVIDEZ,JOHNNIE P& FLORENCE BOLINDER, DAVID 343 N 600 W (JT) 2045 E 6060 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 604 W 400 N HOLLADAY, UT 84121-1449 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 CANNON, LAURA J COOPER, MYLES D CORREA, FELIX G 328 ARGYLE CT 631 W 400 N 6312 WENDING LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3473 WEST VALLEY, UT 84128-3533 COYNE,THEODORA C CUNNINGHAM,JOAN E DE GODINA, CLEMENTE &CONCEPCION 312 ARGYLE CT 322 ARGYLE CT 638 W 400 N 'T LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 DOMINGUEZ, ROSALBA ERICKSON,TIFFANY J ESTRADA, HILARION & ROSITA 0;JT 450 HODGES LN 319 ARGYLE CT 311 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 FIERRO,JORGE A& PUGA, ERIKA; JT FISHER,JAMES A&JANET A;JT GIRON,ANNA MARIE 627 HODGES LN 331 ARGYLE CT 375 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1278 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3465 GOMEZ, MARGARITA& PERALES, GRAHAM, ROSIE; ET AL HAWLEY,JACOB & MONROE, SARA;JT GRACIELA; TC 353 N 600 W 627 W 400 N 1788 STALLION LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3473 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1115 HAYES, EDWARD E &TONYA L; (LIFE) HERNANDEZ, ADAM HUNT,JOEL J &JENNIFER B;JT ETAL 345 N 600 W 441 N 600 W 351 E 6310 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 M''RRAY, UT 84107-7558 JLivKINS, EARL W & MARTINEZ, MARIA JENNINGS, PATRICK D JENSEN,TRACEY R S;JT 425 HARRISON AVE 606 W 300 N 305 ARGYLE CT SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-1517 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3409 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 JORDAN-HORNOR, SANDRA JOSEPH,CHRISTINA KIEM, NGAN & NGUYEN, LIEN T;JT 340 ARGYLE CT 343 EDMONDS PL 625 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3446 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3412 KUCZMA, MIKE LEDESMA,JUAN SR&AUDELIA M;JT LISKA, MICHAEL; ET AL 631 GUNNELL PL 427 N 600 W 6861 VIRGINIA HILLS DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3451 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121- 3409 LOZANCICH, PETER S& FORTIER, MARTIN, IRA L. & EDNA M. MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA R CHELENE;JT 1943 W 800 N 359 N 600 W 327 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1862 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 MCKINNEY, DANIEL& STEPHANIE;JT MILICEVIC,ARMANDO; ET AL MILICEVIC,ASMIR& MIRSADA;JT 633 HODGES LN 341 EDMONDS PL 337 ARGYLE CT SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1278 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3446 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 MINISTRIES OF THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE MORRISON, MATTHEW S& MURDOCK,JANE & KAYE;TC OF SALT LAKE CITY, LLC THAMMAVONG,JERDRAVEE;JT 2087 RAINBOW POINT DR 27 C ST 639 HODGES LN HOLLADAY, UT 84124-1719 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2302 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1278 Name OCAMPO, LORENZO &GARCIA, MARIA; ORTEGA, SILVERIA D Addressl JT 624 W 400 N Address2 1367 GENERAL DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-4700 PARK, HUNG-YOUNG & KYUNG-JA;JT PLUMMER, CHRISTOPHER A& QUETZAL IMPORTS LLC 346 EDMONDS PL ANNETTE;JT 413 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3446 621 HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1278 QUINTANA, MARY& MAESTAS, MARY REMINGTON COMMERCIAL ADVISORS Residents E; TC 634 W 400 N 334 ARGYLE CT 630 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3409 Residents Residents Residents 323 ARGYLE CT 337 N 600 W 331 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 Residents Residents Residents 620 W 300 N 308 ARGYLE CT 417 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3409 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 Residents Residents Residents 315N600W 319N600W 333N600W : LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 Residents Residents Residents 444 HODGES LN 335 N 600 W 367 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3465 Residents Residents Residents 624 GUNNELL PL 430 HODGES LN 418 HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3451 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 Residents Residents Residents 414 HODGES LN 410 HODGES LN 362 EDMONDS PL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3446 Residents ROMERO, ALBERT M;TR ROMERO, MICHAEL R 620 W 400 N 621 W 400 N 426 HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3413 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3412 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 SALT LAKE COUNTY SALT LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SMITH, REED G 2001 S STATE ST ## N4500 SERVICES INC 347 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84190-0002 622 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3438 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3417 SOEKOTJO,THAM STEPHENS, BRUCE L SWEENEY,JOHN J III &SWEENEY, 434 HODGES LN 73580 GORDON CREEK RD ALLYSON;JT SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 ELGIN, OR 97827-8207 449 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 THIEBAULT,THOMAS UCKERMAN, CLIFTON R URQUHART LLC 423 N 600 W 438 HODGES LN 1873 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3440 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1280 CLINTON, UT 84015-8960 VOLGGER, FRODY WALSH, SCOTT V 311 ARGYLE CT 635 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3445 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3473 • EDWARD HAYES 542 S 500 E #6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102-4101 FARIPARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL GORDON STORRS 223 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT. 84116 BRIAN PARK 346 EDMONDS PLACE SALT LAKE CITY UT DOUG DANSIE 527 N MAIN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SLC NEIGHBORWORKS 622 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 Page 1 of 2 ROT: cad@lmov.eoe, Seen: Thursday,January 2i,20104:34 PM Subject: Pla onto`Commus:on Agenda.February 10,2010 Categories. Other This information was sent with maeomated software and is not monitored for replies.pedthslcear.corn Is the group responsible for this information. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 3z6 of the City&County Building et 45a South State Street Wednesday,February 10,2010 at5r45 p•m• The field trip Le scheduled to leave at 4to p.m.Dinner will be carved to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 4:45 p.m.,in Room sob Work Session This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation only.No public comment will be taken.The Planning Commission may discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.The Commission will also discus • plain^t^a C��m...+'•a n Fy toff lac Rr,•n p y t,l' n hjt)1.L'ere dtvJlosedho ho Cp18J>iio S 1• h a o0 • Rrsirw the Various Roles of Decision-Makers inthr Plarsnina Pro revs, • fatY_S,O1111CaP2lieT.Reparding../bt3SterilanS. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday,January 27,ooto Report of the Chou and Vice Chair Report of the Director Request for Planning Commissioners and Htstonc Landmark Commissioners to work together on a subcommittee to review the proposed F.asts!de Apartments,a request by PEG Decelopment for New Construction looted at approdmalely 556 East 300 South. Follow-up Briefing a. Petition PI NPCMz000•oosto North Temple Boulevard Station Ann Plentan amendment to the West Salt Lake and Northwest Community Master Plans regarding station area plans along the Airport Light Rail Line.Planning Staff will hand out dreg copies of the plan and review the major components of the Plan with the Planning Commission.A Public Hearing for the plans will occur at a later date(Staff:Nick Norris at R01.535.6173 or aims nnrristea goLopen). Public Hearings a. Petition PLNPCM2o09-01358;Fast Bench Community Master Plan Amendments request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to amend the Fast Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Ilse Map.The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property located at approximately 1794 S.Texas Street from Institutional to L.ow.Dennty Residential.The property is scaled in City Council District six.represented byJT Martin(Staff contact:Wayne Mils at 801.535.7282 or wevne mitlsMalegov.epm). 3. Petition PL_NPCM2009-0r359;Zoning Map Amendments request by Panda and Joseph Sasgetalos to re-zone the property located at approximately 1794 S.Titus Street from institutional to Single-Family Residential an order to construct a single-family dwelling with a home occupation allowing for the distribution of homegrown produce for off-premise sales. The proposed octane district is R-1/7000.The property is located in City Council District six,represented by JT Martin(Staff contact:Wayne Mills at 801.535-7282 or wavne.millsfaalegov,eom). �•� 4• PLNECMaoQ000s9J..Edmonds Place a request by Brian Park for partial street closure and sale of excess nght-of way property located at approximately 346 North Edmonds Place Tne subject property is located in an SR-3(Special Res,dentiaq zoning district,in Council District 3,represented by Stan?enfold(Staff contact Doug Dansie al 801.535.6:82 or doua.dan stooslrgev.roml. 5. Work Session(Cnr.tinued from the d'no erhour ifnrnded) Visit the Planning D,Lisions webste at to:mn•croon rem/CFD/nfnnnino for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the FYidcy prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days Rer they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled rnetang of the Planning Commission MEELTNG GUIDELINES a. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. Alter the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened far public comment.Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be cored derete of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to two(z)minutes per person,per item.A spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five(5)minutes to speak.Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submit led to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting.Written comments should be sent to. Salt Lake City Planning Commission 45,South Slate Sven.Room 406 Salt Lake City(l:84.4 14 O. Speakers will be called by the Chan. 5. Please stale your name and yourafth'ation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair.Planning Commission members may hose questions for the speaker Speakers may not debate with other meeting atteodees. 7. Speakers should foes their comments on the agenda item.Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided 8. Met those registered bass spoken,the Chair nil invite other comments.Prior speakers maybe allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff.Linder unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. an Salt lake City Corporation complies will at ADA guidelines.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting Accommodations may Include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids.This is an accessible facility.For quoatiors,requests,or additional information,please contact the Planning Oft-meat 535-7757;TOD 535-622o. On Thursday,January 28,solo I personally posted copies of the foregoing notice within the City and County Building al451 South State Street at the fotlowing locations:Planning Dnis ion, Room 406,City Council Bulletin Board,Room 315;and Community Affairs,Room 345.A copy of the agenda has also been faxed/e.mailed to all Salt Lake City Public Libraries for posting and to the Salt Lake Tnbune and Deseret News. Signed• file://1:\Employees\Wayne\Zoning Amendment\ReZones\1794 Texas Street\Public Hearing... 3/1/2010 �x. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING _..,.MISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 45i South State Street Wednesday,February io,2010 at 5:45 p.m. The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:oo p.m.Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 4:45 p.m.,in Room 126.Work Session—This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation only. No public comment will be taken. The Planning Commission may discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. The Commission will also discuss • Planning Commission Expectations.Review the expectations which were developed by the Commission in March 2009. • Review the Various Roles of Decision-Makers in the Planning Process. • City Council Policy Regarding Master Plans. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday,January 27,2010 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director Request for Planning Commissioners and Historic Landmark Commissioners to work together on a subcommittee to review the proposed Eastside Apartments,a request by PEG Development for New Construction located at approximately 556 East 300 South. Follow-up Briefing a. Petition PLNPCM2000-oo5ao North Temple Boulevard Station Area Plans—an amendment to the West Salt Lake and Northwest Community Master Plans regarding station area plans along the Airport Light Rail Line. Planning Staff will hand out draft copies of the plan and review the major components of the Plan with the Planning Commission.A Public Hearing for the plans will occur at a later date(Staff:Nick Norris at 801.535.6173 or nick.norrisBslcgov.com). .4 Public Hearings 2. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-o1358;East Bench Community Master Plan Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map.The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property located at approximately 1794 S.Texas Street from Institutional to Low-Density Residential.The property is located in City Council District six, represented by.JT Martin(Staff contact:Wayne Mills at 8oi.535.7282 or wavne.mills 5)slcgov.com). 3. Petition PLNPCM2oog-o1359;Zoning Map Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to re- zone the property located at approximately 1794 S "-vas Street from Institutional to Single-Family Residential in order to construct a single-family dwelling witl • occupation allowing for the distribution of homegrown produce for off-premise sales. The proposed z' is R-1/7000.The property is located in City Council District six, represented by JT Mar contact: Wayne Mills at 8o1.535.7282 .or wavne.mills@sicgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2ooq-oo5 u Edmonds Place—a re by Brian Park for partial street closure and sale of excess right-of way property located at approximately 346 North Edmonds Place. The subject property is located in.an SR-3(Special Residential)zoning district, in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold(Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801.535.6182 or doug.dansie0slcgov.com). 5. Work Session(Continued from the dinner hour if needed) Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission it.lttl.titlriri"' t1„1„(l VaNa0V NOISSIIAIJAIOD DNINMVTFd NOISIAIQ OMINICIV'Id // la - )7 C) j7SI/ >CQ C) bllt8 in "4L a'PJ1I q 0817S1,1 xog Od `J UO1S1At4 DUiUU ld XID 3xF-1 11US • I Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2 After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing 3 In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to two(2)minutes per person, per item A spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five(5)minutes to speak: Wi'iften.cornri s'are'svelcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting, Written comments should be sent to Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5 Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6 Speakers should address their comments to the Chair Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees 7 Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. S After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments.Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9 After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain addit;onal information. 10 The Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats. interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility For questions.requests.or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757:TDD 535-6220. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,February io, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:oo p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and StadloA, at 4:45 p.m.,in Room 126.Work Session—This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation only. public comment will be taken. The Planning Commission may discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. The Commission will also discuss • Planning Commission Expectations. Review the expectations which were developed by the Commission in March 2009. • Review the Various Roles of Decision-Makers in the Planning Process. • City Council Policy Regarding Master Plans. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday,January 27, 2010 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director Request for Planning Commissioners and Historic Landmark Commissioners to work together on a subcommittee to review the proposed Eastside Apartments, a request by PEG Development for New Construction located at approximately 556 East 30o South. Follow-up Briefing 1. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-00510 North Temple Boulevard Station Area Plans—an amendment to the West Salt Lake and Northwest Community Master Plans regarding station area plans along the Airport Light Rail Line. Planning Staff will hand out draft copies of the plan and review the major components of the Plan with trillitt Planning Commission.A Public Hearing for the plans will occur at a later date (Staff: Nick Norris at 801.535.61 or nick.norris@)slcgov.com). Public Hearings 2. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-01358; East Bench Community Master Plan Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property located at approximately 1794 S. Texas Street from Institutional to Low-Density Residential. The property is located in City Council District six, represented by JT Martin (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at 801.535.7282 or wavne.mills(&slcgov.com). 3. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-01359; Zoning Map Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to re- zone the property located at approximately 1794 S.Texas Street from Institutional to Single-Family Residential in order to construct a single-family dwelling with a home occupation allowing for the distribution of homegrown produce for off-premise sales. The proposed zoning district is R-1/7o00. The property is located in City Council Di tric4 -a JT Martin (Staff contact: `ti _ Mills 8o: 5 7 8 or i aiu i�.i six, .cpr..�_-__ by �uaa w.a ..C�. aya^... at �•JJJ•i--:'- wayne.millsPslcgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2o09-00591 Edmonds Place— a request by Brian Park for partial street closure and sale of excess right-of way property located at approximately 346 North Edmonds Place. The subject property is located in an SR-3 (Special Residential) zoning district, in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801.535.6182 or doug.dansiePslcgov.com). 5. Work Session (Continued from the dinner hour if needed) Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports, and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Edmonds Place =¢f '�: PLNPCM2009-00591 =ff) ` t2y ru:a 1 :H Partial street closure and "'•.,,,c�" -- ,,-'-- sale of excess right-of way property Planning and Zoning Division 346 Edmonds Place Department of Community and February 10, 2010 Economic Development Applicant: Brian Park Staff: Doug Dansie 801 535-6182 Request doug.dansie@slcgov.com Brian Park has requested that Salt Lake City close and sell portions of Edmond Tax ID: No tax ID Place which is located at approximately 346 and 362 North. This portion of the Current Zone: Adjacent zoning street was a former cul-de-sac that was used prior to the connection with Argyle SR-3 Special Residential Court in the 1980's. It is now a through street and the cul-de-sac is not Master Plan Designation: constructed or in use. The surrounding land is designated low density residential by the Capitol Hill Master Plan The Planning Commission sends a recommendation to the City Council on council District: District 3 - street closures requests. The Mayor has the authority to sell property that is Stan Penfold deemed surplus. Lot Size: Approximately 2000+/- square feet Current Use: Front yard of vacant home at 362 North Edmonds Staff Recommendation Applicable Land Use Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff's opinion Regulations: that overall the project generally meets the applicable standards and therefore • Salt Lake City Council Policy' recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and City and Guidelines for Street Closures Council that the property be declared surplus and sold with the following conditions: Notification • Notice mailed on January 28. 2010 1. Enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds, • Sign posted on February 1, 2010 to insure that the property has at least 50 feet frontage on a deeded • Agenda posted on the Planning street and the driveway remains functional. Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites January 2. The remaining land is sold according to the City regulation relating 28.2010 to disposition of real property. Attachments: A. Map of Proposed Street Closure B. Department/Division Comments C. Public Comments D. Photographs E. Argyle Court Block Redesign Plan PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place Street Closure Published Date: February 5,2010 15 VICINITY MAP Fg. -7,4-3 "Pg=&.% ... . -11-, ..T.1717.r.pr , LW '.1 ... t4 t Amik ,._ , a�s. .+Its :,_ . , i >•• . 87.CRV31-... -.,,;c7:411 j 11 a _ 0 t.4 Ea": Subject yew:i s " -'; n D 13 Now Property r. Fa_ — 4 y m m -.t t °.SLE. -- �� ` _mammal". ! 'sue �� e � �. . .iiii { _ _ rip J Iits , �`. f -^ems. s r , A �' .1 ' & IP� - 'SIP /s • •• • " ' , ti ;.ram! 2 . PROJECT HISTORY/DESCRIPTION This is a request to narrow the width of the Edmonds Place right-of-way at approximately 346/362 North were it abuts the applicant's property on the southeast side of the road. Edmonds Place was formerly a cul-de-sac until it was extended through Argyle Court in the mid 1980's. Now that it is a through street, the surplus portions of the former cul-de-sac are not integrated into the roadway. The property is adjacent to the applicant's property but appears to the casual observer to be part of the neighboring property to the north at 362 North Edmonds Place. The applicant's property is used for a residential building. The applicant's plan for the proposed closed street right-of-way is to use it as additional yard space. The property located at 362 North Edmonds Place is presently vacant and has an enforcement history. There have also been complaints of trash and dumping on the site. The home is built at an angle to the present street because it originally faced the cul-de-sac. The property has unusual property lines: The home sits on three parcels. The southern portion of the lot was acquired though a tax sale, but the original owners still own a 6 foot parcel through the center of the house. The owner of the southern parcel also acquired a property to the north, therefore the predominant owner of the building owns both the north and south ends of the property separated by a 6 foot strip of land down the center (through the home) owned by a separate owner. The predominant property owner has stated that he wishes to acquire the City property to integrate into the site and also plans tq„ ,, purchase the remaining 6 feet dividing the property when it becomes available at tax sale. He states that he i the process of installing a furnace to make the home inhabitable. The property proposed for surplus is being used as a drive approach for 362 Edmonds Place (there are two drives—one on each side of the home). PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place Street Closure Published Date: February 5,2010 16 'OMMENTS Community Council Comments: Although Community Council presentation is not required for street closures, the Fairpark Community Council was notified via e-mail on November 6, 2009 and no response was received. Planning also hosted an open house. Two individuals representing Neighborworks, who have done much of the development of Edmonds Place, attended the open house. They expressed concern that the property be sold to 362 North Edmonds Place and not 342 Edmonds Place. City Department/Division Comments: The application material was routed on June 15, 2009 for a request to close portion of Edmonds Place. The comments received from pertinent City Departments and Divisions are found on Attachment B of this staff report. There were no major concerns expressed and all departments felt that the land could be sold as surplus with no negative effect on City interests. Public Comments: Planning Staff received three comments from individuals. Two comments supported the closure but felt that the property should be sold to 362 North Edmond Place, which is adjacent to the land proposed to be surpluses The property owner at 362 North Edmonds Place expressed his desire that the land not be sold to Mr. Park, since it is effectively in front of his home and not that of Mr. Park. The applicant also provided a petition listing signatures of property owners on the street who support the street osure. STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Master Plan Discussion: Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, adopted in 1999 The plan identifies the need to improve stabilize and improve housing in the Guadalupe area through the use of rehabilitation and the creation of infill housing. Argyle Court/Edmonds Place was a pioneer infill housing project designed to stabilize the neighborhood (see attached Argyle Court Block Redesign Plan). Analysis: This particular property is a remnant piece from the connection of Argyle Court and Edmonds Place. These streets were connected in order to accommodate infill development consistent with the master plan. Finding: Currently the street is constructed and the land in question is outside the functional street. The land is already effectively part of a private front yard. The current street configuration supports the goals of the Capitol Hill Master Plan and the excess property is not needed. Inclusion of the excess property into the adjacent lot or lots would facilitate ongoing investment in the adjacent properties. which would in turn stabilize the neighborhood. ilt Lake City Transportation Master Plan or Major Street Plan, adopted in 2006 Edmonds Place is identified in the Transportation Master Plan or Major Street Plan as a local street. PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place Street Closure Published Date: February 5,2010 17 Analysis: The Street is presently constructed and the Transportation Division has indicated they do not need the right-of-way in question. Afoot Finding: Selling the unused portion of the right-of-way will not impact the use of the street or the ability tu` carry the traffic. Street Closure Guidelines: Salt Lake City Council Policy and Guidelines for Street Closures The Planning Commission will need to review the street closure request and make findings based on the following guidelines: 1. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. Analysis: This land in question is primarily in front of 362 North Edmonds, although a portion is also in front of 346 depending on where the separation is made. Selling the full portion to Mr. Park would effectively eliminate much of the street frontage of the property at 362 North Edmonds Place. All new residential lots require a minimum of 50 feet of frontage on a deeded street. The property at 362 North Edmonds also has two driveways; both of which have curb cuts: one of the curb cuts and driveways is over the surplus property in question. Finding: Closing the subject street will not deny access to the adjacent properties; however, who it is sold to would affect the properties. The land is primarily in front of 362 North Edmond Place and is effectively the front yard for that home. The underlying property would be sold at fair market value and the property` IN will be incorporated into the applicant's property. 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. Analysis: The land is abutting residential property. The land is primarily in front of 362 North Edmonds, not 342 North Edmonds where the petitioner resides. Finding: The right-of-way will be sold at fair market value to be determined by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. Who the land is sold to is a matter to be determined, but staff recommends that at least a portion of the land be sold to the owner of 362 North Edmonds to insure 50 feet of frontage on a deeded street and an operable driveway.. 3. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street, and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Analysis: The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan envisions Guadalupe with stabilized housing. The parcel in question is a remnant of a former cul-de-sac that was in existence prior to Edmonds Place and Argyle Court being connected. The land in question is behind the curb line and not part of the roadway. Finding: The street is presently operational; the property is outside the traveled/paved way of the street (A IN is not necessary for transportation purposed PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place Street Closure Published Date: February 5,2010 18 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. Analysis: The street presently exists and is functional. The land in question is outside the paved roadway. Finding: Staff finds the property to be unnecessary for transportation purposes and would be better in private hands where it would be maintained as part of a developed parcel and the owner would pay property taxes on it. PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place Street Closure Published Date February 5,2010 19 U �.l 151025 151026 152037 CI A ,s6ro4 A i 1 151027 80 I c^+i 0 56 31 N 5 19 I ® 151024 f 8 rn 8 152014 �./56010 r,-, II- 8 V ''1 3 p 1�5 23 57 I 4125 4050 3712 3712 55 55 56 80 85.06 400 N 52 50 41 25 4125 33 25 33 25 70 3 30 107.70 100 72 154041 /53305 154*3965155001 /59033 /54009 II 2 154040 C '54006 I I „ 1 oo 15501 8 2 _ /59003 t.6 o o 'En,' II 107.70 8 2 °i \.111 155002 0 _ I I 154026 15 v 23 cd - `33 zs 33nJ{ 70 I 111 too 32 r _i 136 25 33 25 I 6 I-�( ` '145 155003 I�` sows a125 0/e /seo/ I 7F,4 I \`/ a J, �-----I N A A I M 'N..12 Y 154027/ 100 (//�4 L' ^ 8 4125 18 N 33 25 33 25 I >46 54)/ Q 155004 7. m`1l <=--.�__ 5s 15 T. ---,/s4os4 F---1 73T ---� T- - ' cr'( $ 8,81 m I zs 7 „11^I-I '105 CD too ' ` 154060 1 m 154036 , s I m as 1: I a <I I 14 8 154028 co a s ii /590iJ 5 154059 7 I 3325 I 0125 L1J-T 105 a J550 05 165 I n 9750----1 5360 I 96.40 'T62 2 ti9,, __ 71 77 4 "� r, „1754023 155006 ,., . it m 0,� ►e 154022 ;I N VI 154029 1.0 165 •.!.'V U\ _.34 I 9750 /59022 I ',- 132 r .� 154057 • f-- _r C � 4 1 53 66 L 96.40 9072 r J ;' --- 54049 N n 247 50 m 15500.7 m 15 U �t. I 154©30 oo N t\ � /.:� ,1„, '�05B I " \Y. / l C�� ^ a I 247 50 ((132 �J \ '1\ y 7425 7425 CK 01n 1 148.50 n 5250 '\\ .I /s050sena I r, 99 ISSLL^8 \�/ /9 ✓y 15.050 a ,G` 2 E 6 5 n 154056 I Fo 154031 0 m 9 s4ose I J `VIE 425 fl (DI 14850 n 00Y N I 1' 2 - 132 7590F6 I 777= - ,o,50 155027 2 301009 0 302017C. � 148 50 155 7/25 3 7425C/ 99 --_1- 55 I 4/ I 303001 9 , 4 ,0to- I I r a N and published County Recorder W 1 /2 NW 1 /4 Sec 36 T 1 N Gary Ott :ate Street#N16€0 W - E SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTA] City, Utah 84190 1-468-3391 corder.siredocs.com/ Friday, January 30, 2009 S Amok Public Utilities (Justin Stoker) We have reviewed the exhibit provided to us regarding the proposed street closure on Edmonds Place located at approximately 346 South. No water or sewer mains are located in the area proposed to be vacated, however a water lateral and meter connection that services 362 S. Edmonds Place is located in the proposed area. It is Salt Lake City Public Utilities'policy that water meter services be located in from of the lot that they service. While we have no objection to the closure, it is unclear from the proposal and exhibit what will happen with the land from the street closure. If the is acquired by 362 S. Edmonds Place, so that the meter remains on the property that it services, there will continue to be no objection to the proposal. If the land, for which the meter is located is acquired by 364 S. Edmonds Place, the meter that services 362 S. will need to be disconnected from the main and retapped to our department standards so that the meter is properly located in front of 362 S. Building Services (Alan Hardman) 6-23-09 This proposal was reviewed at the DRT meeting on May 13, 2009. There were no zoning issues noted Engineering (Randy Drummond) Assuming all the adjoining property owners do not need the frontage, Public Utilities has all easements they need, and Public Services has no concern regarding any show plowing advantages of keeping the snow storage of this partial cul-de-sac, we have no concerns. We recommend that the applicant be advised of the maintenance responsibilities of the roadway. Transportation (Barry Walsh) 40101, June 18, 2009 Re: PLNPCM2009-00591 Edmonds Place partial street ROW closure at 346 and 362 North. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: The proposal is for closure of part of the right of way along the east side of the roadway, behind the existing road side curb definition or park strip area. The south bound public roadway, Edmonds Place, ends at this point and a private roadway (Argyle Ct.) provides a continuation of the roadway to the south connection with 400 North. Due to the width of Argyle Ct and the sub standard "Y" type turn around terminus of Edmonds Place, final approval is subject to Fire review issues. Fire (Ted ltchon) This office with the previous Fire Marshal McCarty have reviewed the proposed closure and feel that it meets the intent of defining the roadway and is recognized. If we can be assistance to you in further answering your questions or concerns please feel free to contact us. 4r � David Bolinder 362 North Edmonds Place Salt Lake City, Utah 27g, ,Q2 November 9''' 2009 Salt Lake City Community Development 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Attn: Doug Dansie. Senior Planner Dear Sirs: 1 own the property at 362 North Edmonds Place. Their was an old turn around in my front yard. This turn around is no longer used. Edmonds and Argile are now joined. Amok, This property is no longer used, and now is part of my front yard. I strongly object to this property being sold to Mr. Brian Parks. He is my neighbor to the south. My front yard would do him little good, and do me great harm. If the property is sold, it would be only fair that I be allowed to purchase the property. I understand that once a fence has been up long enough, it becomes the property line. Thank you for any help you can give me. Sincerely. David V. Bolinder 6C i5 • S r f f le"' Lr�f' L✓ I r �1 1 jll5 ,t r. Consent onsent Form r,�:'r_i_. "JL]: Ili; _ 0 J'4, „,..„, AFPlicau:: )..fCln /7a —k Subject Address: , . Place Sidt Lake UT iS-q1/' Matter to he Considered: ,yc� ' 1. Please attach a copy of the appropriate form being considered along with the necessary information for your neighbors to ?'-'-: review. s.:w. 2. You need to obtain signatures of approval from all abutting property owners. You may need to obtain signatures of approval from owners of properties acioss the street.The Planning staff will guide you on which signatures to obtain. ?i fi ::t {::_ 1_'MIv signature below attests that I have seen the plans and examined the proposal of my neighbor at :'fsr the address listed above and I have no objection to his/her proposed request. I understand that the Zoning Administrator has authority to grant this request without a public hearing. I understand that if i do not sign this form; my neighbor may elect to have the case heard by the Board of , Adjustment where a public hearing will be held. I also understand that anyone aggrieved by a ,, y , ;. decision of the Zoning Administrator may appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days from the decision. vol; 4- — .=* g S't 1 ., 1 I [i (r<.V, C 1�_� 3� /�l 6.�j 1 cam° f} 'LA"—, C 2 c; ';, ; :_ Print Name and Address Signature Date `i_ __ ._Print Name and Address Signature l Date :� - .. pr 1�.fib C0�/N g ,3/a ��t,� r�- — I�,vF�`„`- C ,GI-- `S 1;'a:r,'' c 4 „.N ' Print Fame and Address Signature - 7,''7;".'.- Date ' ?- .s� Print Name and_ ddress Signature i_,/ / Date 4 Print Name and A ress ( anatu 2 Date ' xs* p�NHS rid ' 7� (O \ his.: l ``` Print Na e and Address 3 I• Signature `� �1tiGcL�S Date t P.i4` • 10 (Ll i 1 iCc?u� 'R\V3 \ .\ \ 'l'ie i.i C., OS . / 0 a] *.,-." Pint Ni—Came and A�ress 3 1 =Dyl , Signature >3_,•* Date Print Name acid Address Date 't. E •� f4m,ar f .` '• :7' atea :I'., .a >,` t fr<u y 1. ' . �. : i� Cei• rt.ea 'l r�.u.1f fir sr! f '4 t+` T ::"4 t . Ilk_j >!' 1 Jr r ai ' + • 7r' . t4 is _ry !j _ . } ...a. -... _4 i yai.i�,.:`- 1 - _.ems. 3:*4%�c. t..-..-.o. - i- �- � ,...t.: Ar. __ _ ."!^T' ..Y'•- Z2.�YSYrt-nY`+ _ i`fnt�.f-.aYas?s�.s=�"�„r",�Y._..._3s' � •`' ` 362 North Edmonds Place ''""� • � - ' 441f - tg' 4, ,i .-- • 7 ., yy % .4 i / rR J� .,„,i�� t - — - :J , rug _ a_ • 346 North Edmonds Place dj• 1 Of } r .h -.ji � r i .' a rp . _-- t;-,_—�� 362 North Edmonds Place pry•,�� ,,�i I.., .'6, )s.4. :,,4.114.-,Sibs i .:.., `^ ,..,;,:!, i,„4.......mit..-es-..... ,\iii,v4t. aTip..,#...1-•/0,-4•• 3.;;a. • i �,if,j. Sit 'f _ .`•• �► ( ' A 4t t t r ` t ' �_ 1 1 '" - p Edmonds Place transition to Argyle , AlIlk •t:A.,.,, •• '..• '. % 4 4*.f,w ' faig-r • -%{ .. 1 -''''.:.:4.4"-ViritTY' •7',- 44 '-,f3 i'" •f•r- , = ', I ,4 ,- 4.,•N,.= st,..fi' • . A 14" ' 4 t +. 44- ' , -0. , • ::' '.4„- .. e,44‘ ,.... ,,i, .4,07 f . .. •• , , , sa- t „„.......„ • . ''' -• • -2 . 0 g.-.---.1'''' : ',.' )' ' ?i.fr.,: .- .494Vir-- -- . \-''..- ''. ' .,, 1 , . • - -.:•Z::.-"iii--u.-. I,:---4,_, I ' 01 -- 1 1'itt - • '. - ' ' ' ' -.7e.r,-:-..-Z, z-37L*----2-7- sr -44...Y3''Z•:"-- , I'1- 4. /44,..i. --'. 'Yr - ±. r-.:--i'. "`. ‘ .::.'..--4..": --:.;iiiIIIIIiiiii.hi.L.,..:4--;:L 7'4'--- '' _ ' '':4•1 4 . - I, , - , // ' 4 k _ s 1 - -4—--- . . vi lik. • -...- . _ - ,Anir-ww-A-Iiilici-T-aranumnimmi ----------- ---- - < ,-",--7.---- , -- 362 North Edmonds Place Property in question on the right of the photo behind the curb cut „Aso% QJ n uQe QOttkt J c aat (Does hdhe JAasteh(Nail Say? o c-RPe cPedestgvt The Capitol Hill Master Plan, published in January of 1981, recommends that the resi- dential environment and the deteriorating cJitstoided TekspeCtive housing in the Guadalupe area be pre- served and upgraded. Measures such as a When Brigham Young created the original landscaped linear park along the railroad Plat of Salt Like City he platted ten acre and a sound barrier along 1-15 are sug- super blocks down to 900 South Street. gested. These large blocks were originally divided The subsequent Guadalupe Target Area into eight 1 acre lots.Original owners situ- Plan, adopted by the City Council April 10, ated their homes near the streets with large garden and orchard areas to the rear.Rock- 1984, recommends the Argyle Block as a lined irrigation ditches ranalong the block Redesign Block and that all housing along fronts for watering the gardens and trees. Argyle Court be rehabilitated. This arrangement left the center of the blocks open and undeveloped. Over the ! n:..ii. years, as properic_ -hanged hands, new `li-- -o -- - 1 J` I owners subdivided the original lots, and • a• homes were often built on small alleys and - i , lanes nor constructed to any reasonable :, —-.2-- o rfi`: 1 .-O _d1: --r7 standards.Argyle Court is One of these. I n - J�` I' Soung Barrier� ,� ; The Argyle block is situated in what is d ��.0J drpGL60 0 L ii. known as the Guadalupe neighborhood. II ii The detractive influence of the I-15 Freeway , 0❑0 o Q o on the west and the railroad tracks on the O v o 1 �� 1 rj El g east have caused the decline in residential II c o ' 1�o ,o ari< -) quality of the neighborhood over the years. ) - e oo ! ° OQ t CD _i Eil , In 1960 freeway coast action bisected a o _ ;i`. �� - ° 1. large residential neighborhood and the °LC�GDria� o, LCDUc c Co _ ! Guadalupe neighborhood is one of the remnants. Sandwiched between the free- D.0 dn1,cncis� 0- a wayand the railroad, neighborhood resi ° u '1 o Ej p`,`�', c��77 ' o �� , E dents are continually plagued with noise [�o ) and air pollution, and unsightly conditions • i S-a E. li:.: : created by the freeways sparselyvegetated a, a kJ i fill material. 1 COb ono OCIDo� �' The Argyle block boundaries are 300 North ^' `if 0W j :_: and 400 North and 600 West and the 1-15 U Et • Freeway. The two dead end streets on the o El ° i,: i i : block, Argyle Court and Edmonds Place, off, , : ii': o o i -1a� is are mostly inhabited by recently immigrated a I, ' PI � i :: Asian families. Overcrowding is a problem � _ �; Cu ;g� ;�a � p i(!'. and most homes are rundown. -- _ �.:a,,, I �C7[] MOO n I ii This report represents the initial planning n m a,00 1 i`' and design phase of the block redesign -.7 r a� I] . IL! process. Once the project has been l �� a r $I �.� >. approved, it will be rated along with other =� !':. projects eligible for Community Develop- .� G� -p C K: .)" ment Block Grant (CDBG) funding and e t-I- '^: ' `__L0 U i : IF 't'' scheduled for implementation. cPeopk and Cahs Dousing Conditions Argyle Court is only 14'10"curb to curb and Structural condition of homes and yards on there are no sidewalks. Many of the homes Argyle Court and Edmonds Place is gener- have driveways,but they are generally sub- ally poor.The Planning Department recently standard. Cars are parked helter-skelter on resurveyed the homes on both streets using front yards and often project into the street. Salt Lake City's 1980 housing condition sur- This is not only dangerous for pedestrians, vey as a reference. (The 1980 survey rates but often traffic is blocked in both direc- homes on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being tions.Emergency and other service vehicles good condition and 5 being dilapidated.) are unable to get up the street. On Argyle Court 75%of the houses were Parking problems on Edmonds Place are rated a 3, needing some repair; and 25% not as severe as on Argyle Court because were rated a 4,requiring major repair(addi- Edmonds is 50 feet wide. The homes have tional information is available from the been moved there within the last five years Planning Department). A similar situation and they can generally comply with today s exists on Edmonds Place, (Rehabilitation parking standards. The street has recently cost for a condition 3 house is S1,000 to been resurfaced and a 70 foot diameter S5,000;for a condition 4 house the range is cul-de-sac terminates the southern end. S5,000 to S10,000.) Although some residents do park their \ \ automobiles in the front and side yards of n their homes,all homes have enough area to LI � rQ—aE1 Clf I I I!R." �` provide proper off-street parking. It simply / needs to be installed. SoQutions Cl — Continue zoning code and hous- ing code enforcement in the area. ITO r _\ Y\] - Encourage the use of appropriate redevelopment programs for housing SOQuti011s fix-up and repair. — Connect Argyle and Edmonds Court, but allow only one-way traffic CJhast, COQQeeti0n on Argyle. (Entrance onto Argyle would continue to be from the south Argyle Court's narrow width makes trash at 300 North Street.) collection difficult and dangerous. If truck drivers do try to negotiate their way up the —Allow two-way traffic on Edmonds street they then are faced with the prospect Court to the point where Edmonds of backing out. This practice is obviously and Argyle Streets intersect. very dangerous to the many children in the — Discourage on-street parking. area. Parking along Argyle should be for • temporary loading and unloading of � I `% 111 Tri passengers only. Residents without + permanent off-street parking should SOQut10its use the proposed parking lot. Street signs should be posted indicating — Centralize public trash collection "Passenger loading only—No park- at the intersection of Argyle and ing on street." Edmonds (see plan). — Provide a 3 foot continuous side- — Require absentee land owners to walk along the west side of both provide screened trash receptacles for Edmonds and Argyle. their tenants. AMENDED SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,February 10,2010 at 5:45 p.m. The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:oo p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 4:45 p.m., in Room 126. Work Session— This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation only. No public comment will be taken. The Planning Commission may discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. The Commission will also discuss • Planning Commission Expectations. Review the expectations which were developed by the Commission in March 2009. • Review the Various Roles of Decision-Makers in the Planning Process. • City Council Policy Regarding Master Plans. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday,January 27, 2010 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director Request for Planning Commissioners and Historic Landmark Commissioners to work together on subcommittee to review the proposed Eastside Apartments, a request by PEG Development for New Construction located at approximately 556 East 30o South. Follow-up Briefing 1. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-oou10 North Temple Boulevard Station Area Plans—an amendment to the West Salt Lake and Northwest Community Master Plans regarding station area plans along the Airport Light Rail Line. Planning Staff will hand out draft copies of the plan and review the major components of the Plan with the Planning Commission. A Public Hearing for the plans will occur at a later date(Staff: Nick Norris at 801.535.6173 or nick.norris(&slcgov.com). Public Hearings 2. Petition PLNPCM2oo9-01358; East Bench Community Master Plan Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property located at approximately 1794 S. Texas Street from Institutional to Low-Density Residential. The property is located in City Council District six, represented by JT Martin (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at 801.535.7282 or Nvayne.mills(&slcgov.com). 3. Petition PLNPCM2o09-01359; Zoning Map Amendment—a request by Paula and Joseph Sargetakis to re-zone the property located at approximately 1794 S.Texas Street from Institutional to Single-Family Residential in order to construct a single-family dwelling with a home occupation allowing for the distribution of homegrown produce for off-premise sales. The proposed zoning district is R-1/7000. The property is located in City Council District six, represented by JT Martin (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at 801.535.7282 or wavne.mills(r slcgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2oo9-ooJ91 Edmonds Place a request by Brian Park for partial street closure and sale of excess right-of way property located at approximately 346 and 362 North Edmonds Place. The subject property is located in an SR-3 (Special Residential) zoning district,in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the declaration of this property as being declared surplus ,, mo,, and sold(Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801.535.6182 or doug.dansie(&slcgov.com). 5. Work Session(Continued from the dinner hour if needed) Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission MEETING GUIDELINES 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting, public comments are limited to two (2) minutes per person, per item. A spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker.Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken, the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757;TDD 535-6220. On Thursday, February 4, 2010 I personally posted copies of the foregoing notice within the City and County Building at 451 South State Street at the following locations: Planning Division, Room 406; City Council Bulletin Board, Room 315; and Community Affairs, Room 345.A copy of the agenda has also been faxed/e-mailed to all Salt Lake City Public Libraries for posting and to the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. ,wwq, SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, February 10, 2010 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Commissioners Tim Chambless, Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Kathleen Hill, Susie McHugh, and Mary Woodhead. Commissioners Frank Algarin, Babs De Lay, and Matthew Wirthlin were excused. There was no field trip prior to the meeting.A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:46 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Programs Manager; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Nick Norris, Senior Planner; Nick Britton, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Paul Nielson, City Attorney; and Tami Hansen, Senior Secretary. Public Hearings PLNPCM2oo9-00591 Edmonds Place a request by Brian Park for partial street closure and sale of excess right-of way property located at approximately 346 and 362 North Edmonds Place. The subject property is located in an SR-3 (Special Residential) zoning district, in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the declaration of this property as being declared surplus and sold. Acting Chair Chambless recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie stated in the 1.980s there was an Argyle Court/Edmonds Place redevelopment plan that was done, connected and made into one. He stated formally Argyle court ended in a cult-de- sac; currently it is a through street. Acting Chair Chambless invited Brian Park,the applicant to the table. Mr. Park stated this was a new development area; he had been there for eight (8) years. He stated it is a dangerous neighborhood with drug dealers and homeless people in the area. He stated this house had been empty for io years before the resident now had bought it. He stated they call the police a lot, especially at night. Acting Chair Chambless inquired about the street lighting in the area. Mr. Park stated he had a sensor light on his own property,but there were no street lights. Acting Chair Chambless inquired how long it took for the Police to respond to his call. Mr. Park stated it was about 20-3o minutes later. Commissioner McHugh stated the Commission was only recommending that this property 414 * become surplus, and not who buys it etc. Mr. Sommerkorn stated staff had made a recommendation regarding how to dispose of at least a portion of this property,to make sure the home next to it had at least a 5o foot frontage. Public Hearing Acting Chair Chambless opened the public hearing. The following people spoke or submitted cards in support of the petition: David Bolinder (362 North Edmonds Place) stated he bought his property in 2008 and he had problems with transients as well, and he appreciated Mr. Park being diligent in calling the Police. He stated the property was zoned as a duplex, which was why there were two driveways. He stated he hoped he could purchase this property and keep it in tact, the way it should be. Cindy Cromer (816 East loo South) stated she was concerned this was a property owner initiated petition, which meant he paid the filing fee. She stated if both property owners wind up benefiting from some kind of declaration of surplus it seemed inequitable that one property owner should pay the filing fee to bring the matter forward in the City. She stated the petition should be paid for equitably as well. The following people spoke or submitted cards in opposition to the petition: Robert Lund (622 West 50o North) stated he was with Neighborworks Salt Lake, and they were the ones that built Argyle Court and had tried for nine years to acquire this property. He stated it was their „oo,,, strong belief that the second driveway should remain with Mr. Bolinder and not be sold to Mr. Park. Acting Chair Chambless closed the public hearing. Commissioner Woodhead inquired about the second part of condition 1, where it states 5o feet of frontage on a deeded street and the driveway remains functional. She inquired if that was the south driveway. Mr. Dansie stated he wrote it that way because even though there was a curb cut, that did not have to be there, it could be moved. Commissioner Woodhead stated if Mr. Park straightened his fence, the driveway would have to be slightly reconfigured. Mr. Dansie stated that would be a possibility. Commissioner McHugh inquired if condition i could state A driveway remains functional, instead of The driveway. Mr. Dansie stated yes. Commissioner Fife stated if this were a duplex, the same driveway could be used to access both units. Commissioner Woodhead stated it sounded like the applicant did not own the north driveway, so you would not want to rely on that as the only access. Commissioner Dean stated the matter of surplus was clear at this point, so regardless of who owned it the City did not need that information at this time. Motion Commissioner Dean made a motion regarding Petition PLNPCM2oo9-0o591; Partial Street closure and sale of excess right-of-way property at 346 Edmonds Place, the Planning Commission transmits a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and City Council that the property be declared surplus and sold with the following conditions: 1. Enough land be sold to the property owner at 362 North Edmonds, to insure that the property has at least 50 feet frontage on the deeded street and the south driveway remains functional and is accessible on the property. 2. The remaining land is sold according to the City regulation relating to disposition of the real property. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. Commissioners Hill, Dean, Fife, Gallegos, McHugh, and Woodhead voted, "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on February io, 2010. Tami Hansen Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2009-00591 By: Brian Park Street Closure Date Filed: 05/18/2009 Address: 346 N Edmonds Place "', ';ill='E', '"'• OFFICE USE ONLY L S-y.\yQ__�//;17% Street Closure Petition No.a?1.-NPC442ocq- OO *1 in 'sue h;- c`7;.aid _,? Date Received: ($ Wi jay 'L C7 0 t', m`'tri• Reviewed By: T—17 �rJ Ira ei'ilniil l\\v'"4 Address of Subject Property: 3J( / `t' J. F �-, i t ( a ke iv 1 1 yT (9.4 J,4 b l.�Lt Wlc�L 1C�5 1 (GIC� �Cti �-�'C~ l� Project Name: • SDI C1oSe Name of Applicant: 6 rfao Park- Phone: �_��!p,,� r- � �✓✓ I �- � a.v J Address of Applicant: ,4,! N , �-J moncs f(,�,e U. e`-!) (I E-mail Address of Applicant: b C Gl �l^l( Cell/F . : `-f l7 J \u r -i Utah Favk 0 M5N."iYl r / ! `� Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: tillillk_3 Name of Property Owner: Phone: LE-mail Address of Property Owner: Cell/Fax: RECEIVED County Tax (`'Sidwell 4"): Zoning: Existing_Property Use: Proposed Property Use: r + J Please include with the application:; r %r . ell) 1. A letter explaining why you are requesting this street closure. Please include a statement explaining why the street closure is consistent with proposed public policy. If applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the street, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 111M3 2. The cost of first class postage for each address within 450 ft. is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. 3. The name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign, not the occupants who rent. lit 4. A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)showing the area of the proposed street closure. On the map please: a. Highlight the subject section of street. L1 b. Indicate with a list of the property owners and write their names on the Sidwell map identifying the property they own. 5. Filing fee of S332.22 due at time of application. Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional architectural or engineering drawings which will be made available to decision makers,public and any interested party. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Buzz Center(535-7700) prior to submitting the petition. 11.1111) County tax parcel ("Sidwell") maps are available at: Submit your completed application to: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Buzz Center 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 PO Box 145471 ail*` Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 451 South State Street Rm 215 Telephone: (801)468-3391 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Signature of Property _ Owner or Representative: Date: — 1) — (77 . 8//2008 (Title) Please Answer the Following Questions. Use an Additional Sheet if Necessary. Please describe your proposed construction: r,J A N T 5 Yc c.Lc, s S T (4- T?) cU i7(f 1- /k(:,- (5N 7`/- " 140,fl 2 c.S /- 'rrs'/ TA-7`; AP C A-NT Lu, 5 /4-05 ACG< H e TP oP --Yi —/o rti C r.T/ 0 co iv T G A-tv 0 04 -/ N TA /AJ VTDI 08-36-154-049-0000 DIST 13 TOTAL ACRES 0 . 18 PARK, HUNG-YOUNG & TAX CLASS UPDATE REAL ESTATE KYUNG-JA; JT LEGAL BUILDINGS PRINT U TOTAL VALUE e- 346 N EDMONDS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EDIT 0 FACTOR BYPASS LOC: 346 N EDMONDS PL EDIT 0 BOOK 8602 PAGE 1565 DATE 05/29/2002 SUB: UNKNOWN TYPE UNKN PLAT 05/12/2009 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY BEG N E 8 . 25 FT FR SE COR LOT 6 , BLK 73 , PLAT C, SLC SUR; N 0-1Ol ' E 84 . 726 FT; N 89-159 ' E 18 . 392 FT; N 54-759 ' E 68 . 156 FT; S 123 . 82 FT; S 89-'59 ' W 74 . 25 FT TO BEG. 7515-2396 8347-3605 PFKEYS : 1=RXPH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU 10=RXBK 11=RXPN 12=PREV VTDI 08-36-154-049-0000 DIST 13 TOTAL ACRES 0 . 18 PARK, HUNG-YOUNG & TAX CLASS UPDATE REAL ESTATE KYUNG-JA; JT LEGAL BUILDINGS PRINT U TOTAL VALUE N EDMONDS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EDIT 0 FACTOR BYPASS LOC: 346 N EDMONDS PL EDIT 0 BOOK 8602 PAGE 1565 DATE 05/29/2002 SUB : UNKNOWN TYPE UNKN PLAT 05/12/2009 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY BEG N 89-,59 ' E 8 . 25 FT FR SE COR LOT 6, BLK 73 , PLAT C, SLC SUR; N 0-101 ' E 84 . 726 FT; N 89-159 ' E 18 . 392 FT; N 54-'59 ' E 68 . 156 FT; S 123 . 82 FT; S 89,59 ' W 74 . 25 FT TO BEG. 7515-2396 8347-3605 PFKEYS: 1=RXPH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU 10=RXBK 11=RXPN 12=PREV r i { ?f y` e f.-rirr- '<- 2 .L" a: '� ma`s ... .. j cl • r„ t , •, AIN i(1 '", f? 7.. ogi. . ,.. ..: _ _ ` r ? _ _ 1 y 3 • ,� s ••.T . '.-,c,r _... 4 .iM, .a�_,pia�+Esf. _ ... .. �ziMi4 � f. 2� .rr:�o.t y ! � '2jf <"Gt4 ' t d ' d�hJ. hy� R � { 'Y SC 7 ] J .• .n. i..K...i�uw.4. _ 1ir k' " 'wiuveae S �, ._'^_'__+r,'-' .R-a;_.'r f -Z''' i Y'` '` -A.A' "." 4 R- h-t'` r la3 ' ,}, f,' �_� z: .� s'aN �+•� y.s,v``,y� �y`i'`i > Tsv,..�c� `.-�;�� ,�,+ST- k' �_ .,�h 's �">'' ,� -ill( . i'';i: -.'14;.i it .• •,--.', , •. -iiimt-,I. I, . ' / 1,_ Ir. i / -...: I ,.i 1.l' e - . 1 • , , .; _...-.... . ..... ..,_:.?-..:_ ' :-.- : • -• ;:,-,. it .4,-77: . .--;'`.-,--'s Fr..1- 1. : .- s— ' ' : --i''',.. ..,... . i, . o '.c. 4 �/{ _ tea' t/ `.. ` 4 - _ • yam,,• 7 /(' ) Y VI ;� n ram!! 77�1 G :x ,_ .,. 115 ♦II (l] !-� aTg 1J3�'4`; . k y , •Yisl�",- wr 4?3, � ,-ert•rat ' — .F f ,.,. l!^. F '. i . !I j - -- fri,`_ 3- ` - _ _ - L_ - w ..-.,.des vp.a _ . . ._ '•i� !, _ _ `l: _rri 'ram ' �_< .. ,.ram s •�.,- .>;-�-4 ..r� •em•� � '°:'R,�+.`•w_�s -.,t `- ..,. '.%.,. :,.sue.r.t..;� ,-.. _ 7. :W .�.•.` - 416 :.d, •'.-. } �.. y -. - --_ a-y f - .- !'. --%10."F'c�t4t1?".+.aoan 012777A, � �... W. ;`- :' ,K._ s x - t �: �_ f tCz. p t' .tom ,..-�,•-. eY':: W c-, ?i • ,*- Cf., :41: ' .'LT-Lri "2.-7---5.'!! ..- - --N- :.' , . 'r . T,%/. :•' - L.,• - ' -' '.. ' r 0..... ' •A'..X.C47.1-.4 . --1 . S,, 4 , :!WI ,' f ( ),A.. C(• ; 4 " t. "3• 1 i' - 1 g r. L ,_ .--- . 5. SCANNED TO: M ,- SC:ANNED BY: 1-� ,BAN aJ ' l4 `►��..11 1 DATE:RALPH0/(KER FRANK B. GRAY "•R DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR IRE CEJ .Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER VED DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL JUN 3 0 2011 DEPUTY DIRECTOR RECEIVED JuL i 2 2011 Salt Lak City Mayor Date Received: p a ' Everitt,Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: 2 I 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 29,2011 Jill Remington-Love 1150, FROM: Frank Gray, CED Director Ofite5.4 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Preservation Program—Philosophy,Preservation Plan,Preservation Tools,and Projects STAFF CONTACT: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner 801-535-6141,joel,Paterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing-Information only RECOMMENDATION: No action necessary BACKGROUND For the past several years,the historic preservation program in Salt Lake City has been a very visible topic for residents,property owners and the City. This interest continues with the City Council's review of the city-wide Preservation Plan that will set the vision,direction and policies for historic preservation in Salt Lake City. In addition,the City Administration is reviewing the City's historic preservation program in an effort to create well defined and efficient processes and promote consistency in decision-making by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Staff. Furthermore,there has been renewed interest from various neighborhoods of the City to designate new local historic districts and to create new tools to help protect neighborhood character. As a part of this process the Administration intends to identify and create new tools for the City and property owners to consider while providing a wide range of options,incentives and varying levels of appropriate regulation to satisfy neighborhood needs. The City's recent experience in 2010,with the creation of the Westmoreland Place local historic district and efforts in the Yalecrest neighborhood to identify a unified approach to protect neighborhood interests,highlighted a need to review the City's Historic Preservation program and explore planning tools that will help the City and neighborhoods achieve their goals. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145466, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114.54B6 Preservation Program TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 1 1 P a g e June 29,2011 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED « RE «o P.PEw The purpose of this memorandum is to brief the City Council and continue a dialogue that will result in the eventual adoption of the Preservation Plan;adopt a Preservation Program Philosophy statement by resolution that will guide the future of the historic preservation program and identify City Council priorities for further development and implementation of a set of zoning tools relating to preservation and neighborhood stabilization. This transmittal will discuss these issues,identify projects that the Planning Division is pursuing and efforts we are undertaking to improve the Historic Preservation program through education and improved consistency. Preservation Program 2 I P a g e June 29,2011 PRESERVATION PLAN The Administration contracted with Clarion Associates to develop a preservation plan to define the vision,direction and policies of a city-wide historic preservation program. The draft plan has been reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission and is now awaiting review by the City Council. As part of this process of reviewing the City's historic preservation program,the Administration will discuss with the City Council possible revisions to the draft Plan to strengthen the policy direction offered in the Plan. STATUS OF PRESERVATION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS The Planning Staff has been working on several projects to improve the Historic Preservation program and create other tools that are intended to address neighborhood character. As noted, Staff is preparing various ordinance amendments ranging from Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning to improve the clarity of the Historic Preservation Overlay standards and processes, developing a conservation district process, making greater use of neighborhood-based zoning (similar to the Yalecrest Compatible Overlay district), revising the Residential Design Guidelines and creating new commercial design guidelines and sign guidelines. The Planning Staff has created a Preservation Interpretation Review Team to help improve consistency in ordinance and guideline interpretation. The Planning Staff has also reorganized the Historic Preservation Staff and is clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the planners who make up the Preservation Team. NEEDED FEEDBACK FROM CITY COUNCIL An important element of this process is for the Planning Division to receive specific feedback from the City Council regarding the various elements of the Historic Preservation program. It is imperative that the Administration and the Council maintain a strong partnership on preservation issues and clearly define the direction of the program. In this regard, the Planning Division is requesting that the City Council consider adopting a resolution supporting the implementation of a Historic Preservation philosophy that is further discussed below. PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHY The Administration believes that it is important to provide an overarching statement that defines what historic preservation is to Salt Lake City,why it is important and how to implement a well managed and efficient program that allows for a predictable and consistent decision-making process. Creating a preservation philosophy that all levels of decision-makers and stakeholders buy into will help set a clear direction for the City's preservation program. Preservation Program 31Pac..te June 29,2011 It is the intent of the Administration to have a Preservation Philosophy statement adopted by Amplok the City Council as a resolution. As an adopted document it will help define the long-term commitment the City has toward historic preservation,clarify how the preservation tools will be used,and guide future decision making at all levels;from property owners seeking design solutions,to Staff interpreting preservation standards and guidelines and providing a clear and consistent framework for the Historic Landmark Commission's decision-making. It is important that the Philosophy statement clearly states the intention of the City and define how historic preservation will be carried out. The Historic Landmark Commission and Staff are often caught trying to determine how strictly the Zoning Ordinance standards and design guidelines are to be applied and whether or not there should be any flexibility when comparing application of standards to the primary and secondary facades. The Preservation Philosophy(below)was drafted and modified by the Planning Staff following review on two occasions by the Historic Landmark Commission. Staff is seeking the input and advice of the City Council to finalize the philosophy statement. Once the final document is adopted,Staff will begin implementing the philosophy as part of our review and decision- making process. Salt Lake City Historic Preservation Program Philosophy What is Historic Preservation? Historic preservation is the process of identifying and protecting historic resources, including buildings,sites,landscapes and other places of historical and cultural significance. This process embraces many phases,including the survey and evaluation of historical,architectural,and cultural resources; development of planning and legal measures to protect these resources; identification of public and private funding sources; design for the restoration,rehabilitation,and/or adaptive use of historic structures; and the ongoing maintenance of these resources. Why Historic Preservation is Important Historic resources are tangible evidence of the past,helping us to know where we have come from and who we are today. Historic preservation is important because when historic resources are lost or allowed to deteriorate,a part of that past disappears. Historic preservation provides opportunities for residents and visitors to learn the . importance of our past,to live and work in interesting and attractive surroundings with a foundation of older buildings,neighborhoods,and landscapes. Historic Preservation creates a unique sense of place in residential neighborhoods and commercial settings that set Salt Lake City apart. This sense of place drives community pride,neighborhood development and economic investment resulting in a sustainable community with cultural vitality. How we Practice Historic Preservation in Salt Lake City Preservation Program 44 1 P a g e June 29.2011 Salt Lake City takes pride in its historic resources and builds upon its historic preservation achievements by prioritizing historic preservation efforts. This is accomplished by continually improving the array of tools,programs and incentives intended to protect the best examples of the City's culture as embodied by buildings, sites and historic landscapes from its past. The City Council and Administration provide strategic guidance to maintain,strengthen and expand the Historic Preservation program in concert with broader City land use goals. Occasionally,when historic preservation policies conflict with other City goals a unified direction is forged whenever possible. A city-wide preservation ethic can be achieved by conveying a clear and consistent message of historic preservation objectives,opportunities,and benefits. Collaboration extends to community organizations,businesses and special interest groups with which the historic preservation program strives to enjoy a high degree of trust and communication. Today, as Salt Lake City's growth increases overall density, the City's older neighborhoods face increasing pressures for redevelopment and infill, presenting both challenges and opportunities. The preservation program will focus on reasonable and consistent application of the City's adopted standards, which are based on the nationally recognized Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, in order to protect historic resources while taking into account economic and technical feasibility. The preservation program is designed to protect an important aspect of the public interest, our shared culture, by reviewing proposed changes to historic resources and placing the primary emphasis of review on elements visible from the public way. Questions to the City Council 1. Does the Preservation Philosophy describe the historic preservation program desired by the City? 2. Does the City Council want Zoning Ordinance standards and design guidelines strictly enforced on all facades of a building or should flexibility be allowed on secondary facades? 3. Does the Preservation Philosophy uphold the principals of historic preservation yet provide the flexibility desired? 4. Should the Historic Preservation Program have an attitude of helping property owners solve design problems or just respond to proposals based on the Historic Preservation Overlay standards? Preservation Program- 5 1 P a g e June 29, 201 1 PRESERVATION PLAN The Preservation Plan has been transmitted to the City Council for review following public hearings before the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission. Both commissions recommended that the City Council consider adopting the plan. In conversations between the City Council Staff and the Administration,it is apparent that the Plan would benefit from the addition of specific policy statements to strengthen the direction of the Historic Preservation program,in addition to the guidance of an adopted Preservation Philosophy Statement. The Planning Division suggests working with the City Council Staff to prepare additional policy direction and action statements to strengthen the Plan to ensure it provides clear direction. Any proposed amendments would be tracked and a determination would be made whether or not the revised draft would need additional public comment or further review by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission. Questions for the City Council 1. Should the Planning Staff work with the City Council Staff to propose additional policy guidance and action items for the Preservation Plan? TOOLS The Preservation Plan identifies several tools that are available for the City to implement as part of a historic preservation program. Not all of the tools identified are strictly for the preservation of historic resources;the list of tools is broader and incorporates tools generally designed to encourage neighborhood stability. At times,because of a perceived lack of tools available in the City to encourage neighborhood stability,the two approaches often are seen as a single objective. This can cause confusion and frustration for the public and public officials,alike. A recent example addresses this point. The Yalecrest neighborhood was concerned about the rapid change to the character of the neighborhood primarily caused by the demolition of older buildings and the construction of new single family homes that some thought were out of scale and character. As a result,some residents pushed for the designation of a local historic district to deter the threat of demolition. While some smaller areas of the Yalecrest area may support the designation of a local historic district to help preserve the history of the area as expressed in the architecture and surrounding development pattern,the Yalecrest neighborhood as a whole did not support this approach. The Planning Division believes it is important to clearly acknowledge the different objectives of historic preservation and neighborhood stabilization and develop the tools needed for both. LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic preservation is the process of identifying and protecting historic resources, including buildings,sites, landscapes and other places of historical and cultural significance. The City uses Preservation Program 6 P a g e June 29, 2011 the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district to designate local historic districts and individual Landmark Sites that are of sufficient importance to demand individual designation. The Planning Division has identified several issues regarding the process and criteria used to designate a new local historic district,including the following: Process Issues • Process for designation of a new local historic district. The Zoning Ordinance provisions establishing the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission and the provisions of 21A.50.030 regarding amendments to the Zoning Map and the Zoning Ordinance do not clearly interact and as a result creates confusion about the process, who can initiate a petition for designation of a local historic district and how public input is incorporated in the process. This is being addressed as part of petition PLNPCM2010-00376 which has been considered by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission. However, the petition has not been transmitted to the City Council due to the timing of the petition and the controversy of the Yalecrest designation process. • Incentives prior to Regulation? All of Salt Lake City's local historic districts have also been designated as National Register districts. The order of designation (national register vs. local historic district) is not mandated, however, the City recognizes the importance of providing a mechanism for financial incentives to off- set the regulation that comes with a local historic district. In addition, because the financial incentives of the federal preservation program are so great, the City may support the concept that areas are placed on the National Register of Historic Places, without a long term goal of designating the area as a local historic district. Under this concept, property owners may benefit from the financial incentive available for investing in improvements to their properties without the additional regulation of a local historic district. This approach will lead to the goal of neighborhood stability. A good example of this approach is the Gilmer neighborhood west of 1300 East and south of 900 South. • Process for determining public support for designation. Under the current process for designating a new local historic district, the only specified way to determine the level of public support is during the public hearing stage of the process. A significant amount of citizen and City resources can be spent (preparing an historic survey, Staff time doing research and preparing for the public hearings) prior to determining if there is a general agreement on the approach. Issues regarding Criteria • Criteria for designation of a local historic district. The criteria for the designation of a local historic district and a National Register district are the same even though the function and administration of the two types of historic districts are very different. National Register historic districts are honorific and provide an Preservation Program 7 1 P a g e June 29,2011 option for property owners to pursue income tax credits. The tax credit programs are administered by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as incentives for property owners to make appropriate improvements to a property. Designation of a local historic district is a regulatory tool adopted by the City to preserve the historic fabric of an area. Unlike a National Register historic district, the regulations that come with the designation of a local historic district are compulsory and must be adhered to by all property owners. Local historic district designation does not come with many local incentives. This was an issue in the Yalecrest neighborhood which was listed as a National Register district in 2007. When the Historic Landmark Commission was considering the designation of a local historic district for the area it was difficult to recommend a smaller district because the entire neighborhood had already demonstrated that it met the standards for the National Register. • Size of Local Historic Districts. Salt Lake City does not have a standard that limits the size of a local historic district. The Avenues, Capitol Hill and Central City historic districts include thousands of properties while the Exchange Place and Westmoreland Place historic districts are relatively small. The larger a proposed district is the more difficult it becomes to gauge public support and to develop a clear consensus on the appropriate approach or tool to Amok use. Questions for the City Council 1. How and when should the City gauge the public support for a proposed local historic district? 2. What level of public support should be demonstrated prior to local historic district designation? 3. Should the criteria for a new local historic district be the same as the criteria used for the creation of a National Register district? 4. Should the criteria ensure that designation of a local historic district is being sought to protect the historic fabric of a landmark site or a neighborhood and not just to encourage rehabilitation or stabilization of an area? 5. Should limits or guidelines be created for the size a new local historic district? NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOOLS One of the major goals of the Preservation Plan is for the City to broaden the array of tools that '" "` can be utilized by the public and the City to foster a more diverse preservation program. The Preservation Program S P a g e June 29, 2011 Preservation Plan identifies the need to utilize tools that are both regulatory and programmatic. Regulatory tools might include the creation of new local historic districts,conservation districts or other types of neighborhood-based zoning designed to protect specific bulk,scale or development characteristics. Programmatic tools would include the use of historic surveys, use of incentives such as listing properties or neighborhoods on the National Register to encourage renovation through the use of tax credits,etc. There are multiple zoning tools used to protect neighborhoods. Which tool or tools makes the most sense depends on the goals the City has for its neighborhoods. Two tools currently available to the City to preserve neighborhoods are historic overlays and neighborhood-based zoning districts. A conservation district is a third tool the City may wish to consider. CONSERVATION DISTRICT Whereas the purpose of a local historic district is to preserve historic fabric,including design, materials and integrity,a conservation district is used to preserve community character(the character may or may not have a connection to the area's history). This usually means that the two will differ in the standards for designation,the level of regulation and possibly the review process. A conservation district can be customized for a specific area; however many cities choose to use this tool as a way to protect districts that may not meet the strict requirements of the National Register. Usually conservation districts have fewer restrictions than a local historic district, focusing on specific character defining features rather than all exterior modifications, for instance. Conservation districts may also differ in the review process.Some communities choose to allow all applications for alterations in a conservation district to be administratively reviewed while others require approval from a design review body. Review of demolition may or may not be a component of a conservation district. If it is included, the economic hardship process should also be included as an option to a property owner who is denied the ability to demolish a structure and feels that the denial is in some way a regulatory taking of property without just compensation. Some have argued that the public interest of a conservation district would not rise to the level needed to demonstrate an over-riding public interest to allow the prohibition of demolition. Another way that the historic and conservation districts may differ is in the creation of design guidelines. For a local historic district,design guidelines are usually based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and customized for a particular area. Conservation districts can have more public input where the community may be charged with defining the characteristics to be preserved and helps write the guidelines to regulate change within the particular conservation district. Preservation Program 9 1 P a g e June 29,2011 To be effective,conservation districts,like historic districts should focus on the character of a , district. Issues such as height,setbacks,and lot coverage are the type of issues that might be better dealt with in the base zoning district standards. It is unlikely that a Conservation District would be less time consuming to implement and administer compared to a historic overlay. First,there must be a text amendment process to update the ordinance to allow for and to define conservation districts. Once the ordinance is in place,the designation of a conservation district would require a map amendment,which is the same process followed for the designation of a local historic district. Designation of a conservation district may require more time for adoption than a local historic district,since the City would need to work with the neighborhood to develop a completely new set of design guidelines. With the designation of a local historic district,all of the basic design guidelines are the same for each local historic district in the City with the addition of a few specific guidelines adopted for individual local districts such as the Avenues or Central City historic districts. Each type of district requires a design review process. It is true that a conservation district would likely have fewer actions that would require review than an historic overlay; however,a true comparison would depend on the size of each district,the details of the conservation overlay,the design guidelines for each individual district,and the level of activity for each district. The Planning Division is working on a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to create a process for approving conservation districts. The proposed ordinance amendment is tentatively scheduled -44000, to be forwarded to the City Council in by the end of 2011. This text amendment will be a ,.- process oriented ordinance. Each new conservation district that is approved by the City Council will require Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments as well as the development of design guidelines for the specific conservation district. NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED ZONING The goal of Neighborhood-based zoning is to ensure that existing development patterns are taken into consideration when constructing a new home or adding on to an existing home. For example,front yard setbacks for new development are calculated from the average of the front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes; additional building height may be obtained if it is consistent with the height of the surrounding structures; and accessory structures may be built as long as the size and location are compatible with the neighborhood. In other words, neighborhood-based zoning is a tool which generally focuses on dimensional regulations,such as,building setbacks,height,exterior wall height, size,grade level, and lot coverage.This tool can be used, not to preserve historic resources,but to maintain some of the character and consistent development patterns of the neighborhood. Preservation Program 10 I P a g e June 29,2011 BASE ZONING Base zoning represents the general residential zoning created for use city-wide such as the R- 1/5,000 zoning district. This type of zoning is a generic residential regulation designed for broad application throughout the City and is the least regulatory and least representative of specific neighborhood scale and character. A single zoning designation,such as R-1/5,000 has been used in areas as diverse as Rose Park and the Yalecrest neighborhood where the scale, development pattern and character are very different. Base zoning relies on maximum and minimum standards for height,lot size,lot width,setbacks and building coverage to limit development. In many cases neighborhoods developed over time with a specific character and pattern that is not represented by the base zoning district. For example,many neighborhoods developed with a single story character where the ridge heights might average twenty feet or less,even though the base zoning district allows a ridge height of thirty feet. As a result new construction allowed by the base zone may not be compatible with the size and scale of surrounding homes. For this reason,Salt Lake City developed the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District(YCI) and then adopted city-wide residential infill development standards that were incorporated into all of the single family and two-family base zoning districts. However, because residential infill development standards are applied city-wide,they,too,are not designed with the character of a specific neighborhood in mind and are in a sense"generic". The following graphic illustrates the hierarchy of zoning tools that the City currently has available,or in the case of conservation districts,a tool currently being developed. At the bottom of the inverted the pyramid is Base Zoning which as mentioned above is the least restrictive,progressing to Local Historic District designation which would be the most restrictive zoning tool available currently. See the graphic on the next page Preservation Program II 1 P a g e June 29, 2011 Hierarchy of Zoning Tools 4014, Local Historic District Conservation District Decreasing Level of Local Regulation Neighborhood-based Zoning Base / onin ♦ Amok ZONING TOOLS MENU It is important to define the characteristics of each zoning tool and provide a menu to help neighborhoods and Staff to determine which particular approach is best suited to their interests. The following table represents the menu option available and the characteristics of each zoning tool in an effort to provide initial guidance on direction. A neighborhood interested in pursuing new regulatory options for maintaining the character of the neighborhood could review the characteristics of each zoning tool and determine the level of protection that seems appropriate for their needs. For example,if a neighborhood is interested in protecting the representative spacing of homes in the area, design characteristics such as covered front porches and large overhanging eaves,the potential options would be neighborhood-based zoning or conservation district. If the standards to protect the neighborhood character can be administered over the counter,a neighborhood-based zoning district similar to the YCI may be appropriate. Preservation Program 12 1 P a g e June 29,2011 Zoning Tools Menu OPTIONAL TYPES OF CHARACTERISTICS NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATION Base Zoning Districts • Typical zoning standards defining dimensional,height and bulk standards • Standards not based on specific neighborhood development patterns • No design review process Neighborhood-Based Zoning • Zoning standards developed for specific neighborhoods-based on the existing development pattern;e.g.,Yalecrest Compatible Infill standards • No design review process or design guidelines Conservation Districts • Preserve Community Character • Extent generally limited to individual or multiple subdivision boundaries • Regulation based on characteristics/needs of individual districts as defined by residents/owners of the area • New ordinance needed for each Conservation District • Design standards in ordinance and potential development of design guidelines for each district • Review could be over-the-counter,administrative or discretionary review by a Commission- HLC,PC or new review authority • No demolition restrictions • No local tax incentives(avoid disincentive for LHD designation) • Potential limited use of preservation incentives(avoid disincentive for LHD designation) Local Historic Districts • Preserve Local History/Fabric • Design Review based on Secretary of Interior standards for all exterior modifications • Demolition Restrictions • Extent generally limited to individual or multiple subdivision boundaries • State and Federal income tax credits (available in LHD if also listed on the National Register) • Potential use of local preservation incentives If the neighborhood would prefer more stringent design criteria, including the use of specific design guidelines,then a conservation district may be the option to choose. In contrast, if the local history and fabric of the area is important,including the retention of existing structures (limit demolition) the neighborhood may wish to pursue the designation of a local historic district. INCENTIVES The Planning Staff has conducted research on incentives that are offered by other jurisdictions across the country. We have found that there is a broad range of incentives available and that many cities employ a variety of incentives to satisfy the needs of the community. The range of incentives includes financial incentives (grants,loans,property and sales tax reductions), Preservation Program 13 1 P a g e June 29,2011 process oriented incentives (fee modification/waiver,priority processing),and code incentives (density/parking/building code modifications). FINANCIAL INCENTIVES The federal and state government offer income tax credits as an incentive for rehabilitating historic buildings listed on the National Register.The federal tax credits are available only for major rehabilitation work on"income-producing" (commercial or residential rental) buildings; private residences are excluded. State tax credits are available for rehabilitation of residential properties that are owner occupied or rentals. The credits are calculated as a percentage of the rehabilitation costs, i.e., 20%for buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 10%for non-National Register buildings (for commercial but not residential rental purposes) constructed before 1936 that are eligible for listing on the National Register. In both instances,the tax credit is based on a percentage of the rehabilitation costs and does not include the purchase price.The tax credit applies to the building owner's federal income tax for the year in which the project is completed and approved. If it is not all needed in that year the tax credit may be carried back 3 years or forward up to 15 years. Any work on the interior or the exterior of the building which meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation qualifies for the tax credit.A building must be kept at least five years in order to avoid any recapture of the tax credit by the federal government. A similar tax credit is available from the State for buildings listed on the National Register which are used as a private (owner-occupied) residence or residential rental. If an owner expends a minimum of$10,000,and the work is approved, 20% of the rehabilitation costs may be claimed as a tax credit.Twenty percent of all qualified rehabilitation costs may be deducted from taxes owed on your Utah income or corporate franchise tax. All of the proposed, ongoing or completed work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).The project must be completed within 36 months. Low Interest Loans: Many cities provide low interest rehabilitation loans for historic resources.Among them are Ogden and Park City. The terms of these loans and what requirements are imposed differ from city to city. Salt Lake City offers some loan programs through the Redevelopment Agency and Housing and Neighborhood Development but these loans are not specifically directed at historic properties. The Utah Heritage Foundation is a non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve, protect,and promote Utah's historic environment through public awareness,advocacy,and active preservation. The Foundation fulfills its mission through a wide range of programs and activities which reach communities throughout the state. Preservation Program 14 1 P a g e June 29,201 1 • One of their programs,the Revolving Fund Loan Program,provides property owners with technical assistance and loans to purchase,restore,and rehabilitate historically significant properties. Loans may be considered for buildings on the local or national registers, or eligible for these registers (whether formally designated or not). In general terms,this means that a building must be at least 50 years old and retains its architectural integrity(A rule of thumb: Would the original owner recognize the building today?) Loan funds can be used for acquisition,restoration,rehabilitation and repair,and project- related costs such as engineering services,architect's fees,and permits. Conditional use for Adaptive re-use of Historic Buildings: The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to allow for a limited number of non-residential uses to be located in a residentially zoned Landmark site through the conditional use process. The types of uses identified in Zoning Ordinance section 21A.24.010.T are limited to the following uses: • Bed and breakfast establishments • House museums • Offices • Reception Centers While this provision has been utilized in the past,Staff has identified the need to broaden the types of non-residential uses that could be allowed,which may not only encourage preservation of more Landmark Sites but may also increase a more sustainable/livable City by allowing some lower intensive non-residential uses within neighborhoods to provide services within neighborhoods. In addition,the criteria may be modified so more Landmark Sites are eligible for adaptive reuse. Currently,the regulations are fairly strict and just address those structures that otherwise would may have no viable economic use. Modification of this provision will require a Zoning Ordinance text amendment. It is important to note that this provision applies only to Landmark Sites and is not available to all contributing structures within a local historic district. Low Application Fees: Development fees for a project can represent a substantial cost to a property owner or developer. Salt Lake City has purposefully kept its application fees for historic preservation projects very low. Historic Preservation projects that can be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness at the Planning Counter do not require an application fee. Other application fees range from approximately$27 for significant alterations of principal structures, to approximately$230 for new construction within a local historic district (all new construction projects are required to be considered by the Historic Landmark Commission during a public hearing). The application fee for demolition of a contributing structure is approximately$450. The conditional use fee for an adaptive re-use of a historic property in a residential zone is approximately$660. Questions for the City Council 1. Should the City eliminate historic preservation application fees (except for demolition)? Preservation Program 15 1 P a g e June 29, 2011 2. Should the adaptive re-use provisions be revised to accommodate a broader Amok range of uses and should the criteria be less stringent so the process is more broadly available for any Landmark Site 3. Should the City consider developing other financial incentives such as a revolving loan fund program? If so,how would this be funded? PROCESS ORIENTED INCENTIVES Process oriented incentives may be the easiest to implement and can reduce the time required for granting approvals. Granting approvals through administrative processes rather than requiring a public hearing before the Historic Landmark Commission can save a property owner or a contractor a significant amount of time. Currently,less than 10%of CoA applications are considered by the Historic Landmark Commission. This percentage applications that required a public hearing before the Historic Landmark Commission was substantially reduced following amendments to the Historic Preservation Overlay standards in 1995. Most administrative approvals can be granted within a week with many being approved on the spot. Any project that must go to the Historic Landmark Commission for a public hearing generally requires four to eight weeks of processing time. In addition, providing priority processing of building permits (similar to the City's program for priority processing of potential LEED certified projects) is an option to consider. Questions for the City Council 1. Should the City implement priority process of building permits for historic preservation projects (except for demolition request?) ADMINISTRATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM CONSISTENCY One of the most important aspects in gaining and maintaining the trust of property owners, developers,contractors and decision-makers is consistent application of policies, regulations and guidelines. The Planning Division is working on a number of projects in an effort to ensure consistent administration of the Preservation Program. Staff is working on or is planning amendments to the Historic Preservation regulations,guidelines and Staff organization. A new Preservation Interpretation Review Team has been created and training for Staff and commissioners will be on-going. These efforts are further discussed below: Preservation Program 16 1 P a g e June 29. 2011 Regulations Historic Preservation Overlay Fine-tuning: The Planning Staff have identified various amendments that are needed to the Historic Preservation Overlay section of the Zoning Ordinance. In many cases,the processes,standards and provisions of 21A.34.020 can be clarified to eliminate confusion and conflicting provisions. One issue that was raised recently during the Yalecrest designation proposal was that the Zoning Ordinance has competing provisions regarding who is authorized to initiate an application for a new historic district. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission have considered an amendment to the local historic district designation process and passed motions to have the City Council consider allowing the HLC to initiate petitions regarding the Historic Preservation Overlay. This petition has not yet been transmitted to the City Council. However,following the Yalecrest designation process, it is evident that broader revisions to the Historic Preservation Overlay provisions regarding the creation of new local historic districts are warranted and amendments to the process will be forthcoming. The Planning Staff is currently preparing text amendments to Chapter 21A.34.020— Historic Preservation Overlay District to resolve these issues. These amendments are scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council by the end of 2011. Demolition and Economic Hardship Amendments: Amendments are also proposed for the demolition provisions to clarify the process and make some changes to the standards, such as, defining a method to deal with demolition by neglect. The amendments to the demolition provisions may be combined with a proposal to make more extensive changes to the economic hardship provision of the ordinance. The purpose of Economic Hardship is to provide an applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that denial of an application for demolition of a structure with local historic designation will result in an economic hardship. All property owners are protected from overly burdensome regulations through the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Economic Hardship provisions provide assurance to property owners that relief is available in situations where the impact of a particular action proves to be especially harsh. It is important to clarify that Economic Hardship relates to the property not the property owner. The particular circumstances of the owner,independent of the property, should be irrelevant to the question of whether the property can realize a reasonable return on investment, or whether a viable use of the property remains. The anticipated amendments will be focused on clarifying the requirements to determine Economic Hardship and to improve the process.The issues have been identified through discussions with current and past Commissioners, Economic Hardship Review panelists,and applicants. The process of amending the Economic Hardship provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will begin in 2012 following the adoption of other Historic Preservation Overlay fine- tuning efforts. Preservation Program 17 1 P a g e June 29. 2011 Other Amendments to the Historic Preservation Overlay Amok • Creating new standards that regulate proposed changes to historic landscapes,which in Salt Lake City might include historic parks such as Pioneer Park, Liberty Park, Reservoir Park and Memory Grove. Some work has been completed on this proposal but other projects have been given a higher priority. • Creating provisions to deal with demolition by neglect. • Streamlining the process for certain approvals by granting the Historic Landmark Commission the authority to approve certain measures that are appropriate in an historic district,whereas now they would be a recommending body to another Board (such as signage that is approved by the Board of Adjustment). Rezoning Local Historic Districts: The base zoning that underlies the Historic Preservation Overlay districts in the City is quite varied. Although the majority of our local historic districts are residential in nature there is a wide variety of residential, commercial and downtown zoning districts within our historic districts. It is important to revisit the base zoning because it may or may not be a contributing factor to the continued health of the City's local historic districts. If the base zoning is not consistent with the historic development pattern, an inherent incentive may exist for developers to assemble parcels to facilitate new development that often leads to demolition requests. For example, the Central City historic district, especially to the north of 400 South has base zoning districts that allow a much higher density than the existing development represents. This sends an unintended message to the development community that there is potential for redevelopment which may lead to requests for demolition of contributing structures. This evolution is evident on the block bounded by 300 South, 600 East, 400 South and 500 East. The historic development pattern on this block included single family residential development on Vernier Court (approximately 350 S. on 500 East) and along 600 East and some smaller-scale multi-family apartment blocks. In part because of the higher density zoning that existed and even some zoning map amendments that were approved by the City, contributing structures were demolished after going through the economic hardship process. As a result, Emigration Court, a high density condominium project was built where one story single family homes and smaller apartments existed. A similar story could be told about the block which Smith's Market Place now occupies. Analyzing the adopted policies for a geographic area is also important. For example, this portion of the Central City Historic District is also located within the City's Urban Apartment Neighborhood and is in proximity to a fixed transit station. This is an example where policies may conflict and specific analysis needs to be made to determine whether there is a balance between the values of those policies. Similarly, it is important to periodically revisit the boundaries of the local historic districts . , to ensure that they are still valid. With the exception of the Westmoreland Place historic Preservation Program 18 1 P age June 29.2011 district that was created in 2010, all of the existing local historic districts in the City are at least twenty years old. Through time, all developed areas evolve and change is inevitable. During the life of a local historic district, it is possible that the land use and the buildings have changed to such an extent that the local historic district designation no longer makes sense. The Central City historic district provides another example of this type of evolution. The 400 South corridor through this district (between 500 East and 700 East) has no contributing structures. A visitor to this area would be hard pressed to recognize the existing development pattern as a portion of a local historic district. This type of disparity causes confusion for property owners do not understand why they have to go through a Historic Landmark Commission approval process for an alteration or addition to a building located in a fifteen or twenty year old strip mall. From the examples noted above, it is easy to see the importance of periodically reviewing the base zoning and the boundaries of local historic districts. The zoning can provide an incentive to demolish historic structures and improper or outdated historic district boundaries can cause unnecessary process for property owners and degrade support for the City's Historic Preservation program. Questions for the City Council 1. Should the Administration consider amendments to the criteria in 21A.34.020.G and H - standards for alteration to Landmark Sites and contributing structures and alteration of non-contributing structures to ensure the standards provide greater flexibility for alterations on secondary facades? 2. Should the Planning Division begin a process to analyze the base zoning, land use and other City goals within local historic districts to determine if the zoning is complimentary to historic preservation, or if not,whether the base zoning in place is intended to support other City goals such as transit oriented development or housing? 3. Should the Planning Division examine the boundaries of the City's local historic districts to evaluate the appropriateness of the boundaries based on the historic resources, land uses and other City goals to determine if the current historic district boundaries are appropriate? Design Guidelines Since the adoption of the Residential Design Guidelines by the City Council in 1997,the Historic Landmark Commission,Staff and the public have been utilizing the guidelines to make design related decision on projects within local historic districts. The design guidelines reflect the Zoning Ordinance standards in the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district and the nationally recognized Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The design guidelines provide a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic Preservation Program 19 1 P a g e June 29,2011 resources and serve as an educational tool for property owners who seek to make improvements that may affect historic resources. Residential Design Guidelines: The Residential Design Guidelines were adopted nearly 15 years ago and have been used extensively during that time period as an educational tool for the public and a policy and decision-making guide for the Commission and Staff. With the evolution of best practices for the creation of design guidelines,it is apparent that the Residential Design Guidelines document needs to be streamlined and better organized to present the information in a more concise and intuitive manner and to clarify that these are guidelines,not standards. In addition,changes need to be made to address appropriate new best practices and the use of new materials. Staff has begun working on this reorganization and this summer will begin discussions with the Historic Landmark Commission about the revisions. Staff anticipates transmitting these revisions to the City Council prior to the end of 2011. Commercial Design Guidelines: Though most of the historic resources within the City are located within residential districts,there are many commercial Landmark Sites outside of a local historic district and commercial sites within local historic districts. The Historic Landmark Commission is currently working on the creation of new commercial design guidelines. The Historic Landmark Commission worked with a consultant who prepared a draft document which is now being reviewed and modified by the Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission in anticipation of forwarding a final product to the City Council for adoption by the end of 2011. Sign Guidelines: The Planning Staff is also working on design guidelines for signs in , historic districts. The draft of the Commercial Design Guidelines included a section on signs but the Planning Division believes that additional work is needed on the proposed sign guidelines. The Historic Landmark Commission will begin discussing the concept of the sign guidelines during the July meeting of the Commission. Other Design Guidelines: Other types of design guidelines that would be beneficial to develop include: guidelines for multi-family buildings to address the issues faced with the alteration and new construction of multi-family apartment and condominiums; guidelines for institutional uses such as places of worship or government buildings; and guidelines for historic landscapes such as Memory Grove, Liberty and Pioneer parks. There have been several instances where the Historic Landmark Commission, Staff and applicants could have benefited from such guidelines. Division Organization — Hierarchy With the growth in the Planning Division in the last few years,the Division management team has needed to re-assess the organization within the office to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each planner. The Planning Division is again evaluating the current organization chart because of the addition of new planners. At times in the past,the Planning Division has relied on a Senior Planner to administer the Historic Preservation program and be the main liaison between the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Staff. Because of 4 '4, the growth in the preservation program,with respect to the number of planners actively Preservation Program 20 1 P a g e June 29. 2011 working on historic preservation projects and the number of historic resources,it is important for the Division to re-evaluate the organization of the program. The Planning Division has written specific role definitions for all Planners involved in the Historic Preservation program. The Staff roles are discussed below and listed in Exhibit 3. Under the direction of the Assistant Planning Director,the administration of the Historic Preservation program will be the responsibility of a Planner Manager. The Planning Manager will provide support and coordination for the Historic Landmark Commission,administer the Preservation Interpretation Review Team (PIRT),provide direction regarding program goals, assign projects and provide advice and direction to the Preservation team regarding the issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness. Senior Planners will primarily be responsible for long-range planning projects related to historic preservation such as implementation of the Preservation Plan, provide preservation assistance on other master planning projects, coordinate education efforts with the public, Commissioners and Staff. Senior Planners will also coordinate and/or prepare historic surveys, administer preservation grants such as the Certified Local Government grant and contracts with consultants. Principal Planners will process applications for Certificates of Appropriateness (CoA), process ordinance amendments, assist with educational efforts and long-range planning and master plan projects. Principal Planners assigned to work at the Planning Counter are the first line of contact for most customers who need a CoA. These planners are very important to the overall success of the Historic Preservation program because they often are responsible for the public's first impression of the program. Their job is to help the public understand the required processes and regulations, process simple CoA applications at the Planning Counter and other more involved applications that may take several days to process. The secretaries are responsible for the preparation and distribution of HLC packets and meeting minutes,record keeping, noticing for public hearings and other meetings,assist planners with research and provide basic information to the public. Under this organizational hierarchy,the Planning Division is making a shift from a team of one or two "Preservation Planners"to"Planners who work on Preservation projects". This philosophical shift spreads the workload over a greater number of planners but allows the Staff to be more efficient and to speed up the majority of CoA application reviews that are handled administratively while also creating more time to work on process and ordinance improvements for the Preservation Program. Also,under this organizational hierarchy, the Planning Staff is working to increase the number of CoAs that can be handled at the Planning Counter while tl e customer waits. Preservation Program 21 1 P a g e June 29, 2011 Preservation Interpretation Review Team The Planning Staff has created a Preservation Interpretation Review Team (PIRT)to help improve consistency in ordinance and guideline interpretation. The goal of this team is to provide a vehicle to promote consistency between all Staff members who use the design guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance standards for historic preservation. Specific questions regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance standards and other adopted regulations relating to historic preservation are discussed and decisions made on how the regulations will be interpreted from that point forward. All decisions are being documented on a searchable data base for future reference. The team consists on the CED Director and Deputy Director,Planning Director and Assistant Director,and the Planning Manager responsible for the Historic Preservation program and planners with preservation projects and is regularly scheduled to meet once a week. As Staff reviews interpretation questions,our standards and guidelines can be compared to best practices and the team can identify needed changes to policies,regulations or guidelines. All projects slated to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission are required to be presented at the PIRT meeting,prior to scheduling on the HLC agenda to ensure the PIRT team is in agreement with the Staff recommendation. 4611,4, Training The Planning Division believes training is a very important part of our mission and we work diligently to find training opportunities for our Planners and Commissioners. In this age of digital information,training opportunities have expanded tremendously with the advent of webinars and teleconferences. Through the American Planning Association, National Trust and other national organizations,the Planning Division has regular opportunities to attend training seminars presented by national leaders in the field. The Planning Division has purchased access to training videos and taken advantage of local training opportunities such as the Utah Heritage Foundation annual conference. The Planning Division has also implemented a rotating system for sending planners to conferences for training. Within the last year planners have attended historic preservation conferences in Texas and Colorado. In addition,the Planning Division has set up a conference room that enables Staff to participate in webinars and other training formats as well as to work more closely as a team of planners on preservation projects. Discussion with Other Preservation Practitioners The Preservation management team has started a series of discussion with other historic preservation practitioners in the State to investigate how they implement the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and to understand the processes that they require for Y . different types of projects. We have found that Salt Lake City approves a greater percentage of �' � R- � Preservation Program 2 � e June 29.2011 CoAs administratively than many other jurisdictions. Several entities place a higher standard of review for alterations that are readily visible from the street than alterations that occur on secondary facades of buildings such as the side and rear of structures. Some of the jurisdictions have similar struggles of how to handle the replacement of windows,especially in this era of rising energy costs. All of the jurisdictions that we have talked with have expressed the frustration of misinformation spread by companies selling vinyl replacement windows. These companies use the argument of sustainability for replacing original wood windows. However, there is a body of research that indicates that maintaining,and repairing original windows can be energy efficient and is a very sustainable practice. EDUCATION/PUBLIC OUTREACH An increasing element of the City's historic preservation program should be directed at improving public outreach opportunities. The importance of this effort cannot be underestimated because the ability to provide concise and educational information to a broad audience is paramount. In this time of digital information growth, the Planning Division is beginning to implement various new methods to broaden our outreach efforts to the public (see Exhibit 4). Open City Hall is one example of an on-line tool that we have used to great effect on controversial subjects, such as the Yalecrest designation process. This process allows the city to disseminate information and issue documents on-line describing current projects. Open City Hall allows one to provide comments and view comments from others on the same topic. The Planning Division is designing a new Historic Preservation web page that will be easier for the public to find, use and access important information regarding the City's preservation program, standards and educational materials. The Division plans to increase its efforts to create educational materials for various types of historic projects and provide links to informative websites providing historic information. The Planning Division has prepared brochures to help disseminate information to the public. These types of resources can be placed on the Preservation webpage and distributed as hard-copy brochures at the Planning Counter, other City offices and distributed at public meetings (see Exhibit 5). Providing educational materials help property owners to explore the thought behind the regulations and understand the benefit of obtaining permits and ensuring that all construction meets life/safety standards. This year the Historic Landmark Commission is reinstating its awards program (see Exhibit 6) to spotlight good historic preservation projects. Unlike past years where the Historic Landmark Commission made all the nominations and chose award winners, this year a public component will be included. The Planning Division is asking the public for some nominations, similar to a "people's choice" award. Staff will use the occasion of the awards ceremony to publicize the program and try to reach a broader slice of the public by involving the news media. Other types of public outreach that can be beneficial are participation in street fairs such as those held in the Avenues, 9th and 9th and Sugar House. Staff takes the opportunity to meet Preservation Program 23 P a g e June 29. 2011 with other groups such as community groups, contractors, realtors and window and fence contractors when possible. These meetings can be very beneficial and educational and allow for productive dialogue among groups who often do not communicate. GRANTS FOR PRESERVATION Cities and counties can receive matching grants to assist in the administration of historic preservation programs and projects through the Certified Local Government program which is administered by the SHPO. The grants are to assist local governments in documenting and promoting the preservation of historic sites. Examples of eligible projects include conducting architectural surveys, nominating properties to the National Register of Historic Places, printing walking tour booklets, preparing feasibility studies and working drawings for property improvements, and rehabilitation of National Register properties. Local governments can become "certified" by passing a preservation ordinance and appointing a preservation commission. The grant funding ranges typically between $3,000 and $6,000 on a biannual basis. Local governments are required to match the grant amount on a 50/50% basis with local funds, donations, and services. Salt Lake City is a certified local government and has used this grant to help fund historic surveys, award programs and educational opportunities for Historic Landmark Commissioners and Staff. At times other grants may be available that can help finance historic rehabilitation projects, documentation of historic resources and design costs. For example,Salt Lake City has obtained - at least two grants to assist with documentation and repair/rehabilitation of the Fisher Mansion. Exhibits: 1. Preservation Tools 2. Historic Preservation Staff Roles 3. Changing Public Involvement 4. Preservation Awards Program 5. Example - Historic Preservation Brochure Preservation Program 24 1 P a g e June 29,2011 Preservation Tools TOOLS Other Cities Priority Preservation&Character Policy Preservation Plan &Annual Priorities Charleston,San Antonio,Glendale,Albany,Phoenix Econ Dev&Benefits Study&Program Denver Cultural Resources National Register Historic Districts,Landmark ALL Buildings/Structure Preservation&Conservation Incentives Fed&State Tax Credits&Easements Portland,Nashville,Washington DC Local Property Tax Rebate/Reduction Pasadena,San Antonio Sales Tax Rebate—Rehab Materials Revolving Low Interest Loans Portland,San Antonio Technical Rehab&Pres Project Support Aspen City Grants—Area/Need Targeted Glendale,Portland,San Antonio,Phoenix,Washington DC Funding Sources—National/Regional Portland Expedited Review HP/Zoning/Permits Fee Waivers—Applications&Permits Pasadena,Aspen Zoning Waivers Parking/density/PUDs Pasadena,Portland,Aspen,Seattle Special Building Cede Provisions Portland,Aspen,Seattle,Washington DC Transferable Development Rights Aspen,Nashville Ordinance Provisions&Regulations Local Historic District&Landmark Provisions ALL Design Guideline Series-City HD/LMs Portland,San Antonio LHD-Compatible Zoning Revisions San Francisco,Charleston,San Antonio,Nashville,Portland, Conservation District Provisions Pasadena Design Guidelines-Conservation Districts San Antonio Transitional LHD Protection Overlay Context-Sensitive Form Based Provisions Spec Design Review Area Provisions Pasadena,Oklahoma City,Portland,Phoenix Special Area Design Guidelines Pasadena,Oklahoma City,Portland,Phoenix Dimensional Compatible Infill Provisions Pasadena Effective Demolition Definition Cultural Landscapes&Historic Parks Boston TOOLS Current Salt Lake City Tools-In Black Further tools Identified in the Draft City Preservation Plan or used by other cities-In Red Preservation Program June 28. 2011 PRESERVATION TEAM ROLES Assistant Planning Director • Coordination between Administration, City Council and HLC members and Planning Manager • Policy development and direction for Preservation Team Planning Manager • Manage preservation program and coordinate program goals • Coordinate with Assistant Planning Director regarding preservation program direction from the HLC, Administration and City Council • Administration of the HLC o Scheduling meetings o Setting agendas o Coordination with Chair and Vice-chair o Review staff reports and other work products • Administration/coordination of Preservation Interpretation Review Team (PIRT) • Make assignments/monitor project timelines • Assist Planners/provide direction • Provide advice and direction on review and issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness (CoA) Senior Planners • Long range planning projects related to historic preservation o Ordinance revisions o Master Plans c Implementation of the Preservation Plan as directed • Education o Public o City Officials o HLC members o Staff • Review of proposed new districts • Coordinate/prepare historic surveys and implement survey recommendations • Design guidelines - creation and major amendments • Administration of Preservation grants (CLG) and contracts with consultants • Monitor webpage content Preservation Program June 28. 2011 Principal Planners Jew • Process CoA applications • Process ordinance fine-tuning/minor map amendments • Assist Senior Preservation Planners with education and major projects Planning Counter Planners • First line of contact with applicant and walk-in customers • Basic education of public regarding process, ordinance standards and guidelines • Review and issuance of basic/routine CoAs Secretaries • Preparation and distribution of HLC packets, meeting minutes • Record keeping • Noticing for public hearings and meetings • Coordination and set-up for Commission meetings • Assist planners with research • Provide basic information to the public Preservation Program June 28, 2011 CHANGING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OBy:Nole Walkingshaw,Planning Programs Supervisor The traditional public input process tends to engage the same participants. Salt Lake City is a very diverse community with very active citizens. We know there are civically minded groups and individuals that are not participating in the development of public policy,for various reasons. Face to Face interaction is very important to public process development, but it is hard for many people to attend workshops,open houses,and public hearings. Therefore,the City is looking at new ways of engaging the public to participate in important policy development. Social media and technology are changing how we communicate, gather information and engage government.Issues like;liveability,sustainability,multi-mode transportation,urban farms,buy local, etc.are important to various groups in the City.There is a push to localize your physical life, and globalize your community. These movements 4 change land-use policy and we need to adapt and engage if we want to re- main relevant and representative oft the values of the community. How people participate varies especially between generational and cultural lines. Salt Lake City is building a dynamic platform where people can find out what is happening, state their opinions about specific projects, identify their values,build upon the values of others,broaden their perspective of the community,and engage with their neighbors and people who may or ® may not share the same values, but who do share a desire for a better tomorrow. This platform will develop creative online venues that engage citizens' creative and collaborative abilities and target groups often unrepresented in the public process.We are also hopeful that this will introduce new people to the public process and encourage more people to speak up and get involved in issues that affect them. New Tools and Technologies The City is working on ways to emulate the traditional public process of open houses and community meetings prior to the formal public hearing in a digital way so those who for whatever reason are not able to come to meetings can still participate. There are a few such electronic tools i currently in place.The City is trying to emulate,not replace,the face to face communications. It is also very important for us to let the people in "/ meetings know what is happening online and the online community to - :> know what is happening in our meetings. _, :- • Open City Hall Open City Hall is an on-line forum for civic engagement.You can read about certain topics and issues, see what others are saying about it, and then post your own statement. City officials will read the statements and incorporate them into their decision making processes. • When you post your first statement, you will be asked for your name and home address. This confidential information is only used to identify statements from residents in and near Salt Lake City -so that users know which statements are from local residents. (Continued on page 4) Open City Hall is run by Pak Denu,cctc'., a non-partisan company whose mission is to broaden civic engagement and build public trust in government. Salt Lake City has been using Open City Hall for almost one year.As of June 13,2011,there have been 5003 visitors,668 participants and 505 subscribers. Unique Visitors soon soon 4000`--- _ 4 000 3000 --- -- 3000 2000—. -____ 2000 Jut 28 Sep 30 --� Dec 2--- Feb 4 Apr 10 Jun 13 R Total Visitcrs ■Visitors who also participated ▪Visitors wfio at so participated and s:.cribed We have been very pleased by the success of the participation and are very impressed by the quality of the statements being made. Jtttp://www.slcuov.enm/opencitvhall UserVoice The UserVoice forums are a new addition to the City's way of obtaining feedback and we will develop • forums using this technology for major projects and policy development.The UserVoice forums are intended to be more interactive than the Open City Hall forum. It allows dialogue about issues as policy decisions are being made,helps identify important changes that the community wants and allows individuals to participate on their own time. htth://slcnlannine.uservnice.cnm/forums/I I05(S-salt-lake-cite-planning Quick Response Codes Do you wonder what are those funny digital squares we are seeing everywhere these days? They are Quick Response or QR codes. A QR code is a matrix barcode which can be read by camera telephones using a barcode reader application.There are several free"apps"available through the I-Tunes store or Android Market Place. The City will be using more of these on signs,agendas and other notices in the future.Our goal is to try and give people quick access for information in a mobile format and allow for civic participation when it is convenient for a person to do so,rather than having to attend a time-specific meeting. You can download a QR App and scan this code to let the City know what you would change in Salt Lake City(right). ■ •• -' El r r kh.l. L{ L' Public engagement continues to be a high priority of Salt Lake City,including rd:"FJ _C T,r:•ei:it the Planning Division. If you feel that you would like to get involved but do O '1 0 not know how, please contact us and we can help direct you. We want ' 1 everyone who is willing to participate in the public process to do so. Please 11 _Q know that you are invited,welcome,and we want to hear from you! 0 _,-0 +p - 0 C Exhibit 4 C Example — Preservation Awards pProgram Preservation Program June 28, 2011 .., , ..... .. ...., ,...r..„„:„.„ ________ ____________ _ __ _ _ , ....._..„, .. _ ... , , . . , , ,! ._ .... , _. il ., -.,! . .....,__„:„..„: ... ,_,___. _ .... .... . =mill iffir-, .-:.:_;:learitirt:-...12. .* . . . .. "a m"". .1_P. . .dtoi‘-: Quarterly Publication of the Salt Lake City Planning Division VOLUME 4:ISSUE 5 ., _July—September 2011. SALT LAKE CITY'S 2011 INSIDE THIS PRESERVATION AWARDS PR0 RAM ISSUE Preservation Award Program 1 TT Opportunities to Serve 2 his year,the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission celebrates Changing Public the best of preservation by presenting Preservation Awards to individuals, Involvement 3-4 organizations and companies whose projects demonstrate a commitment 400 South Livability to excellence in historic preservation. The purpose of the awards is to Project 5-6 recognize meaningful achievement in preservationthrough increased ncrease ' Sustainabili[yCityCode historic � :77i-+ Initiative Update 7-8 public awareness, appreciation and , 4 y._4•'- West Salt Lake Master support for historic preservation through- .%.-S Plan 9 out the city. :"t Planning for Sugar House •L� Streetcar no-„ Have you noticed improvements to a ,'"' a(.. •.• property in your neighborhood? Have ..''.,;,,;-,-_. !'+ r1 Preservation conferenceyou done work on a property you own? .7t`;::-. 'Report 12-14 The Historic Landmark Commission in- 3<---%5Planning Meeting :� ,f;ia�• - Schedule 1s vites you to participate in celebrating they , _;-3 -::.__• preservation of Salt Lake City's heritage y=?b•1.1,c:-1... -- •StaffSpotLight 16 by nominating a preservation projec ".. ' ..; ; -. -'�1 1 1 and/or property owner deserving of ' %" SALT LAKE CITY- recognition with a Preservation Award. -L ,�1 PLANNING Presentation of the awards will take place t�/.'. ".� • DIVISION in mid-August. 451 S STATE STREET - ry, ROOM 406 It's not too late! Nominations may be ALI ' - SALT LAKE CITY,UT made by completing the nomination form found at;';_r:_slcgo.-.cornlcedl 84111 planning or in the Planning Division office. Questions concerning the © 801.535.7757 Preservation Awards Program may be directed to Janice Lew at Planning Permits 801.535.7625 orjanice.ler:(a�slcgov.com. The deadline for submittals is July Counter 8,2011. 801.535.7700 • 0 Exhibit 5 Example — Historic Preservation 0 Brochure Preservation Program June 28, 2011 Thegreenest,building is the one DID YOU KNOW THAT LEED OFFERS �‘,''!�°%! already built. —Carl Elefante. CREDITS FOR PRESERVATION PRACTICES? Historic Landmark Commission Sustainable development is about. but not limited to. environmental sustain ability. There is far more to sustainable Historic Preservation development than green buildings.— Donald Rypkema and Sustainability What is the number INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE onegreen myth? g �,„ , , ;r` '" •`f f • y HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OF THE . ' Y I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION r *' ., ' ,,.7......11i , y .� Y- • .• Regarding old buildings,the most prevalent - ` „•r• ' ag myth is that new windows will provide for more y "'•-A „�, n energy efficiency. In truth the majority of .' :L�•r.i:''SI 1 I� , energy loss is through the roof,not the k �, " k`-- windows. L7"....6:.;.:.:,�..a\\`",W!//�. 4t f :. .. . ... ,. 4In most cases,the time it takes to realize the `r= '.:,f ,;r: .� savings from replacement windows is often cli` A; ., i ! . past the expected life of the window. �,%�,"' i ?� . ::4 'i Once a wood window is replaced with an "" + i" ' } aluminum or vinyl window it cannot be repaired r' r, ' a.. when it fails,beginning a cycle of replacement Salt Lake City Corporation a` �4 1 • M and waste generation. Planning and Zoning Division , M.�' �, 451 South State Street, Room 406 -;r. I "41611‘ • r + • -= i PO Box 145480 4'7" , ' . • —--- • Salt Lake City, UT 84114 '•+ ' i I r —— f. a. F p'. "'�. 801-535-7785 .... ---= I' , . 801-535-6174 •4 www.slcgov.com/ced/hlc 'f11Ci.r y; y I ( ( f . •Stewardship of the • Built Environment:the Emerging Synergies Environmental Sustainability r from Sustainability and Social Sustainability •� j 1[7:; L Historic Preservation by Robert Young /-,- �?L -1 http:// Economic Sustainability r r ;.. �___.---- faculty.arch.utah.edu/p Cultural Sustainability • young/RCW/ACSA2004/ !I Final%20ACSA% i I 20Technology% Research from a variety of disciplines illustrates just i I'•-,,. , !. -J 202004_ry.doc how sustainable historic preservation really is. '',.��"-!40 lliiiiiill 1i111/11 .,i-- ' " • Calculate embodied Ienergy '�-'y .".�• w f w.thegree estbuilding. How is Preservation Sustainable? g A Smaller Carbon Energy Efficiency. Older Enhanced Recycling. Strengthen Local • Green Your Home www.preservationnation. Footprint. Old buildings homes, constructed before According to the EPA, Economy. Restoration is org/magazine/2008/ have a great deal of heating and cooling systems building construction debris better for the economy. A january-february/green- embodied energy. The were as effective as they are constitutes around a third of million dollars spent in new home-tips.html extraction and processing of today, used a variety of all waste generated in this construction generates 30.6 building materials(e.g., wood, methods to maximize the country. Rehabilitation of an jobs. But that same million stone, brick), natural heating historic building reduces dollars in the rehabilitation of • "Sustainability and '" 4 and coolingwaste. Reusingan historic Historic Preservation" the an historic building creates transportation of ' '. _ _` capabilitybuilding recycling 35.4 jobs. by Donovan Rypkema ca abili of the increases rec clip 'may, .. structure. Older those materials, � .� • - by the fact that the entire www.preservation.org/ and labor .-- - • buildings tend to entity is recycled rather than Cultural Sustainability. rypkema.htm represented in E r il `.,i; make wise use just pieces. Maintaining as much of the • abric as preserves the final - �: • � ,., s -�% � of solaroriginal fabric•,;,, •:�. = . Environmental structure mean orientation and Affordable Housing. Old the"stage" on which to learn Impacts of PVC that demolition of an existing have better air flow than new homes disproportionately about and explore our culture. building materials structure is less energy- buildings. Also, research meet the housing needs of www.healthybuilding.net/ efficient than rehabilitating or shows that properly those of modest means. If we Preserving our important sites pvc/ constructing an addition to the maintained old wood windows had to replace the pre-1950s provides for tangible ways to ThorntonPVCSummary. existing structure. can be just as energy-efficient homes occupied by remember and educate about html as new vinyl windows. households below the poverty our past. level it would cost the taxpayers$355 million. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 - FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #1 -- Property Purchase Portion Only STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver, Karen Halladay and Jennifer Bruno CC: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Frank Gray, LuAnn Clark, Chief Chris Burbank, Chief Kurt Cook, Rick Graham, Kay Christensen, Shannon Ashby, and Sherrie Collins Budget Amendment Number One was submitted with 21 adjustment recommendations but without a revenue forecast, which is required by the Council with each budget amendment. Last year the Council confirmed their policy of requiring that a revenue forecast be included with all budget amendments, including the first budget amendment of the fiscal year. While Council staff recognizes it is difficult to provide estimates for the 'new' fiscal year this early, last year there was an emphasis that even updated information from the last months of the previous fiscal year would be of value to the Council. The last data the Council received was provided during the annual budget process, based upon the months preceding that. It is not clear from our documents whether the months of March and April were included with the information provided with the annual budget. Revenue data from May and June has not been provided to the Council. Does the Council wish to confirm their policy again, or change their policy to allow for budget openings to be considered without revenue information? Council staff will complete a full staff report on the budget opening once the revenue projection is received unless the Council prefers to change the policy requiring that a revenue forecast be submitted with each budget opening. Item A-1 is included because it relates to the surplus land account, which is a source of funding for the proposed property purchase in item A-3. A-1: Impact Fee Reallocation - From East Precinct Building -Liberty Precinct to Public Safety Building (PSB)Property Expense ($1,143,871.53 - Source: Impact Fees) The Administration is proposing to recapture and reallocate over $1.1 million of impact fee funds the Council had appropriated in fiscal year (FY) 2010 for land acquisition and conceptual design of an east side precinct, referred to as the Liberty Precinct. In the spring of 2011, the Administration combined the Pioneer and Liberty precincts into one Patrol Division, with officers having City-wide responsibility. As a result of the precinct combination, the Administration indicates the Liberty Precinct facility is no longer a priority project for the Police Department, and therefore would not be included on the Page 1 City's proposed 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Both the Liberty or East Precinct and O Public Safety Building projects are eligible for the use of impact fees. Currently collected impact fees can only be used on projects that are listed on the currently adopted CIP 10-Year Plan. Once the new 10-Year plan is adopted new projects may become eligible for the use of impact fees. The Administration is proposing that the Liberty Precinct impact fees be recaptured and then reallocated as follows: Description Amount Reimburse Surplus Land Account for the purchase of the $661,500 Barnes Bank Building south parking lot. Purchase right-of-way access for PSB underground $193,050 parking. Purchase utility easement located in mixed-use transit- $13,860 oriented development on 400 south. Reimburse other PSB property acquisition expenses $275,462 charged to the bond. Proposed Amount of Reallocation $1,143,872 The initial general bond obligation proposal in 2007 included several components, including an east side precinct, police evidence and crime lab facility, west side fire station and training facility, and a public safety facility. This original bond initiative for $192 million did not pass, however the voters did approve a general obligation bond in 2009 for $125 million. The scaled back proposal did not include the east side precinct or the evidence storage facility. In reviewing the proposed 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan list, the following items were included: • Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility -Amount to be determined - Source - General Fund • Fire Station 3 - Sugarhouse - Replacement - $5.5 million - Source - General Fund ►Does the Council wish to confirm the understanding that an east side joint police/fire precinct is not necessary to provide service to residents? Does the Council wish to clarify its policy on departmental understanding of large capital project needs and related funding sources? For example, although the Liberty and Pioneer precincts were combined in the Spring of 2011 and the Liberty precinct facility is not included as a Police Department priority project on the proposed 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the item is still included on the Police Department's website. It is also listed as a project in the 2006 Sugar House master plan. The Council may wish to ask that these documents reflect the current understanding of the Administration. Page 2 ►Does the Council wish to address this budget amendment item after the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan Council discussion, which is scheduled to be briefed on September 6th? ►The proposed recaptured and reallocated impact fees will reimburse and free up Public Safety Building bond proceeds. Does the Council wish to clarify where to apply the freed up funds of$1,143,872? For example, should the funds be used to reduce the amount of the bond or for another Public Safety Building use? A-3: Purchase Celtic Bank Property From Surplus Land Account) ($1,600,000 - Source: Surplus Land Account) The Administration is requesting approval of funds to purchase 0.64 acres of property from the Celtic Bank fronting on 400 South and adjacent to the Public Safety Building (PSB) site. The property includes the existing bank building and three parking lot areas, located at approximately 340 East 400 South. A portion of the property would be used as part of the PSB project in order to accommodate the lost off-street parking from 300 East, and the majority portion of the property (fronting 400 South) would be used to increase the size of the parcel that will be used as a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The acquisition of the property could also allow for the realignment of Blair Street. According to the transmittal, the purchase would also address previous concerns expressed by the Council about the location of the emergency communication tower for the PSB project and interference with building height. The Administration proposes that funding for the purchase of the property would come from the Surplus Land Account ($1.6 million) and the PSB Bond funds ($250,000), for a total purchase price of$1,850,000. The Administration has provided the latest balance information for the Surplus Land Account, which reflects a balance of$3,180,571 as of August 2011. Using $1.6 million would leave $1,580,571. The Administration anticipates that $868,410 would be reimbursed to the account from the PSB bonds in October. There are also future reimbursements or revenues that are expected in the Surplus Land Account. (A copy of the spreadsheet is attached.) ► The Council may wish to ask for more information about the Administration's plans to develop the TOD sites along 400 South, and whether the property would be developed by the City or sold to a developer for a TOD project. ► The Council may wish to consider requesting a follow-up briefing to further discuss options for the developable portion of the property, including disposition of the building, future ownership, and impact to Blair Street and the PSB site. ► The Council may wish to consider other potential future uses or needs for Surplus Land Account funds, and how other projects might be prioritized given remaining funds. Page 3 SURPLUS LAND ACCOUNT Jun-1l Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-ll Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Future Years Beginning Balance 3,117,071 2,955,571 3,180,571 3,180,571 1,580,571 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 Sale ofGr&l4 chooi 245,000.- 1,205,000 Revenue received from sale of easements and nght of ways 225,1100 PnVesty&fteannthent funding foe property'acquisition ondmvutmlmcv cosh - (2011,000) FY 11 Budget Amendment 04 (161,500) POpama6Paghseo(.Celttc Balk Ty 12BA 01)- (1.600,000) Partial reimbursement ofPSB Surplus Land purchases(FY 12 BA al) 868,410 Potential property purchase 1300 B. I (250,000) ... .. End Balance 2,955,571 3,180,571 3,180,571 1,580,571 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 3,748,981 Other Potential Considerations Potential Sale ofKiwams Felt property(estimate,additional costs may be required) 542,000 Ppeoiial9ak ofC3Warzliaue(estimate) 975,000 Potential sale of frontage fot Barnes Bank black(estimate) 500,000 Potential select toasting fleet 1Yarlily 4,500,000 Potential sale of New Hope Center 275,000 WaaathPRInge - Total Potential Consideration 2,955 571 3 180,571 3,180,571 1,580,571 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,44/4981 2,448.981 2,448,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743 981 2,743 981 6,792,000 Adjusted End Balance 2,955,571 3,180,571 3,180,571 1,580,571 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448,981 2,448981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 2,743,981 10,540,981 E..• RECEIVED ( �( r AUG 0 3 2011 RALPH BECKERMAYOR S 1 `J 1 �(�.r►".,�`.�OMI �,� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Salt Lake City Mayor SCANNED TO:r\ "( CITY COI SMITTAL SCANNED Y:1 ` • DATE: O (l �G\\-OFF�G� Date Received: a 03 2e)// David Eve , C ief of Staff G GpV Date sent to Council: 0 Ocq 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#1 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness(801) 535-7766 Gordon Hoskins(801) 535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#1 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund $ 75,059.00 Other Funds $ 1,519,557.00 CIP Fund $ 1,600,000.00 Total Request $3,194,616.00 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com RA Amto There are 5 new items, 1 of which has an impact on the General Fund. Item A-1 is reallocation of impact fees from the eastside public safety precinct to the new main public safety bldg,and reimburses the surplus land account for prior purchases. Item A-2 restores the entirety of the fleet vehicle replacement budget in the fleet fund. Item A-3 is funding for the purchase of the Celtic Bank Bldg from the surplus land account. Item A-4 proposes adjustments to the general employee pay plan, and Item A-5 is a request for a Compliance Program Direction position. There are 3 housekeeping items. Of the three, 2 items deal with additional funding to the prior year Homeland Security Grant funds. There are 10 grants which require an appropriation. Normally the Department of Finance prepares a revenue projection summary with any budget amendment. Because we are submitting this budget amendment earlier in the year than is our normal practice, in order to complete a property purchase, we cannot provide any meaningful revenue estimates for the current year. We have not yet completed FY 2010-11 for a few major categories, including sales tax. We anticipate a summary of FY 2010-11 as well as a revenue projection for FY 2011-12 will be available when we submit our next budget amendment request in early September. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Amendment #1 —September General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section A New Items 1. Impact Fees Reallocation $.00 on Public Safety Bldgs 2. Fleet Vehicle $351,606.00 Replacement Budget Increase 3. Purchase Celtic Bank $1,600,000.00 Property From Surplus Land Acct 4. Adjustments to Employee $.00 Pay Plan 5. Request for Compliance $75,059.00 $100,078.00 1 $-75,059.00 $-75,059.00 Program Director Position 6. Section B Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Fairmont Park 2. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Liberty Park 32 General Fund Impact Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 3. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Ottinger Hall 4. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Central City 5. Ut State Homeland $125,634.00 Security Grant Section C Grants for New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. Ut State additional $578,850.00 Funding from FY2009 Homeland Security Grant 2. Reallocation of FY2009 $175,000.00 Homeland Security Grant to Salary and Benefit Costs 3. Allocation of Additional $.00 Costs for HSA Savings Accounts to Departments Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. Ut State Clean Fuels $82,500.00 Technology Grant 3 General Fund Impact Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 2. Ut State Emergency $14,776.00 Medical Sery Grant 3. Ut State Emergency $983.00 Medical Sery Grant 4. Ut State Homeland $3,200.00 Security 2011 local Emergency Planning Grant 5. Dept of Interior Water $30,535.00 Conservation Master Plan Grant 6. Ut State Dept of Human $150,000.00 Services Crisis Intervention Training Grant 7. Ut State Juvenile Justice $19,473.00 Asset Forfeiture Grant Section F Donations Section G Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Section I Council Added Items imirk SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30, 2012. PREAMBLE On ,2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6,Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget,including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah. The City's Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto,for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above,have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date CY- 3 r� CITY RECORDER ray gale\ (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB_ATTY-f115990-v1 Budget Amendment F'Y11-12.DOC 3 Initiative Name: Impact Fee Reallocation- From East Precinct Bldg to PSB Property Expense Initiative Number: BA# FY2012 Initiative #A-1 New Item Initiative Discussion: Council previously allocated funding to the Administration for the acquisition of land and conceptual design of a police precinct located in the Sugar House area. As part of the recent 10-Year Plan process, the Administration was notified by the Police Chief that the acquisition of this land and construction of the new precinct is no longer a priority project for the Police Department. Because the Liberty Precinct and the Public Safety Building were the two projects eligible for the impact fees and based on the Chiefs decision to withdraw the Liberty Precinct, the funds must be used at the Public Safety Building. The Administration is recommending that the impact fees previously allocated to the Liberty Patrol Precinct be recaptured and reallocated to the Public Safety Building. The funds would be use for the following: reimbursement to the Surplus Land Account for the south parking lot of the Barnes Bank building ($661,500); purchase of a right-of-way easement for access to the underground parking of the PSB ($193,050); and purchase of a utility easement located in the mixed-use transit- oriented development on 400 South ($13,860). The remaining impact fees will be used for PSB property acquistion expenses charged to the bond and will free up bond funds. Initiative#A-1 Impact Fee Reallocation-From East Precinct Bldg to PSB Property Expense Initiative Name BA#FY2012 Initiative#A-1 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-H.A.N.D. New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow 535-6136/535-7966 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive _ General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 /mak Enterprise Fund �* Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $ - $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-1-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 84-10002 Liberty Patrol Precinct Purchase 2700 $ (1,143,871.53) 84-New Cost Center 2700 $ 1,143,871.53 Additional Accounting Details: Expenses totalling$868,410 previously paid by Surplus Land Account will now be charged to the newly created PSB cost center,which will result in an additional$868,410 in cash in the Surplus Land Account. Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? _ NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-1-b Initiative Name: Fleet Replacement - budget for financed replacements Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-2 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: Amok Not all of the Mayor's Recommended Budget for Fleet Replacement was approved by the Council. The Council withheld the budget amount identified for debt service on new purchases for FY11-12, pending the receipt and review by the Council of the replacement list for the new fiscal year. During the first week of June 2011 the Centralized Fleet Management program created a vehicle list based on the FASTER point system and Mandatory Retirement Point (MRP) to identify the vehicles that needed replacement for fiscal year 2012. On June 16, 2011, a meeting was held with all departments to discuss the 2012 fleet replacement process. A replacement list was given to the departments for review and Fleet held follow-up meetings with each department representative on June 27th and 28th to discuss their recommendations. All vehicles to be replaced were reviewed and prioritized based on department need and the possibility of extending the life of particular vehicles a bit longer. The replacement list was then consolidated based on available capital funds. See attached proposed replacement list totaling $3.983.000. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached fleet replacement list for general fund departments and authorize the replacement budget for Fiscal Year 2012. Amok Initiative#A-2 Fleet Replacement-budget for financed replacements Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-2 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services Department New item Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $01 Internal Service Fund Fleet Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 01 Position Title: No staffing changes 1 Initiative#A-2-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 61-00020 Fleet Replacement 2700 $ 351,606.00 Auk Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) Initiative#A-2-b FY 2012 GENERAL FUND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SUMMARY Heavy Duty Vehicle Count 15 Estimated Cost: $2,627,000 Light Duty Vehicle Count 55 Estimated Cost: $1,356,000 Equipment Equip Count: 0 Estimated Cost: $0 Total Unit Count: 70 Estimated Cost: $3,983,000 FY 2012 General Fund Replacement by Department Department Vehicle Count Cost CED 15 $327,000 Fire Dept 3 $1,650,000 Police 37 $851,000 Public Services 15 $1,155,000 Total 70 $3,983,000 Initiative Name: Purchase of Celtic Bank Property From Surplus Land Acct Initiative Number: BA# FY2012 Initiative #A-3 New Item Initiative Discussion: Amok The Administration has reached a verbal agreement with the Celtic Bank property owners to purchase their current building and property located at 340 East 400 South. The acquisition would include an 11,500 square foot building, the lot on which the building resides, and three additional parking lots, totaling .64 acres. An appraisal of the building and lots was performed and the value was determined at $1,795,000 for all properties and structure. After negotiating additonal costs, such as relocation, the agreed upon purchase price is $1,850,000. Other agreed upon terms include final approval by the City Council; closing to occur on or before September 30, 2011; accessibility and use of parking parcels before closing; and a due diligence period ending July 30, 2011. It is proposed that the purchase of the property be funded by $1,600,000 from the Surplus Land funds and $250,000 for the southern-most parcel from impact fees previously allocated for the Public Safety Building. Funding is still available in the Public Safety Building to cover the $250,000. The Celtic parcels located on the 400 South corridor will be included as a part of the mixed-use, transit oriented development. The southern-most parcel would be included as a part of the Public Safety Building to meet their parking requirement. It is the intent of the Administration to create a cohesive, well-positioned site for the mixed-used development. The inclusion of the Celtic parcels allows flexibility in the configuration of the development. The Celtic property may be used to attract a tenant that could occupy the building immediately and assist in activating the PSB plaza upon completion or the Celtic building could be demolished, Blair Street moved to the east and the additional land then incorporated into the TOD site. The addition of these properties increases the value of the TOD project by allowing the City to create a better development opportunity. This project will serve as a catalyst and model for future development along the 400 South corridor. The purchase of this property will also alleviate concerns regarding the microwave tower located in the PSB project and building heights of properties to the north. With the purchase of the Celtic Bank parcels, the Administration can design the site so that the buildings along Blair Street and 400 South stay within the specified height limitations for non-interference of any microwaves transmitted from the tower(see attachment). Initiative#A-3 Microwave Projection -r 4I,,. 1 t tit d, ,a,: i / Approx. M ole.� -s L+ with4 s . _ A _naAAINNe . ... . 1 — ---. A ollkok Purchase of Celtic Bank Property From Surplus Land Acct Initiative Name BA#FY2012 Initiative#A-3 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-H.A.N.D. New Item Department I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow 535-6136/535-7966 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund • Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Am* Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $ - $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: - Initiative#A-3-a -Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA -Revenue:Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount -Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 83-81100 Surplus Land 2700 $ (1,600,000.00)I 83 New Cost Center 2700 $ 1,600,000.00 -Additional Accounting Details: -Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-3-b Initiative Name: Employee Pay Plan Changes Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-4 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: We are proposing to expand the salary ranges for Grades 39 and 40 within the City's General Employee Pay Plan. Included in these ranges is a diverse group of department Deputy Directors, some Division Directors & other key leadership positions within the City, each one having its own unique skill requirements and market comparability. By expanding these salary ranges, the City accomplishes three main objectives: 1) to maintain greater consistency and internal equity among this level of positions by grouping them together into the same pay grade; 2) to create the latitude and flexibility necessary for the City to remain competitive when attempting to attract, retain and motivate top talent to these crucial roles; and,finally, 3) effectively maintain an adequate pay level difference between these positions and the City's top level(Department) Directors. For Grade 39, we propose to eliminate the market calculation, and increase the maximum for the range from $69.31 to$84.10. For grade 40(which is currently unoccupied)we propose to eliminate the market calculation and increase the maximum from $72.78 to$88.30. This change is administrative only and no additional funding is required to implement this initiative. dooktob Initiative#A-4 Employee Pay Plan Changes Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-4 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mayor's Office New item Department Type of Initiative Gina Chamness/David Salazar 801-535-7766/7906 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 0 0 Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-4-a Agook Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Total $0 ingok Mom,: Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-4-b Current Pa Plan $7.25 $35.00 $10.63 $13.53 $16.42 $11.16 $14.20 $17.24 $11.72 $14.97 $18.21 $12.30 $15.65 $19.00 $12.92 $16.44 $19.95 $13.56 $17.26 $20.95 $14.24 $18.31 $22.38 $14.95 $19.03 $23.10 $15.70 $20.24 $24.78 $16.48 $21.09 $25.69 $17.31 $22.03 $26.74 $17.47 $23.14 $28.80 $18.35 $24.30 $30.24 $19.26 $25.51 $31.75 $20.23 $26.79 $33.34 $21.24 $28.13 $35.01 $22.30 $29.53 $36.76 $23.41 $31.01 $38.60 $24.58 $32.56 $40.53 $25.81 $34.18 $42.55 $27.10 $35.89 $44.68 $28.46 $37.69 $46.91 $29.88 $39.57 $49.26 $31.38 $41.55 $51.72 $32.95 $43.63 $54.31 $34.59 $45.81 $57.03 $36.32 $48.10 $59.88 $38.14 $50.51 $62.87 $40.05 $53.03 $66.01 $42.05 $55.68 $69.31 $44.15 $58.47 $72.78 ` :; $46.36 $121.92 Pro.osed Pa Plan $7.25 $35.00 $10.63 $13.53 $16.42 $11.16 $14.20 $17.24 $11.72 $14.97 $18.21 $12.30 $15.65 $19.00 $12.92 $16.44 $19.95 $13.56 $17.26 $20.95 $14.24 $18.31 $22.38 $14.95 $19.03 $23.10 $15.70 $20.24 $24.78 $16.48 $21.09 $25.69 $17.31 $22.03 $26.74 $17.47 $23.14 $28.80 $18.35 $24.30 $30.24 $19.26 $25.51 $31.75 $20.23 $26.79 $33.34 $21.24 $28.13 $35.01 $22.30 $29.53 $36.76 $23.41 $31.01 $38.60 $24.58 $32.56 $40.53 - $25.81 $34.18 $42.55 $27.10 $35.89 $44.68 $28.46 $37.69 $46.91 $29.88 $39.57 $49.26 $31.38 $41.55 $51.72 $32.95 $43.63 $54.31 $34.59 $45.81 $57.03 $36.32 $48.10 $59.88 $38.14 $50.51 $62.87 $40.05 $53.03 $66.01 $42.05 $84.10 $44.15 $88.30 $46.36 $121.92 Initiative Name: Compliance Program Director, Public Services Dept. Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative #A-5 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: In the fall of 2007, Public Services entered into an agreement with the Police Department to have a Police Captain staff a then vacant Compliance Division Manager position. Rather than transfer funds between general fund departments for this contract, the Administration eliminated an FTE and ($138,000) from the Public Services budget and added 1 FTE and $138,000 to the Police Department budget as part of the base to base calculations for the FY 2008-09 budget. The agreement / MOU between the two departments has expired, and the captain has resumed Police Department duties. Currently, the captain is filling a leadership role within the Police Department that was left vacant by an employee termination. The Police Department anticipates additional rotations for this individual as other needs throughout the department are identified. This request is to add the FTE and position funding to the budget of the Public Services Department. The position will be an appointed position, level 29, as the Compliance Program Director. Initiative#A-5 4114* Compliance Program Director,Public Services Dept. Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-5 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New item Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) 1.1 Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (75,059.00)Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 0 0 Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: 1.00 1.00 Position Title: Compliance Program Director Full Year Im.act $ 100,078.00 Initiative#A-5-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 03-12190 2111-01 $ 53,321.00 03-12190 2191-10 $ 4,079.00 03-12190 2191-15 $ 7,465.00 03-12190 2195 $ 9,720.00 03-12190 2191-18 $ 474.00 Total $ 75,059.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-5-b Fiscal Year Annual POSITION COST CALCULATIONS Impact Amount Impact Amount o Compliance Program Director Level 29 Partial Yr Full Year FY12 FY13 Salary hrly rate(using market) $ 34.18 2,080 hours $ 53,321 $ 71,094 FICA 7.65% 4,079 5,439 Pension 14.00% 7,465 9,953 Insurance 9,720 12,960 501c9 474 632 Total position cost,full year $ 75,059 $ 100,078 Partial year months 9 Initiative Name: Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS) -Youth Connections Grant -YC Fairmont Park Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative # B1 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,500 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services, Youth Connections Grant, under the Child Care Development Discretionary Fund program. This grant is year three of a three year grant funding period. Of this amount, $22,509 of the funds will be used to pay a portion of the full time site coordinators salary and benefits at the Fairmont Park YouthCity site, $2,794 will be used for phone services, printing, copying, computers and miscellaneous supplies, and $3,090 will be used to purchase snacks that are an essential program expense, and $2,107 will be used to pay for 30 youth to participate in fee based activities. The purpose of this grant is to create, expand, and support out-of-school time programs for at-risk elementary school-age youth, through age 12. These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven (11) new front-line personnel for a two year period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date, however it is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time the grant ends. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Managers salary, benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. Initiative#B-1 Al Utah State Dent of Workforce Services (DWS)-Youth Connections Grant-YC Fairmont Park Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#B1 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department I Type of Initiative Kim Thomas/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By NMI Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $0 Total $0 Other Funds 72-Grant Fund $ 30,500.00 Total $ 30,500.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: ■■ Initiative B-1-a Accounting Detail Giant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93.575 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 30,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72 New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#B-1-b Initiative Name: Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS) -Youth Connections Grant -YC Liberty Park Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative# B2 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: mok The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,500 grant from the Utah "" State Department of Work Force Services, Youth Connections Grant, under the Child Care Development Discretionary Fund program. This grant is year three of a three year grant funding period. Of this amount, $27,723 of the funds will be used to pay a portion of the full time site coordinators salary and benefits and five seasonal positions at the Liberty Park YouthCity site, $1,277 used for phone services, printing, copying, computer service and miscellaneous supplies, and $1,500 will be used to purchase snacks that are an essential program expense. The purpose of this grant is to create, expand, and support out-of-school time programs for at-risk elementary school-age youth, through age 12. These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven (11) new front-line personnel for a two year period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date, however it is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time the grant ends. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Managers salary, benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. Initiative#B-2 I i Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS)-Youth Connections Grant-YC Liberty Park Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#B2 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department Type of Initiative Kim Thomas/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $0 Total $0 Other Funds 72-Grant Fund $ 30,500.00 Total $ 30,500.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 01, FTE's: Position Title: Initiative B-2-a ‘,4014- Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93.575 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 30,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72 New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: ,AIM,, Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No .0044, Initiative#B-2-b Initiative Name: Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS) -Youth Connections Grant -YC Ottinger Hall Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative# B3 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,500 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services, Youth Connections Grant, under the Child Care Development Discretionary Fund program. This grant is year three of a three year grant funding period. Of this amount, $24,403 of the funds will be used to pay a portion of the full time site coordinators salary and benefits and three seasonal positions at the Ottinger Hall YouthCity site, $3,097 will be used for phone services, printing, copying, computer service and miscellaneous supplies, and $3,000 will be used to purchase snacks that are an essential program expense. The purpose of this grant is to create, expand, and support out-of-school time programs for at-risk elementary school-age youth, through age 12. These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven (11) new front-line personnel for a two year period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date, however it is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time the grant ends. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Managers salary, benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. Initiative#B-3 Josh Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS)-Youth Connections Grant-YC Ottincter Hall Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#B3 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department Type of Initiative Kim Thomas/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Oak Total $0 Total $0 Other Funds 72-Grant Fund $ 30,500.00 Total $ 30,500.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Aosiwk Initiative B-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93.575 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 30,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72 New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#B-3-b Initiative Name: Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS) -Youth Connections Grant -YC Central City Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative # B4 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: ANON The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,500 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services, Youth Connections Grant, under the Child Care Development Discretionary Fund program. This grant is year three of a three year grant funding period. Of this amount, $29,000 of the funds will be used to pay a portion of the full time site coordinators salary and benefits and five seasonal positions at the Central City YouthCity site, and $1,500 will be used to purchase snacks that are an essential program expense. The purpose of this grant is to create, expand, and support out-of-school time programs for at-risk elementary school-age youth, through age 12. These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven (11) new front-line personnel for a two year period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date, however it is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time the grant ends. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Managers salary, benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant "0.014, award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. Initiative#B-4 Utah State Dept of Workforce Services (DWS)-Youth Connections Grant-YC Central City Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#B4 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department Type of Initiative Kim Thomas/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $01 Total $0 Other Funds 72-Grant Fund $ 30,500.00 Total $ 30,500.00 $0' Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 01 FTE's: Position Title: I ' Initiative B-4-a Asio Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93.575 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 30,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72 New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Amith Initiative#B-4-b Initiative Name: State of Utah, 2010-Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP) and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2010 Initiative#B-5 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Emergency Management Services Division receives this annual grant from the Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security. It is awarded to local jurisdictions to purchase equipment and provide and or participate in training opportunities as necessary to prepare in the event of a terrorist or weapons of mass destruction attack. The County is the lead agency and will reimburse SLC for eligible expenses. The City will receive $125,634 of grant funding which was allocated for the following purposes: $82,830 was allocated to the Emergency Management Services Division to develop and enhance the city's plans and protocols, to participate/conduct state wide trainings, exercises, drills and workshops and travel associated with the state wide exercises; $5,000 was allocated to SLC PD for first responder safety and health equipment and $32,804 to conduct/participate in state wide trainings, exercises, drills, planning and workshops which could include officer OT; and $5,000 was awarded to the SLC Fire Department to purchase first responder safety and health equipment. • A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#B-5 iook State of Utah,2010-Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP)and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program(LETPP) Initiative Name BA#1 FY2010 Initiative#B-5 2011-2012 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Management Services Resources Department I Type of Initiative Cory Lyman/Sherrie Collins 535-1901 1535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 125,634.00 Total $ 125,634.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#B-5-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable: ODP-FY10-CFDA 97.067 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 125,634.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 125,634.00 Additional Accounting Details: Pass thru funding from the County Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? _ No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#B-5-b p Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HSG) , 2009 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant (UASI) Program Budget Increase Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#D-1 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In FY10, the city received a Urban Area Security Initiative (FY - 2009 UASI) grant in the amount of $2,315,400 from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security. The State has now allocated an additional amount of surplus 2009 UASI funding in the amount of$578,850 to be used for the Data Fusion/Synthesis equipment. Data Fusion/Synthesis equipment is a State wide program allowing emergency responders to communicate and share information on a state wide basis in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. This request is to increase the budget in the grant cost center 72-10003 by the $578,850. This is an increase from the State in grant funding and is not a separate grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept State of Utah, Division of Homeland Security grant funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#D-1 L. Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HSG) , 2009 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant(UASI) Program Budget Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#D-1 2011-2012 Initiative Number L Fiscal Year Emergency Management Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Cory Lyman /Sherrie Collins 799-3601 /535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 1 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 578,850.00 Total $ 578,850.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: $ - Initiative#D-1-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable UAS 9-FY09 CFDA-97.067 _Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-10003 1370 $ 578,850.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-10003 2590 $ 578,850.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No 41104 Initiative#D-1-b Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HSG) , 2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant (UASI) Program Budget Adjustments Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative #D-2 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In FY11, the City received an Urban Area Security Initiative (FY - 2010 UASI) grant in the amount of $2,170,078 from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security, plus an additional allocation of $730,000 of FY 2010 UASI surplus funding. Because the City did not qualify as a site to receive UASI grant program funding past 2013, and no additional grant awards will be received, the Emergency Management Division requested a $175,000 change in the budgets to accommodate additional funding for the coordinator's salary and benefits and the grant monitor's over site and management to extend to the end of the City's current grants in 2013. Funding for these positions were awarded in the FY 2009 UASI grant which will end in 2012. It was the intent of Emergency Management to request additional funds for these functions in the 2013 grant application. To accommodate the continued coordination and grant over site of the current UASI grants, the State reduced the amount of the surplus grant of$730,000 to $555,000 and increased the $2,170,078 to $2,345,078. This change reflects a $175,000 swap. This request is to reduce the budget in cost center 7261145 ($730,000 grant) by $175,000 and increase cost center 7261142 ($2,170,078 grant) by the $175,000. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept State of Utah, Division of Homeland Security grant funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#D-2 Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HSG) ,2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant(UASI)Program Budget Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#D-2 2008-09 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Emergency Management Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Cory Lyman I Sherrie Collins 799-3601 /535-6150 Prepared B Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Aiimk Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund- No chan•e 0 Total $ - $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: $ - Initiative#D-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: UAS 10-FY10 CFDA-97.067 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-61145 2111-01 $ (175,000.00) 72-61142 2111-01 $ 175,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#D-2-b Amikt Initiative Name: Contributions to Health Savings Accounts Plan Allocation Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative #D-3 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: Amik The FY 2011-12 budget included $450,000 for an estimated General Fund increase in participation in Health Savings Accounts Plans. Due to time constraints, this amount was placed into the Non-departmental budget. This budget amendment allocates budget to all the general fund departments that were effected by the increase in participation. Initiative#D-3 Contributions to Health Savings Accounts Plan Allocation Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#D-3 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Finance House Keeping Finance Type of Initiative Mary Beth Thompson 535-6403 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 1 $01 Internal Service Fund Fund 60 Total $0 $0' Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund Total $0 $01 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#D-3-a Amok Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenues: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 01-00031 2195-01 $ 13,144.58 02-00010 2195-01 $ 171,200.18 03-10300 2195-01 $ 39,754.35 05-00022 2195-01 $ 15,068.18 06-00100 2195-01 $ 47,769.34 08-00100 2195-01 $ 5,770.79 12-00005 2195-01 $ 134,331.23 15-01400 2195-01 $ 10,740.09 16-00070 2195-01 $ 7,412.26 19-00100 2195-01 $ 4,809.00 Total $ 450,000.00 09-00459 2199 $ (450,000.00) Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#D-3-b Initiative Name: Utah Department of Environmental Quality - Clean Fuels & Vehicle Technology Grant Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative # El Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Sustainability Division applied for and received a $82,500 grant from the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, under the Clean Fuels and Vehicle Technology grant program. This grant will be used to cover incremental costs of replacing approximately three (3) of it's sixteen (16) diesel refuse haulers with compressed natural gas (CNG) refuse haulers. The purchase of the CNG refuse haulers will be used by the Streets and Sanitation Division for daily residential garbage pick-up within city limits. The $82,500 grant award represents 50% of the incremental costs of purchasing an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicle. The incremental cost is defined as the difference between what the city would pay to replace a diesel hauler with a CNG. As of June 30, 2011 the shipping costs of the CNG haulers has increased and due to negotiations the actual unit cost is not known at this time. The grant funds may cover only 2 and a half of the CNG vehicles. Once the cost is clarified, the city will amend it's grant agreement with the State, however it is believed that no additional grant funds will be awarded. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Environmental Quality and to sign any agreements or awards that stem from the original Agreement. Initiative#E-1 Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Clean Fuels&Vehicle Technology Grant Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#El 2011-12 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Public Services New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Renee Zollinger/Sherrie Collins 535 7215/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $0 Total $0 Other Funds 72-Grant Fund $ 82,500.00 Total $ 82,500.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative E-1-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: DAQPM-007-11 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 57-00570 1974-72 $ 82,500.00 72-New Cost Center 1360 $ 82,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2910-03 $ 82,500.00 57-00570 2700 $ 82,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-1-b Initiative Name: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2011 Initiative #E-2 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department was awarded $14,776 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services to be used for initial training or certification upgrades and continuing medical education (CME) training for the Fire Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and medical supplies as funding permits. The grant is awarded based on the per capita of certified EMS personnel. The City's Fire Department has 115 certified Paramedics, 169 certified Emergency Medical Technicians and 20 certified dispatchers. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#E-2 Utah Department of Health -Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant Initiative Name BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-2 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Fire Deparment Resources Department Type of Initiative John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210 1535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0[ Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 14,776.00 Total $ 14,776.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#E-2-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable. E1117356 'evenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 14,776.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 14,776.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-2-b Initiative Name: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2011 Initiative #E-3 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department was awarded $983 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services to be used for continued medical education (CEM), traning and recertification of the city's dispatchers. The grant is awarded based on the per capita of certified EMS personnel. The Police Department currently has 55 certified dispatchers. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#E-3 Utah Department of Health-Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant Initiative Name BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-3 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Police Department Resources Department Type of Initiative Roxanne Cheever/Sherrie Collins 799-3594/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Amok Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 983.00 Total $ 983.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: m Initiative#E-3-a IAccounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: H1117359 Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 983.00 -Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 983.00 Additional Accounting Details: III . _ -Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-3-b Initiative Name: State of Utah, Utah Division of Homeland Security - 2011 Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2010 Initiative #E-4 Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Emergency Management Services Division applied for and received a $3,200 grant from the State of Utah, Utah Division of Homeland Secutiry under the Local Emergency Planning Committee a mok (LEPC) Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) program. It is awarded to local jurisdictions to perform hazard analysis and develop or update local emergency plans, including integrating the SLC LEPC plans and activities into the Region II Hazmat and emergency response planning, create community awareness programs for hazardous materials, integrate local LEPC planning into the community, provide or attend trainings and exercises to support Utah Region II hazardous materials planning, perform needs assessments for early alert and warning systems and integrate the hazardous materials transportation and storage into all hazards emergency management and homeland security activities. The City receives this grant on an annual basis from the State. The SLC LEPC holds monthly meetings which have an educational component to benefit the attendees along with a lessons learned information sharing segment. LEPC attendees include the U of U, Salt Lake Valley Health Department, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City School District, State Home Land Security, Thather, Tesoro, SLC PD, Fire and other local agencies and companies. The grant requires a $800.00 match which will be satisfied with the Emergency Program Directors time which is budgeted for within the Departments general fund budget. Initiative#E-4 i I State of Utah, Utah Division of Homeland Security -2011 Local Emergency Planning Committee(LEPC) Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness(HMEP) Grant Initiative Name BA#1 FY2010 Initiative#E-4 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No New Emergency Management Services Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Cory Lyman/Sherrie Collins 535-7173/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 3,200.00 Total $ 3,200.00 $01 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0' FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#E-4-a Amok Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: HMEP-USA 2011 CFDA 20.703 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72New Cost Center 1370 $ 3,200.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72New Cost Center 2590 $ 3,200.00 Additional Accounting Details: Pass through from US Department of Transportation to State Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-4-b Initiative Name: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation-Water Conservation Master Plan Water Demand Calculator and Weed Management Tool Website Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative # E5 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation awarded the Public Utilities Department a $30,535 grant to develop a suite of on-line landscape water conservation tools that will provide commercial contractors and private property owners with quantitative methods to assess landscape water-use demands, to make informed decisions regarding water use in landscapes and to educate the public of proper weed identification and control. This grant will add additional features and information to the inter-active website currently being developed under the Landscape Efficiencies grant also funded by the US Department of the Interior. Of these funds, $535. will be used for grant management and oversite and $30,000 will be used to contract with a consultant a to develop a design landscape software. The grant requires a $31,144 match which will be satisfied with the salary and benefits of the associated time spent by the Water Conservation Program Coordinator, the printing and mailing of promotional brochures, SLC TV 17 airtime, production of a instructional video and 1 year of web license fees which is budget for within the Public Utilities enterprise fund. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Bureau of Reclamation Agreements and to sign any agreements or awards that stem from the original Agreement. Initiative#E-5 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation-Water Conservation Master Plan Water Demand Calculator and Weed Management Tool Website Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#E5 2011-12 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Public Utilities New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Stephanie Duer!Sherrie Collins 486-6860!535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Internal Service Fund tom` Total $0 Enterprise Fund • Total $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 30,535.00 Total $ 30,535.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative E-5-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable: R11AP40017 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1360 $ 30,535.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,535.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-5-b Initiative Name: State of Utah Department of Human Services, Crisis Intervention Team Training (CIT) Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#E-6 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department received a $150,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Human Afook Services for continuation and expansion of the statewide Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training to administer, coordinate, and promote CIT training efforts throughout the State. This grant will provide funding to cover costs associated with attending and conducting CIT Academies, recertification classes, program administration and continued training for the City's Program Director, Coordinator and Regional Coordinators. The CIT program was initiated to assist Law Enforcement Officers in effectively dealing with persons experiencing mental health crisis. These funds will be used as follows: $28,560 will be used to pay overtime costs of the Program Director and CIT Coordinator while conducting CIT Academies, making presentations throughout the State and representing the interest of the CIT Program on numerous councils and committees; $10,855 will be used for travel and lodging of the Program Director and CIT Coordinator to conduct out of town CIT presentations, Academies, and planning and development conferences to market the program throughout the State; $29,085 will be used for supplies, materials, manuals, certification pins, handouts, etc., used at the Academies; $41,580 will be used for travel by the Program Director and CIT Coordinator to attend local and national CIT educational trainings; and $39,920 for contractual presenters at the Academies. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Environmental Quality and to sign any agreements or awards that stem from the original Agreement. Initiative#E-6 State of Utah Department of Human Services, Crisis Intervention Team Training (CIT) Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#E-6 2011-2012 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Police Department New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Mariean Searcy/Sherrie Collins 535-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0' Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 150,000.00 Total $ 150,000.00 I $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#E-6-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: State Contract 110531 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 150,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 150,000.00 9 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA 014111.. Initiative#E-6-b Initiative Name: State of Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) SLC Asset Forfeiture Program Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative #E-7 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The SLCPD applied for and received a $19,473 grant award from State of Utah, CCJJ, under the SLC Asset Forfeiture program. Civil asset forfeiture laws provide law enforcement agencies with the power to seize property and money connected to illegal activity. Some of these funds are then allocated back to the individual jurisdictions that collected them. Of these funds, $4,803 will be used for equipment consisting of three bird dog trackers at $1,601 per tracker. $7,380 will be used to send four (4) Detectives to the California Narcotics Officer's Association (CNOA) Conference in Sparks, NV. and $7,290 will be used to send nine (9) Detectives to the Utah Narcotics Officers Association (UNOA)Training in Mesquite NV. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Asset Forfeiture grant funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#E-7 State of Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice(CCJJ)SLC Asset Forfeiture Program Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#E-7 2011-2012 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Police Department New Staff Resources Department _ Type of Initiative Mariean Searcy/Sherrie Collins 535-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Grant Fund $ 19,473.00 _ _ Total $ 19,473.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#E-7-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: State Contract 12N30 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 19,473.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 19,473.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#E-7-b (viz;) RECEIVED �j�� .i RALPHBoER 1 CKER :. :�1� � AN l M 16 2011 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Salt T ake CitY MaYOr CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL j, RECEIVED Date Received: _04422)( David E eri , Chief Staff Date sent to Council: f$' ( ri I .28 ' SLC COUNCIL OFFICE TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#1 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness (801) 535-7766 Gordon Hoskins (801) 535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#1 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund $ 367,829.00 Other Funds $ 1,519,557.00 CIP Fund $ 3,414,298.00 Total Request $ 5,301,684.00 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations SCANNEDG. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards T0• ,�� I. Council Added Items S�gNN ED By. DATE. 48/it-Pf7.et ( c� ? 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com =� RECYCLED.,PER There are 6 new items, 2 of which has an impact on the General Fund. Item A-1 is reallocation of impact fees from the eastside public safety precinct to the new main public safety bldg, and reimburses the surplus land account for prior purchases. Item A-2 restores the entirety of the fleet vehicle replacement budget in the fleet fund. Item A-3 is funding for the purchase of the Celtic Bank Bldg from the surplus land account. Item A-4 proposes adjustments to the general employee pay plan, and Item A-5 is a request for a Compliance Program Direction position. Item A-6 is the installation and operating costs of the pay station parking meter system. There are 3 housekeeping items. Of the three, 2 items deal with additional funding to the prior year Homeland Security Grant funds. There are 10 grants which require an appropriation. Normally the Department of Finance prepares a revenue projection summary with any budget amendment. Because we are submitting this budget amendment earlier in the year than is our normal practice, in order to complete a property purchase, we cannot provide any meaningful revenue estimates for the current year. We have not yet completed FY 2010-11 for a few major categories, including sales tax. We anticipate a summary of FY 2010-11 as well as a revenue projection for FY 2011-12 will be available when we submit our next budget amendment request in early September. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing AIOL%k emu, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Amena rent #1 —September General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section A New Items 1. Impact Fees Reallocation $.00 on Public Safety Bldgs 2. Fleet Vehicle $351,606.00 Replacement Budget Increase 3. Purchase Celtic Bank $1,600,000.00 Property From Surplus Land Acct 4. Adjustments to Employee $.00 Pay Plan 5. Request for Compliance $75,059.00 $100,078.00 1 $-75,059.00 $-75,059.00 Program Director Position 6. Pay Station parking $4,514,298.00 Meters Installation 6. Pay Station Parking $292,770.00 $585,535.00 $-292,770.00 $-292,770.00 Meter On Going Costs Section B Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Fairmont Park 32 General Fund Impact Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 2. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Liberty Park 3. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Ottinger Hall 4. Ut State Workforce $30,500.00 Service Youth Grant— Central City 5. Ut State Homeland $125,634.00 Security Grant Section C Grants for New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. Ut State additional $578,850.00 Funding from FY2009 Homeland Security Grant 2. Reallocation of FY2009 $175,000.00 Homeland Security Grant to Salary and Benefit Costs 3. Allocation of Additional $.00 Costs for HSA Savings Accounts to Departments 33 General Fund Impact Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Amount FTE General Fund Impact . Impact (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. Ut State Clean Fuels $82,500.00 Technology Grant 2. Ut State Emergency $14,776.00 Medical Sery Grant 3. Ut State Emergency $983.00 Medical Sery Grant 4. Ut State Homeland $3,200.00 Security 2011 local • Emergency Planning Grant 5. Dept of Interior Water $30,535.00 Conservation Master Plan Grant 6. Ut State Dept of Human $150,000.00 Services Crisis Intervention Training Grant 7. Ut State Juvenile Justice $19,473.00 Asset Forfeiture Grant Section F Donations Section G Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Section I Council Added Items Initiative Name: Pay Station Parking Meters Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-6 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: The Transportation Division of the Department of Community Economic Development over the past three years by direction of the Administration and the City Council has evaluated a need for a new parking meter system. Walker Parking Consultants issued a report in March of 2010 recommending that the City implement a new multi-space electronic parking system that could handle coins, parking tokens, credit cards, smart cards, pay by phone and contactless communication technologies. The City currently have approximately 2100 meters. An RFP was issued in January 2011 for a new parking meter system. The vendor Aparc System Inc. was selected from that RFP for the installation and operation of the system. In the pay by space mode the patron is not required to return to their vehicle to attach a voucher. Instead each parking space is numbered. Patrons approach the pay station, enter the parking space number and select the amount of time desired. The system will be able to communicate which spaces are paid for directly to a handheld device carried by the parking enforcement officers. The enforcement officers becomes more effective with this information. The follow is a break down of the proposed system costs: Multi-space pay stations 344 @ $8,944 $3,076,788 Plate recognition vehicle and equip 2 @ $115,000 230,000 Installation and Configuration costs 357,492 Ticket Manager 144,380 Handheld Ticket Units 20 @ $5,980 119,600 Signage 223,458 Ambassador Personnel (2) 25,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 5 @ $5,500 27,500 Initiative#A-6 diY'y" Installation of Unit Platforms (Salt Lake City Portion) 110,080 contingency 200,000 Total $4,514,298 These estimates do not include street sensors, but instead two vehicles equipped with a plate recognition system for tracking vehicles. The street sensors (50) will be tested in phase I of the implementation. These 50 sensors will be sunk costs for the units are not reusable. The cost of these units are in the total costs presented above. If the option of street sensors is selected it would add to the cost an additional $1.2 million. $600,000 for the purchase and $600,000 for maintenance. Funding recommendation is $2.7 million from the CIP Fund and $1.8 million from Chase Capital Leasing. The lease would be for 7 or 10 years. The current leasing rates would be between 2% and 3% interest depending on the number of years selected. The yearly operating costs for communication software, licensing, central management and ticket manager communication is $270,262 per year. The ongoing maintenance cost for warranty, parts and software for years 1 to 3 would be $38 per month per pay station. An option of an additional $38 would cover the total maintenance costs of the stations. The costs would go up to $48 for years 4 to 10 and the additional costs Amok of total maintenance would stay at $38. The first year would be $313,728 for a total maintenance free system. The yearly operating costs of the five electric vehicle charging stations is $509 each for a total of$2,545 per year. The total operating costs is $585,535 for a full year and $292,770 for the remainder of the fiscal year 2012. This amount is being requested from the General Fund Fund Balance. The system will have an option that will allow a merchant the ability to pay for a customer's parking stall. The option is a yearly cost of$1,188 per merchant. There will be approximately three station per block face. One at each end and one in the middle of the block. Initiative#A-6 Pay Station Parking Meters Initiative Name BA#1 FY2012 Initiative#A-6 2011-12 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year CED -Transportation New item Department Type of Initiative Tim Harpst I Gordon Hoskins 535-7148/535-6394 Prepared By Tele•hone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (292,770.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 0 Other Fund CIP Fund Lease Process $ 1,814,298.00 Total $ 1 814 298.00 '.0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-6-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable- Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-New Cost Center 1985 $ 1,814,298.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-New Cost Center 2700 $ 1,814,298.00 03-11900 2299-97 $ 292,770.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-6-b ITEM A7 SEE ITEM A9 FROM 8/9 ITEM A8 SEE ITEM A10 FROM 8/9 ITEM A10 SEE ITEM All FROM 8/9 Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Salt Lake City Poll Worker list by Polling Locations *Subject to Change I All Saints Episcopal Church 1710 S Foothill Dr(2460 E)Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Jeanette J Jennings 1787E Blaine Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)467-8839 bnorton@slco.org Table Judge Della Mae Palmer 2072 E 1700 S Salt Lake City 84108 (801)484-9090 bnorton@slco.org Technician Cloyd E Jennings 1787 E Blaine Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)467-8839 bnorton@slco.org Beacon Heights Elementary 1850 S 2500 E Salt Lake City 84108 Table Judge Linda Jo Fawson 1501 S 2300 E Salt Lake City 84108 (801)583-0081 lindafawson@gmail.co Technician Robert Clinton Richey 1991 S Broadmoor St Salt Lake City 84108 (8(31)484-1890 RCRICH2@GMAIL,CO Bonneville Elementary 1145 S 1900 E Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Jon Michael Hennington 1391 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 (801)232-6084 jmhennington@gmail.co Technician Kristin Lee Riker 1457 E Blaine Ave Salt Lake City 84105 (801)474-2407 kriker@slco.org Table Judge Ursula B Jochmann 1148 E 1300 S SIc 84105 (801)583-5380 ubear777@comcast.net Chase Peterson Heritage Ctr 151 S Connor St(2040 E)Salt Lake City 84112 Table Judge Josiane Frances Jochmann 7135 5 2870 E Cottonwood Heigh 84121 (801)651-3799 puersanda@yahoo.co Poll Manager Lauren Marie Tarufelli 8871 S Cameo Way Sandy 84093 (307)389-3567 lauren.tarufelli@gmail.co Technician Angelina R Jacobson 6326 S Cyclamen Sq West Jordan , 84081 (801)955-9239 jacobsonelectric@aoLco Clayton Middle 1471 S 1800 E Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Sarah Davidson 416 Heritage Ctr Salt Lake City 84112 (801)969-7910 sarahxdavidson@gmail.co Technician Linda K itami 1984 E Kensington Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)583-6789 newhome@sisna.co Dilworth Elementary 1953 S 2100 E Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Candy Michelle Amodt 950 S Jefferson St Salt Lake City 84101 (801)521-2124 bobamodt@msn.co Table Judge Elaine Korologos Guin 1982 E Sun Meadow Cir Salt Lake City 84106 (801)467-8170 ekguin@msn.co Technician Matthew L Moyle 2015 5 2200 E Salt Lake City 84108 (435)602-9479 MMOYLE@CISHOST.CO Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Edison Elementary 466 S Cheyenne(1527 W)Salt Lake City 84104 Poll Manager Nadine G "° Harman . "51461 SCheyenne St d,'' Salt Lake City = 84104(801)972-4617 `nedineharman@yahoo.cd° Table Judge Mildred H Deters 506 S Cheyenne St Salt Lake City 84104 (801)973-8952 bnorton@slco.org Technician Susan ,: Ann Math" ' `t31 S Cheyenne St 5;H Salt lake City 84104(801)328-1457 sumat64@grnailco Franklin Elementary 1115 W 300 S Salt Lake City 84104 Pbil Managet Margaret „,, '4 `Little 1533$900 ;. 5;;A;. Salt Lake City 84164 1801)972-3538 MARGL@MSTAR2.NE7 y < Table Judge Edith Ann Trimmer 246 S 1300 Salt Lake City 84104 (801)597-2104 bnorton@slco.org Technician Janice Lee Co`8ins' 511 S Concord St Salt Lake City 84104(801)532-3433 hoosiercien@hotmail.co Glendale Middle 1430 W Andrew Ave(1519 S)Salt Lake City 84116 Table Judge Susan A Forbush 1428 S Concord St Salt Lake City 84104 (801)973-4351 bnorton@slco.org Technician Ptlscilla Safi ; , 1.flirnel 2985 S 1100E 3p:" A �x , e �� 5�'1ti iliito'Cit1+ 84106 (803)839-8524 safi,trarri!tll,@yahov.co Indian Hills Elementary 2496 E St Marys Dr(1420 S)Salt Lake City 84108 Technician Ryan =, Mark'- Sleazard 780 E Rainforest Dr ,. Murray =. 84107 (801)633-1350 ry anm 85@hotmail.co Poll Manager Judith S Wilkins 3125 E Kennedy Dr Apt 607 Salt Lake City 84108 (801)583-6814 JUDITHWILKINS@COMCAST.NET Jackson Elementary 750 W 200 N Salt Lake City 84116 Table Judge Luann t Mckeever `425 ran `Ave# S Salt Lake - 84115 (801)486.4237 luannrnci@yahoott , ,-.. . Poll Manager Steven B Boyington 633 N Victory Rd Salt Lake City 84103 (801)364-0944 stevenboy@earthlink.net Techniciark,_ ;,Patric `'` Harvey(/ 406 E Broadway#25i. = Salt Lake City 84111 (801)322-4126 ROOT TRACER@JUN?cO Mountain View Elementary 1380 S Navajo Street(1370 W)Salt Lake City 84104 Table Judge Nancy: % Evelyn= Mitcheit, '.,. 3747 S Forest Hills Dr;3V Salt Lake City 84106(705)898-2428 nem3747@aol.te r °__ Poll Manager Donald ,- ;Frank :ter* 7160 E !Cade-1st or; Sandy , 84070(801)523-0953 docdfgl@msn.co Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Parkview Elementary 970 S Emery St(1170 W)Salt Lake City 84104 Poll Manager Ray Gene Eastman 620 S Emery St Salt Lake City 84104 (801)483-6787 rayeast@comcast.net Table Judge Kevin Packer 781 W 1300 S Salt Lake City 84104 (801)258-1381 kevinpacker@me.co Technician Irene Cordova 621 S Pueblo St Salt Lake City 84104 (801)468-3202 icordova@slca.org Rowland Hall Stmarks Mccarthey Campus 720 S Guardsman Way(1600 E)Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Roderick Franklin Gregory 916 S Nerual Cir Salt Lake City 84108 (801)582-7783 RFG@CSOLUTIONS,NET Technician Heather Dimitria Van Leeuwen 740 E 300 S Apt 402 Salt Lake City 84102 (801)580-5044 dimitria.vl@gmail.co Table Judge Henry Martin White 8748 S Mcginnis In West Jordan 84081 (801)280-6109 henrymwhite@yahoo,co SLC Sports Complex 645 S Guardsman Way(1580 E)Salt Lake City 84108 Poll Manager Jeanine Jacketta Goodrich 3210 S 1100 S Salt Lake 84119 (801)974-0968 goodrich3210@comcast.net Table Judge Katherine Drechsel Allen 2040 E Redondo Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)484-8549 kdallen444@msn.co Sugarhouse Park Garden Ctr 1602 E 2100 S Salt Lake City 84106 Poll Manager Andrew Daniel Gass 2810 5 Glenmare St Salt Lake City 84106 (801)597-4788 andrew.guss@hsc.utah.edu Technician Judy Harvey 1434 E Ramona Ave Salt Lake City 84105 (801)231-6360 dstjudy@yahoo.co Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Sunday Anderson Westside Senior Ctr 868 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 Poll Manager Dixie • Bryson 581 W 5900 S: Murray • 84123 801262-1338 ' titirsorifamily581@q.c0 ' Technician L Matthew Wilson Po Box 520642 Salt Lake City 84152 (801)696-5230 Imattwil@gmail.co Wasatch Presbyterian Church 1626 S 1700 E Salt Lake City 84108 Table Judge Norma Mendenhall Wills 1521 S Preston St Salt Lake City 84108 (801)581-4429 nwills@genetics.utah.edu Technician Martha-„ .Manzano 336 E r rrvvnirigior Ave Salt Lik iiy r, f,6ri44U15,(801 t 80„,bnorton@sicd,Org` Anderson Foothill Library 1135 S 2100 E Salt Lake City 84108 ,Poll Manager Ralph G. . Pahnke 1046 S oak tllils Way- `'.' F Salt take City 84108.(801)582-4584°,; RGBIRDS@MSN.CO fi Technician Reed 1, Taft Jacobs +, 2508E 1700 ": s•, Salt Lake City 84106 001)683-9475 tidemnvera@yahoo.co' Backman Elementary 1500 W 601 N Salt Lake City 84116 Poll Manager Grant Marius. Warner 368 N 100d Salt Lake City 8411E(801)595-6504 gewerh'eri hoini'atl.co Table Judge Emily Anna Warner 368 N 1000 Salt Lake City 84116 (801)595-6504 gewarner@hotmail.co Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Ipolling locations for the 2011 General Election(***Subject to Change***) I Avenues Sweet Library455 N'F'St(9th Ave)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Kathy B Huish 7875 S 965E Sandy 84094 (801)255-6468 KBHUISH@MAIL.CO Technician Kathy Pratt Martinez 5778 W Chantilly Cir Salt Lake City 84118 (801)849-1036 queenie-4u@live.co Table Judge Alan T Gygi 3556 S 2700 E Salt Lake City 84109 (801)278-5830 alangygi@hotmail.co I Backman Elementary1500 W 601 NSalt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Amanda Jean Stanford 7706S Briar Dr West Jordan 84084 (801)718-0390 thecaptainandzero@yahoo.co Table Judge Robert J Cushing 2111 S 1900 E Salt Lake City 84106 (801)466-5612 rj.dolf@gmail.co Technician Chester Harry Johnson 3561 S 2500 E Salt Lake City 84109 (801)272-5760 chmkjohnson@comcast.net Table Judge Shirley Ann Krouse 1908 E Bosham Ln Salt Lake City 84106 (801)487-8274 skmart@srossi.net I Bennion Elementary(SLC)429 S 800 ESalt Lake City84102 Table Judge Marie I Webber 866 E Maple View Dr Salt Lake City 84106 (801)288-5284 Technician Stanley Edward Syphus 2540 S Glenmare St Salt Lake City 84106 (801)467-9705 syphus2540@q.co Table Judge Gayle Ellis 1439 E Stratford Ave Salt Lake City 84106 (801)467-8243 SEAROSE@NETZERO.NET I Boys&Girls Club Of Sugarhouse968 E Sugarmont Dr(2225 S)Salt Lake City84106 Poll Manager Polly Stewart Po Box 2609 SALT LAKE CITY 84110-2(801)842-2306 PXSTEWART@SALISBURY.EDU Table Judge Nicholas Clark Jarvis 3361 S Honeycut Rd Salt Lake City 84106 (801)638-2715 nickjarv@comcast.net Technician Kristina Lynn Bowers 458E 3rd Ave Apt 11 Salt Lake City 84103 {801)688-9379 kristinaibowers@yahoo.co I Bryant Junior High40 S 800 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Herbert Brown 376 W 700 N Salt Lake City 84103 (801)654-4654 herb.brown@grail.co Table Judge Carl Frederick Schettler 1966 S 200 E Apt A1606 Salt Lake City 84115 (801)759-4099 Technician Samuel Philip Speckart 2961E 4345 5 Salt Lake City 84124(801)278-7292 philandlola@msn,co Table Judge Cynthia Cox Christensen 967 W Fremont Ave Salt Lake City 84104 (801)977-8836 I Canyon Road Towers123 E Second Ave(100 N)Salt Lake City84103 Table Judge James L Tyrrell 553 E 3rd Ave Salt Lake City 84103 (801)631-5902 TYRRELUL@LDSCHURCH.ORG Technician Jamie Jacoy Williams 291359000 Magna 84044 (801)739-7178 jacoywilliams@gmaiLco Table Judge Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Central City Community Ctr615 S 300 ESalt Lake City84111 Poll Manager Val Dan Macmurray 5335 S Roseleaf br „ Mtiff y ,,, 84123 (801)502-6275 vdmacmurray@comcast.net Table Judge Dayna Grant Norris 2785 E Comanche Dr Salt Lake City 84108 (801)583-1883 daynanda@yahoo.co Technician Kelly , C Crook 5753 S 4015.W# Tay)orsviile 84129(801)966-5098 kelly.crook@)uno,to ,. Table Judge Charlotte N Thornton 2579 E Village Cir Salt Lake City 84108 (801)581-1254 thornton.charlotte@gmail.co I Day Riverside Library1575 W 1000 NSalt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Frederic V Bull . '' ` 226 5.120E E , F Salt Lake City • 84102(801)5834548 GOBBLY@GOBBLY.NET - •, Table Judge Karleen Balle Liebschutz 360 W 700 N Salt Lake City 84103 (801)359-2747 Iklent@xmission.co Table Judge Luann T Mckeever 425 E Granite Ave# S Salt Lake 84115 (801)486-4237 luannmck@yahoo.co I Emeritus76 S 500 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Susana Mirya ' Manwilk - Po Box 718 ii," Midvale '<" 84047 (801)897-9897 bkm.business@grribil& ' % Table Judge Betty Jean Thompson 602 N American Beauty Dr Salt Lake City 84116 801-328-4252 2thompsons@comcast.net Technician ': Table Judge Charles Samuel Payne 641 W North Temple Apt 426 Salt Lake City 84116 (801)726-2285 chuckpayne65@yahoo.co I Emerson Elementary1017 E Harrison Ave(1370 S)Salt Lake City84105 Poll Manager T Kaye Davies 9248S 1380E Sandy , ,84093 (801)619-3630 kaye.davies@utahhomes.co Table Judge Mary Elizabeth Rogers 843 E Downington Ave Salt Lake City 84105 585-469-4645 mrogers2424@yahoo.co Technician Christopher Beau r Sampson _ 1677 E Woad Glen Rd Sandy ,' 84001 801-657-2639-t thegauntletgamesincellyahoo.co Table Judge Mariana Bowen Ahlers 572 E Stringham Ave Salt Lake City 84106 (801)463-7865 mbahlers@hotmail.co I Ensign Elementary775 E 12th Ave(600 N)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Lilly - .13 • -Christehseri .777 E South Temple Apt 6.1 Salt Lake City 84102 (801)359-4907 FARMO1113@AOL.00°, Table Judge Elizabeth 1 Romero 2222 W Williamsburg Cir West Jordan 84088 (801)569-2262 eromero8@q.co Table Judge Trenton S Michie 1676 E Forest Hills Dr Salt Lake City 84106 801-231-0460 trent@thompsonmichle.co I Escalante Elementary1810 W 900 NSalt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Dennis '' "C Atexandee ''1S84 E.6430S- • c c` "`. Sic .;, .,,&-/ 84121 (801)948-4OO8 whoof@comcast.net ''''' Table Judge Marilyn Bishop Whipple 1165 S Lake St Salt Lake City 84105 (801)466-5622 whipplehouse@comcast.net Technician• "Phyllis "Montgomery 294!SGIenrnareSt .Salt Lake 0 <,y,,€zL 84106 ,. r.,,,, Pf 728@gmaiLco ' , Table Judge Kathleen Moana Wilde 616 E Browning Ave Salt Lake City 84105 (801)466-5130 Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Fairmont Aquatic Ctr1044 E Sugarmont Dr(2225 S)Salt Lake City84106 Poll Manager Matthew Lee Shepherd 144 2nd Ave Apt 3 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)651-9404 alphabetavenue@gmail.co Table Judge Jennifer Baldwin 150 W 300 N Salt Lake City 84103 (702)521-6826 outdoorsjen@hotmail.co Technician Douglass Healey ' 2755 E Loran Heights Dr ., Salt Lake City 84109 (801)486-2482 healey.doug@gmail.co Table Judge Oral Phyllis Grangroth 535 S 200 E Apt 617 Salt Lake City 84111 (801)359-4343 opgrangroth@gmail.co I First Baptist Church777 S 1300 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Cindy U Hales 6225 SLongview Dr' Murray 84107 (801)268-6666 BEE59@COMCAST.NET Table Judge Wilson Kalmar Robbins 3730E Millstream Dr Salt Lake City 84109 (801)277-3145 Table Judge Laura Manycattle 630 5 800 Salt Lake City 84104 (801)533-4283 I First Congregational Church2150 S Foothill Dr(2755 E)Salt Lake City84109 Poll Manager Elmer R Inman 535 S 200 E Apt 1001 Salt Lake City 84111 ' wildmann69@gmaiLco Table Judge Reta H Pavich 366 E 4th Ave Salt Lake City 84103 (801)364-8526 Technician David S Ostler 171 E 3rd Ave Apt 706 Salt Lake City 84103 (001)355-6600 davocom@msn.co Table Judge Charles Joseph Seldin 320 E 5th Ave Apt 1 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)532-2575 I Friendship Manor1320 E 500 SSalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Chris A Guerrero 932 S 200 W #106 Slc 84101 (801)539-1532 jmedina@slco,org Table Judge Jill Perez 1967 W Sir Robert Dr Salt Lake City 84116 (801)428-7490 Technician Jana Leigh Allart 674 N 200 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)916-9483 jana.allart@GMAIL.CO Table Judge Robyn Elizabeth Easley 220 SElizabeth St Apt 14 Salt Lake City 84102 (801)583-1068 I Garner Funeral Home1001 E 11th Ave(550 N)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Winston Perry Erickson 2371 E Lakeview Dr Salt Lake City 84109 (801)464-1627 wperickson@sisna-co Table Judge Brenda B Barnes 1520 W 800 N Salt Lake City 84116 (801)521-4400 Table Judge Elinor G Hyde 3388 S Monte Verde Dr Salt Lake City 84109 801-2784933 I Hawthorne Elementary1675 S 600 ESalt Lake City84105 Poll Manager Ti J Christensen 2818 E 3220$ Salt Lake City 8410,9 (801)487-0424_ lynnjc23@msn.co ,, Table Judge Jordan Call Rawlings 49 S 1200 E Apt 2 Salt Lake City 84102 (702)496-9274 Technician Jeffrey Garbutt Low 263 N Center St Salt Lake City 84103 (801)649-2120 pinner15@gmail.co Table Judge Jennifer Neeley Held 2760 S Claybourne Cir Salt Lake City 84109 (801)832-1115 Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Highland High2166 S 1700 ESalt Lake City84106 Poll Manager Dora , v,, Elaine " Gutierrez"'>F 626'S 500 E.:r.%ii , Salt Lake City ,K-84102(801)5394632 none Table Judge Elizabeth Lund Stevens 1936 E Yale Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)583-4554 Technician Wafter „°" Robert `Jones ,;; = 412 E 12th Ave , i i" Salt thke City 84103 {801)363.1331 .W L:rER.JONES@UTAH.EDU Table Judge Gisela K Nash 824 1st Ave Salt Lake City 84103 (801)355-1645 I Highland Park Elementary1738 E 2700 SSalt Lake City84106 Poll Manager Julie , Dawn ;Kunz,,, •"° 138 E 12300 S Ste 'Pmb 177§Draper „ �;84020 801-67141569• jd_kuriz@hotrnaILco Table Judge Naoma B Scheffner 1757 E Cornell Cir Salt Lake City 84108 (801)581-9209 , Table Judge Anna Michelle Watts 235 W 600 N Apt 134 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)887-2186 I Horizonte Institute1234 S Main StreetSalt Lake City84101 Poll Manager Cirbie Michelle Lee " 11223 5 Brook N Lance ,,,South Jordan,,,,, 84095 {801)671-5917 basquetrack lgmail.cn , ;,,,i'" Table Judge Ardis Cushing Bitner 1846E Westminster Ave Salt Lake City 84108 (801)466-4630 Technician Arlee ' Phillips w Sanders 540B S 1340E '` Salt Lake City 'x p ' �°84117{801)878. 15 arlee.�ZDcomcast.net � Table Judge Richard Michael Esta 470 E Emerson Ave Salt Lake City 84115 (801)486-3269 I Judge Memorial High650 S 1100 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Sarah J Parker 1315 S 200E Apt 1 Salt Lake City 84115 (801)633-1388 sparke46@mymail.slce.edu Table Judge Gwen 1 Breur 4643 S Brookwood Cir Salt Lake City 84117 (801)262-3919 Technician David J ,-Pacheco PO B07{526197 SALT LAKE-CITY 84152-0(801)949-3099 ., Table Judge Deanna Nicole Waldron 467 N Center St Salt Lake City 84103 (801)916-1696 I Kearns St Ann Schoo1430 E 2100 SSalt Lake City84115 Poll Manager r, F ,t ;*,A . _ , ,;,4, : Table Judge Janet Haycock Perry 2990 S 2000E Salt Lake City 84109 (801)467-2304 ' '_ q'' hs , :Az-r six`'<, (.. 4. Table Judge Sharon Scott Ostler 171 E 3rd Ave Apt 706 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)355-6600 I Liberty Park Adventure Church662 E 1300 SSalt Lake City84105 Poll Manager ,.. C Table Judge Iris J Nelson 1155 N Sonata St Salt Lake City 84116 (801)596-2611 Technician Rebecca;,' , B Seiph' 10864 Pairhttv#it tit .;,Murray 84123 01)4545442, rel ta-4elph sg ailtco , Table Judge Ron 1 Lee 574 E 3rd Ave Salt Lake City 84103 {801)595-0439 Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Liberty Senior Ctr251 E 700 SSalt Lake City84111 Poll Manager John Francis Mccarthy 31 N M St Apt 301 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)699-6260 john@johnmccarthyphoto.co Table Judge Helen P Tracy 1321 N 1500 W Apt Salt Lake City 84116 (801)521-4244 Technician Mary Ann Lawson 2132 S Nowell Cir S Salt Lake 84115 (801)467-5979 mlaw110aol.co Table Judge Eleanor Beckett Hall 535 5 200 E Apt 317 Salt Lake City 84111 (801)521-9223 I Lincoln Elementary(SLC)1090 S Roberta St(240 E)Salt Lake City84111 Poll Manager Karen Ritchie Mciaws 2525 S Alden St Salt Lake City 84106 (801)486-8370 muttikaren@gmail.co Table Judge Edwin E Walker 1104 S Windsor St Salt Lake City 84105 (801)359-2623 Table Judge Ramona Kay Mckinney 8067 S Top Of The World Dr Cottonwood Heigh 84121 (801)944-0406 I Madeleine Choir Schoo1205 1st Avenue(50 N)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Kari Landro 4784 S Oak Ter halt Cake city 84124 (801)541-2559 karilandro@q.co Table Judge Viliami Tua'One Hemaloto 418 N Walnut Cir Salt Lake City 84116 (801)237-0717 Technician Table Judge Kristin C Sarkady 1263 E South Temple Apt 7 Salt Lake City 84102 (801)532-6060 I Meadowlark Elementary497 N Morton Dr(1890 W)Salt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Table Judge Marie I Webber 866 E Maple View Dr Salt Lake City 84106 (801)288-5284 Technician David Ray Nelson 1155 N Sonata St Salt Lake City 84116(801)596-2611 Table Judge Carl Frederick Schettler 1966 S 200 E Apt A1606 Salt Lake City 84115 (801)759-4099 I Newman Elementary1269 N Colorado St(1340 W)Salt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Karla Hogan 1236 W Talisman Dr Salt Lake City 84116(801)596 3136 colettesawyer@live.co Table Judge Cynthia Cox Christensen 967 W Fremont Ave Salt Lake City 84104 (801)977-8836 Table Judge Kathleen Moana Wilde 616 E Browning Ave Salt Lake City 84105 (801)466-5130 I Nibley Park Elementary2785 S 800 ESalt Lake City84106 Poll Manager Table Judge Billy Byron Sinclair 1006 W 4800 S Taylorsville 84123 (801)269-1260 Technician Stanley Wilhelmsen 3946 S Marsha Dr West Valley City 84128 (801)673-7546 stanberthaemsn.co Table Judge Carroll Ann Fill 752 S 1000 Salt Lake City 84104 (801)364-1034 Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I North Star Elementary1545 N Morton Dr(1965 W)Salt Lake City84116 Poll Manager E=Mithelle Munoz 262 E Whitlock Ave $Salt Lake 84115 {801)486-4995 mUnoz262@msn.co Table Judge Johnnie H Hughes 1970 S Lake St Salt Lake City 84105 (801)466-4354 Technician=, Lavell Rolfson tohnson ' 3201 S Teton Eir ;' Salt Lake City'` 84109 (801)467-8214 photo-synthesis@comcast.net Table Judge Joan Worthington 1199 E Waterside Cy Apt 13 Cottonwood Heigh 84047 (801)352-0639 I Parklane Senior Apts680 E 100 SSaIt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Venkataraman A- ' `; Pasupathi -'3589..CrestW6odbr,--.F�,s Salt Lake City , ,, 84109(801)274-0818 pasupathi@eorneast.net Table Judge S Chris Hobson 2021 E Bell Tower Ln Salt Lake City 84109 (801)486-1481 Table Judge Joanne T Peterson 2218E 6675 S Cottonwood Heigh 84121 (801)943-9684 I Redeemer Lutheran Church&School1955 E Stratford Ave(2560 S)Salt Lake City84117 Poll Manager Narneice L Craven = 2556E Parleys Way Salt Lake City 84109 (801)635-4485 larue1356@yahoo.co., Table Judge Joyce Osborne Archibald 3705 S Carolyn St Salt Lake City 84106 (801)266-7589 Technician Mary Ellen Mabey 2397 S 2$00E Salt Lake City '84109(801)466-6050 mugs.mabey@yahoo.co Table Judge Jeneal Marjorie Wilson 1034 E M illbert Ave Salt Lake City 84106 (801)484-6125 I Rio Grande Depot300 S Rio Grande St(450 W)Salt Lake City84101 Poll Manager Allan Jay Platt 1550E Lone Peak Dr Holladay 84117 (801)652-7750 jayplatthome@aoLco Table Judge Lynne Elise Wolf 1324 N Victoria Way Salt Lake City 84116 (801)596-7777 Technician Earle Wesley Richardson ' 2179 E Browning,Ave Salt Lake City s 84108 {801)803-3486 .earle101@hotmail.co Table Judge Linda Klein 331 N H St Salt Lake City 84103 (801)359-3816 I Rose Park Elementary1105 W 1000 NSalt Lake City84116 Poll Manager Jennifer`' :: f Stevens -DeVis 1859SCe id0e a"z-Salt Lake City 84108'{801)40343 18 2--jeriniferstevensdavis@gmall.co a ` '_ Table Judge Christel Ruth Shaffer 535 S 200 E Apt 715 Salt Lake City 84111 (801)363-1983 Table Judge Ann Welch Pearson 171 E 3rd Ave Apt 605 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)521-1719 I Salt Lake City Open Classroom135 N D StSalt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Nadine GI= Harman e ;1 01 S Cheyenne Sr ° `' Salt Lake City 84104 001)972-4617 riadineharrrtar"i abyar` 66-16 '',` Table Judge Deborah Ann Lujan 1021 N Omni Dr Salt Lake City 84116 (801)359-7220 MANUELLUJAN1@MAC.CO Technician Barbara .‘,fi Jean Conaelley 565 E StrF herit Ave 1 Salt Lake City 8410#( 5 3 A5i'conriiewreed@hotmaiLco ,' Table Judge Steven Warner Cuff 8129 S 100 E Sandy 84070 801-561-1245 swcuff@gmailco J Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election Salt Lake Ensign LDS107 N'G St(500 E)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Amir Haskic 1916 S Texas St Salt Lake City 84108 (801)455-1241 AMIRHASKIC@GMAILCO Table Judge Janet Haycock Perry 2990 S 2000 E Salt Lake City 84109 (801)467-2304 Technician Angela Jensen 1805 N Main St Apt 3 Salt Lake City 84115 (801)696-3466 angela-jensen@tive.co Table Judge Sharon Scott Ostler 171 E 3rd Ave Apt 706 Salt Lake City 84103 (801)355-6600 I SL School Dist Administration440 E 100 SSalt Lake City84111 Poll Manager Linda Hull 1327 S 900E Salt Lake City '' 84105 (801)466-7210 HOMECARECONNECTION@MSN.CO Table Judge Kristina Marie Smith 4746 W Caplan St Salt Lake City 84118 (801)541-9427 grandpasmeany@yahoo.co Table Judge Laurel Ridges Erickson 2371 E Lakeview Dr Salt Lake City 84109 laurel_erickson@yahoo.co I Sprague Library2131 S 1100 ESalt Lake City84105 Poll Manager Patricia Anne Barrios' 1052 W 300 N Salt Lake City 84116 (801)702-3584 pbarrios@slco:org Table Judge Carol Clegg Johnson 3201 S Teton Dr Salt Lake City 84109 (801)467-8214 photo-synthesis@comcast.net Technician Danny J Entier 382 E Herbert Ave Salt Lake City 84111 (801)364-2406 danentler@corcast.net Table Judge S Chris Hobson 2021 E Bell Tower Ln Salt Lake City 84109 (801)486-1481 St Ambrose1975 S 2300 ESalt Lake City84108 Poll Manager Table Judge Betty A Maestas 277 N Bliss Ct Salt Lake City 84116 (801)539-1543 bmaestas@mymail.slcc.edu Technician Maurine E Haltiner 1142E 300 S Salt Lake City 84102 (801)581-9334 MHALTINER@AOL.CO Table Judge Janet E Diaz 169 N T St Salt Lake City 84103 (801)359-6627 jdiaz99834@msn.co ISt Catherine's Newman Ctr170 S University StSalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager Arlene 1 Johnson 1843 S Connor St Salt Lake City 84108(801)596-0151 JAZZDOLL@COMCAST,NET Table Judge Nolyn Hardy 1037 1st Ave Salt Lake City 84103 (801)355-0818 no email Table Judge Cindie L Walker 1979 S 900 E Salt Lake City 84105 801-485-0975 clarie1979@q.co I St Joseph Villa451 E Bishop Federal Ln(1930 S)Salt Lake City84115 Poll Manager Beverly Jean Thrall 1181 N Reveille Cir Salt Lake City 84116 (801)359-4569 tfontain@utah.gov Table Judge Trace Lovless Barney 7417 S 2300 E Cottonwood Heigh 84121 (801)597-9085 trace.barney@yahoo.co Technician Paula Maria Lowry 401051925 E Salt Lake City 84124 (801)272-3628 PAULALOWRY@MSN.CO Table Judge Andre Buckley Campbell 1352 W 700 5 Salt Lake City 84104 (801)641-8226 ygermister@aol.co Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Tenth East Senior Ctr237 S 1000 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll wlanager Heather Heugly of 4451 W Bingham Park Dr West Jordan 84088 (801)282.9844 peachh@comcastnet Table Judge Naoma B Scheffner 1757 E Cornell Cir Salt Lake City 84108 (801)581-9209 Technician Judy Irene Steiger 1902:W 900 N:' Salt1ake City 84116(801)596-93W>.iROOKO 3)(MISSION,th Table Judge I Trolley Square600 S 700 ESalt Lake City84102 Poll Manager,Mark Edward Ewing,:„ :`': . 1578S4300 E,°€> ` ., ::,,;8aj¢Lake City ,, 84105 (801)5944630. EWING.ME@GMAIL.CO Table Judge Joan Lorene Legge Po Box 510232 Salt Lake City 84151 (801)355-8396 no email Table Judge Helen P Tracy 1321 N 1500 W Apt Salt Lake City 84116 (801)521-4244 I Uintah Elementary1571 E 1300 SSalt Lake City84105 Poll Manager Carol L Huffrnan : ,1147 E Herbert Ave'• Salt lake City a L 84105 (801)583-7148'' chuff658@aol.co Table Judge Gwen J Breur 4643 S Brookwood Cir Salt Lake City 84117 (801)262-3919 Technician David Ray Berg 358 5 700 E#B 131 Salt take City 84102 (801)918-4336 davidberg@ikoffnaii.co Table Judge Deanna Nicole Waldron 467 N Center St Salt Lake City 84103 (801)916-1696 I Utah State Capito1420 N State St East Office BldgSalt Lake City84114 Poll Manager Joyce L Brown 2115 S Wyoming St Salt Lake City 84109(801)485-8659 familyjoy60@q.co Table Judge Charles Willia Marsh 5476 S Dunbarton Dr Salt Lake City 84117 (801)266-3351 wmmarsh@comcast.net Technician Helen . Cra 'Broadbent 4649 S Aspen Ln ° Taylorsville 84129 (801)263-1567 hcbroadbent@gmaib°co Table Judge Brandon Magnus 805 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84102 801-403-5997 brandon.magnus@gmail.co I Wasatch Elementary30 North'r'St(1150 E)Salt Lake City84103 Poll Manager , ,, 't . �`:,, ,4 Table Judge Ronald Willia Corkins 543 E Cobblestone Dr Midvale 84047 (801)201-4174 ron.dc.27.1939@gmail.co Table Judge Roberto Elorreaga 781 E Shiloh Way Murray 84107 (801)268-3476 re84107@yahoo.co Salt Lake County Elections Division 2011 Municipal Election I Washington Elementary420 N 200 WSalt Lake City84103 Poll Manager Table Judge Maria Martina Beauchamp 2282 S 700 E Salt Lake City 84106 (801)463-1298 beauchampmaria@yahoo.co Technician Bentley Jade Adams 3650 S Carolyn St Salt Lake City 84106 (801)485-9964 Table Judge Rosemary Elorreaga 781 E Shiloh Way Murray 84107 (801)268-3476 rnrelorreaga@networld.co I Whittier Elementary(SLC)1600 S 300 ESalt Lake City84115 Poll Manager Cheri Ward Livingston 2763 E Loredell Dr Holladay 84117 (801)974-7700 clivingston@slco.org Table Judge Richard Michael Esta 470 E Emerson Ave Salt Lake City 84115 (801)486-3269 Table Judge Sally C Wheatley 125 E Kelsey Ave Salt Lake City 84111 (801)355-7011 no email Allocated CIP$Remaining Allocated CIP$Remaining $13,473,847 $0 $13,473,847 $0 Fiscal Year 11-12 CIP Projects Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& n i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes ebt Service Debt 1 Sales Tax-Series 2005A(Projects:Purchase of $979,999 $979,999 $979,990 $979,990 None Plaza 349,Pioneer Precinct,Justice Court,Ice Arena,fire Training Tower,Parks Block) Debt Service payment for sales tax bonds issued to refund the remaining MBA series 1999A,1999B,& 2001 Bonds. Bonds mature 10/1/2020. Debt 2 Sales Tax-Series 2007(Projects:Grant Tower, $403,295 $403,295 $403,295 $403,295 None TRAX Extension) Debt Service payment for bonds issued for TRAX Extension&Grant Tower Improvements. Bonds mature 10/1/2026. Debt 3 Sales Tax-Series 2009A(Projects: Public $2,154,962 $2,154,962 $2,154,962 $2,154,962 None Services Maintenance Facilities,Barnes Bank Acauisition) Debt Service payment for bonds issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,construction, improvement&remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility,a building for use as City offices or other capital improvements within the City. Debt 4 Sales Tax-Series 2011A(ESTIMATE)Project: $218,766 $218,766 $218,766 $218,766 None North Temple Boulevard) Debt Service payment for bonds issued for construction improvements of the North Temple Boulevard and viaduct. Bonds mature? Debt Service Total $3,757,022 $3,757,022 $3,757,013 $3,757,013 1 Fiscal Year 2011- a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier 8 `m i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Fiscal Year 11-12 General Fund Set Asides 1 Capital Asset Capital Asset Management(CAM)Set Aside $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 None Management(CAM) To set aside savings to fund future CAM Projects. CAM Projects are defined as major infrastructure • projects with an expense of$5,000,000 or more, require other funding sources including bonds, grants,private&public funding,and typically have a useful life of over 5 years. 2 Pub;..'Facilities Public Facilities Maintenance Set Aside $390,000 $390,000 $490,000 $490,000 None An annual amount of funds set aside to cover needed public facilities improvements,upgrades& nio.:r'tenance of city owned buildings. The$490,000 reflects 6.r E%of the general fund amount allocated for projects. CAM and Public Facilities Set Aside $3,090,000 $3,090,000 $3,190,000 $3,190,000 • 2 S Fiscal Year 2011- -o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier 8 `m i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Fiscal I'ear 11-12 General Fund Par as }'on Go 1 Transportation 5 Pedestrian Safety Devices-Citywide $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To provide for installation of pedestrian activated No additional increase Master Plan,10 Year flashing LED warning signs at various uncontrolled CIP Plan FY06-16, crosswalk location within the City. Funding should All Districts provide for approximately 6 to 7 signs at midblock crosswalks. *Funding history includes allocations for over 8 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 2 Streets 2 ADA Ramps/Corner Repairs-Citywide 2 2 $400,000 $400,000 $300,000 $300,000 None ADA Ramp To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps& No additional increase Transition Plan,10 related repairs to corners&walkways including Year CIP Plan sidewalk,curb,gutter&corner drainage FY06-16,All Districts improvements. Design$27,400. Construction inspection&admin$29,600. Locations to be determined by City's ADA Ramp Transition Plan& citywide inventory of ramp construction need location,citizen requests with high priority requests from individuals with disabilities&in coordination with other CIP projects involving pedestrian access route improvements. *Funding history includes allocations over a 10 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 0 3 Fiscal Year 2011- o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& °a, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description ro 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 3 Transportation 1 Traffic Signal Upgrades-1100 E./100 So.;1100 3 3 5960,000 $640,000 $480,000 $480,000 Minimal E./1300 So.;West Temple/1700 So.;500 E./2700 So.:200 E./800 So.:500 E./1300 So. Transportation Plan, To remove&replace six(6)existing traffic signals $360 annual increase Mayor recommended 10 Year CIP Plan with equipment that includes steel poles,span wire, funding for 3 signals FY06-16,Districts 4, signal heads&traffic signal loops,mast arm poles, 5&7 new signal heads,pedestrian signal heads with • countdown timers,improved vehicle detection,&left turn phasing as needed. Design$96,000. Engineering fees$96,000. Construction inspection &admin$24,000. 'Funding history includes allocations over 9 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 4 Open Space/Trails 1 Open ar.a.:c!'rnage-Citywide 5 4 6312,093 $312,093 $312,093 $312,093 None Citywide-All Districts To design,purchase&install signage that includes No additional increase way-finding,interpretive,use&boundary,restoration &trail markers at H-Rock,Wasatch Hollow,Hidden Hollow,Parley's Historic Nature Park,Ensign Peak, Bonneville Shoreline Trail,Jordan River Parkway& Miller Park. Design$100,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 5 Streets 3 Sidewalk Rehabilitation:Concrete Sawing& 6 5 5300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 None Slab Jacking-Citywide 10 Year CIP Plan To provide sidewalk rehabilitation&reduction of No additional increase FY06-16 tripping hazards through concrete sawing,grinding All Districts or slab jacking. The concrete sawing/grinding process eliminates displacement of up to one&one- half inch. Slab Jacking can be used in locations where excessive slope will not be created through raising the concrete elevation. All processes provide a significant cost savings over removal& replacement. Design$20,600. Construction inspection&admin$22,100. *Funding history • includes allocations over an 8 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 4 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m °. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 6 Streets 1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3- 7 6 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 None 3670 West to 4230 West 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to No additional increase See Class"C"#1 and FY06-16,District 2 include pavement restoration to approx.4,500 lineal Impact Fees#1 feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes on both sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage &water line improvements&upgrades to traffic flow• characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding. $1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";&$2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction,inspection&admin $254,000. "Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 7 Public Facilities 11 Washington Square Event&Square Electrical- 8 7 $499,966 $499,966 $400,000 $499,966 None 451 So.State Street District 4 To provide electrical power to Washington Square No additional increase grounds to support annual events held in the square. Currently generators are used. The electrical improvements include transformers,conduit wire& ground level connection boxes to support the power distribution. Design$53,493. Engineering fees $7,069. Construction,inspection&admin$19,105. Support City's sustainability efforts. 8 Open Space/Trails 5 Jordan River Parkway Trail Repaving 9 8 $295,020 $295,020 $295,020 $295,020 None ¶stricts 1,2 To repave and/or seal approximately 9,834 linear No additional increase feet of cracked or deteriorated asphalt surfacing of Jordan River Parkway Trail. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 5 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m °. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 9 Streets 7 Paver Crosswalk Reconstruction-400 South 10 9 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 None State Street 8 200 East 10 Year CIP Plan To remove&replace the deteriorated&settled cross No additional increase District 4 walk pavers with colored,stamped concrete. Construction,inspection&admin$12,300. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 10 Transportation 4 Lighting Wire Replacements-Citywide 11 10 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 None • All Districts To replace underground street lighting wiring in No additional increase areas where wires have been stolen. Street lighting wiring is no longer installed in conduit in remote areas&is instead directly buried in the ground at a depth of 2 feet to prevent theft. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 11 Parks 2 10th East Senior Center Plant Replacement& 12 11 $11,920 $11,920 $11,920 $11,920 None Irrigation Drip System Addition -1000 East 250 South Parks Recovery To design&replace the existing sprinkler irrigation No additional increase Action Plan,District 4 system within the north property line planting bed with new watering system emitters at each shrub& to replace missing dead plants. Design$940. Construction inspection&admin fees$640. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 12 Streets 9 Residential Concrete Street Rehabilitation- 13 12 $486,800 $486,800 $486,800 $486,800 None Princeton Ave.,1700 East to 1800 East 10 Year CIP Plan To provide street improvements to include concrete No additional increase District 6 pavement replacement or rehabilitation of existing deteriorated concrete street,drive approaches,curb &gutter&sidewalk&ADA accessibility ramps. Design$33,400. Construction,inspection&admin $35,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 6 Fiscal Year 2011- , FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board o . 2012 Identifier& A >, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description mo E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 13 Streets 4 Local Street Reconstruction FY 11/12 14 13 52,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $950,034 None Pavement To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local No additional increase Management Plan, streets to include replacement of street pavement, 10 Year CIP Plan sidewalk,curb,gutter&drainage improvements. FY06-16,Districts 2 Proposed Streets include Ashton Ave.,from 1100 &7 East to Highland Drive;Crandall Ave.,from 1100 East to Richmond Street;Zenith Ave.,from 1100 East to Richmond Street&800 East to 900 East; Simpson Ave.,from 700 East to 900 East;Goshen Street,from Indiana Ave.to 700 South;Hudson Circle,from Zenith Ave.to South Cul-de-sac end. Design$100,000 for FY2012/2013. Construction inspection&admin$222,000. *Funding history includes allocations over 10 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 14 Transportation 7 Electronic Driver Feedback Signs-Citywide 15 14 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 None All Districts To purchase&install 14 double sided solar, No additional increase electronic driver feedback signs providing 1 sign per Council District. Location within Council Districts to be determined. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 15 Streets 11 Sidewalk Installation-1700 East,South of 1-80 16 15 531,300 $31,300 $31,300 $31,300 None Overpass Submitted by To design improvements to include removal& Design Constituent District 7 replacement of approximately 200 linear ft of asphalt path with concrete sidewalk,curb&gutter on west side of 1700 East,South of the 1-80 overpass. Design&contract bidding$2,600. Construction inspection&admin$2,900. Supports City's sustainabilit efforts. • 7 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& ti >. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Parks 14 Tracy Aviary Sidewalks&Tree Pruning-589 $71,400 $71,400 $71,400 571,400 None East 1300 South District 5 To replace deteriorated sidewalks that have tripping No additional increase hazards,prune existing trees within the Aviary,& repair associated landscape impacted by sidewalk construction. Design$7,000. Construction ins•ection&admin$4,400. 17 Parks 9 Tennis Court Resurfacing -Pioneer,Reservoir& 18 17 563,400 $63,400 $63,400 $63,400 None Sunnyside Parks Parks Recovery To design&construct upgrades to existing tennis No additional increase Action Plan,10 Year courts at Pioneer, Reservoir&Sunnyside Parks. CIP Plan FY08-09, Upgrades include repairing cracks,resurfacing Districts 3&4 courts,new net posts&line striping. Courts include one at Pioneer,300 W.350 So.;two at Reservoir, 1300 E.So.Temple;&two at Sunnyside,840 So. 1600 E. Existing fencing will remain in service for these facilities. Design$5,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$3,400. Supports City's sustainabili efforts. 18 Parks 5 Jordan River Trail Security Lighting Wire 19 18 $57,060 $57,060 $57,060 $57,060 None Replacement-Jordan River Trail,500 North to 1000 North District 2 To replace wire along the Jordan River Trail where No additional increase the existing lighting wire has been stolen. The project will include below grade placement of the pull boxes for the conduit&wire junctions&capped with a concrete slab in order to make the wire non accessible to vandals. Design$4,500. Construction inspection&administration$3,060. • 8 Fiscal Year 2011- , FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m °, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 19 Parks 4 Faultline Gardens Park Security Lighting 20 I $45,650 $45,650 $45,650 $45,650 None Improvements-1050 East 400 South Parks Recovery To design&replace existing light fixtures&poles No additional increase Action Plan,District 4 within the park. The existing wire,power&controls will be reconnected to the new poles&fixtures reducing costs of power&maintenance. Design $3,600. Construction inspection&admin fees $2,450. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 20 Public Facilities 1 Pioneer Precinct HVAC Asset Renewal-1040 21 20 $493,790 $493,790 $493,790 $493,790 None West 700 South Capital Asset To replace existing inadequate HVAC system to No additional increase Renewal Plan, include air handling units,boilers,controls,&motors District 1 to improve thermal comfort&livability resulting in energy efficiencies of approximately 15%to 20%on rooftop units&the boiler thermal efficiency rating can be increased from 80%to 98%efficiency. Design$51,170. Engineering fees$8,406. Construction,inspection&admin$32,164. Supports Cit 's sustainabili efforts. 21 Parks 1 Herman Franks Park ADA Playground 22 21 $116,200 $116,200 $116,200 $116,200 None Improvements-700 East 1300 South Parks Inventory of To design&construct ADA accessibility No additional increase ADA Needs,Parks improvements to existing facilities to include Recovery Action playground re-surfacing,ramps,limited playground Plan,10 Year CIP modifications&upgrades,&associated landscape& Plan,District 5 irrigation system upgrades as required by construction impacts. Design$9,000. Engineering fees$2,100. Construction inspection&admin fees $6,100. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 9 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& °, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 22 Public Facilities 4 Central Plant Upgrade-251 East 500 South 23 22 $233,783 $233,783 $233,783 $233,783 None (Parking Garage) Capital Asset To hire a consultant to identify&design upgrades to No additional increase Renewal Plan the City's central plant that provides electrical power District 4 to Library Square,Washington Square&the future Public Safety Building complex. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 23 Open Space/Trails 2 Parleys Historic Nature Park Trail&Stream 28 23 $150,223 $150,223 $150,223 6/14/2011 Restoration-Approx 2700 East 2700 South District 7 To provide trail&stream restoration improvements No additional increase to include both temporary wire&permanent split/rail fencing,decomposed granite trail surface,stream bank grading,bank stabilization&vegetation of native plants along stream. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 24 Open Space/Trails 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Pathway Project- 29 24 $111,530 $111,530 $111,530 6/14/2011-$16,000 1650 East 1700 South District 6 To provide improvements to 4,130 linear feet of path No additional increase that includes closure&re-vegetation of non-use social trails,bridge construction,community art project,grading&crushed rock surfacing of path. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 25 Transportation 10 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update 32 25 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To update the City's 2004 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Master Plan, 10 Plan,using a consultant to provide primary staffing, Year CIP Plan FY06- writing,public outreach&support. The Plan will 16, include recommendations for the city's use of the All Districts latest innovative designs for both bicycle& pedestrian infrastructure&a flexible 5-year plan that incorporates both infrastructure&non-infrastructure projects in a logical sequence. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 10 Fiscal Year 2011- .a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 26 Transportation 3 Bicycle Boulevards Pilot Project-600 East, 35 26 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 None South Temple to 2700 South District 4,5&7 To design&construct a bicycle boulevard which No additional increase consists of medians,bicycle crossing pockets,LED warning signs,optimization of conventional traffic signals for bicycle use,pavement markings&way finding signs. This project will include the installation of three HAWK signals on 600 East at 800 So.,900 So,&1300 So. The 1300 So.HAWK signal was awarded funding during FY 10/11 CIP Process&is currently being designed. Funding for the 600 So. 600 East signal is in the current CIP Process. Engineering fees$43,000. 'Funding history includes bicycle development allocations over 7 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 27 Parks 7 Rotary Glen Park-2770 East 840 South 36 27 $325,000 $25,000 $25,000 None Rotary Glen Master To design&construct improvements to include No additional increase Plan,10 Year CIP removing&replacing existing restroom&pavilion, Plan FY08-09, replace failed sewer line under parking lot to support District 6 restroom,new drinking fountain,&burial of power lines. Parking lot,associated landscaping& sprinkler irrigation system will be replaced at the area of construction. Design$25,000. Engineering fees$5,000. Construction inspection&admin fees $20,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 11 Fiscal Year 2011- -o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact 28 Parks 11 East Capitol Boulevard Streetscape&Memory 37 28 $383,000 $299,078 $299,078 None Grove Overlook Improvements-East Capitol • Blvd.300 North to 500 North. 10 Year CIP Plan, To provide additional funding for design& No additional increase $150,000 of the District 3 construction of improvements to include new curb& $299,078 are one time bulbouts on east side of East Capitol Blvd,sidewalk, funds donated to crosswalks,landscaping&irrigation associated with Memory Grove Park the east side of the street&Memory Grove Park, and must be used for Memory Grove park Overlook&Historical Memory Grove Park Interpretation area. Area is heavy used as an Improvements exercise route. Design$28,400. Engineering Fees $5,300. Construction,inspection&admin$22,700. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 29 Percent for Art Percent for Art-Citywide 24 29 $80,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 None To provide enhancements such as decorative No additional increase pavement,railings,sculptures&other works of art. *Funding history indicates all funds received over 8 year period. 30 Contingency Contingency 30 $81,618 $82,587 $82,587 None Amount set aside to fund unexpected project cost over-runs. 31 Transportation 6 Street Light Conversion to Energy Efficient 4 31 $150,000 $150,000 None Bulbs-Citywide All Districts To purchase,install&replace the existing metal No additional increase halide lamps,with new energy efficient lamps in existing decorative street light poles that would include 148 lamps on 400 So.,between 200 E.& 1300 E.;&103 lamps on 900 So.,between 900 W. &500 E. This project would reduce the electric power&maintenance budget by approximately $14,000 annually. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 12 Fiscal Year 2011- -a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m °, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget p Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Open Space/Trails 6 Open Space Property Purchase-1560 E.Atkin 26 32 $270,000 None Ave Submitted by To provide partial funding for purchase of.86 acre lot No additional increase Constituent,District 7 at 1560 E Atkin Ave.for future park. Imperial Neighborhood Park Association has received $17,000 from private donations&fund raising. The association proposes to request remaining funding needed from the City's Open Space Land Division. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 33 Parks 12 City Cemetery Master Plan,Phase II-200 North 27 33 $349,900 None &"N"Street District 3 To complete the City Cemetery Master Plan. Phase Plan I of plan has been completed&provided an analysis of roads,curbs,utilities&inventory of unused areas of cemetery. Phase II of Plan will include comprehensive study of buildings,office/residence, emergency management plan,cemetery operations, financial based projection based on current prices& budgets for proposed/required improvements& proposal of possible new facility layout scenarios including new inventory items to improve cemetery performance. Plan 318,100. Engineering fees $31,800. Not applicable to City's sustainability efforts. Transportation 8 Traffic Signal Installation-California Ave.,3400 30 34 5400,000 None &3800 West District 2 To design&construct 2 new traffic lights on No additional increase California Ave.,at 3400 West&3800 West. Based on completed traffic condition studies,these intersections warrant installation of signals. These signals will significantly improve safety at these intersections which have a high percentage of large truck traffic,heavy turning movements&growing traffic volumes. Design$52,000. Engineering fees $52,000. Construction inspection&admin.$12,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 13 Fiscal Year 2011- , FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description pop Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 35 Streets 8 Indiana Ave./900 South Rehabilitation Design- 31 35 $300,000 None Redwood Rd.to 3600 West 10 Year CIP Plan To design for future construction street No additional increase See Impact Fees#2 District 2 improvements to include pavement restoration,curb &gutter,drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics, Total design cost is $600,000. An additional$300,000 is being requested from Impact Fees. Design$600,000. Su•sorts Ci 's sustainabilit efforts. 36 Transportation 11 SLC Wayfinding Sign Update&Restoration 33 36 $150,000 None Transportation Plan To repair,repaint&update the SLC wayfiinding signs No additional increase Districts 3,4,6&7 installed in 2001. Many of the signs have been damaged due to weather,vehicle collisions, vandalism,corrosion&age. Areas include Central Business District,the Sugar House Business District &the University of Utah. Supports City's sustainabili efforts. Open Space/Trails 4 Ensign Peak Trail Realignment $40,000 None District 3 To design,close&construct trail realignment No additional increase including re-vegetation of native plants. Supports Cit's sustainabilit efforts. • 14 Fiscal Year 2011- o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Streets 10 800 West Street&Island Rehabilitation Design- 38 38 $40,000 None 800 West,600 South to 900 South 10 Year CIP Plan To design for future construction street&median Design District 2 island improvements for deteriorated public right of way. Design includes street pavement replacement or rehabilitation,drive approaches,curb&gutter, sidewalk repairs,ADA accessibility ramps&median island improvements. Design$40,000. Supports Cit's sustainabili efforts. Public Facilities 9 600 South Properties Window Replacement-248 $60,119I None East 600 South District 4 To replace the existing single paned,plate glass No additional increase windows with energy efficient double paned. Su..orts Ci 's sustainabilit efforts. 40 Public Facilities 7 Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water 40 40 $291,928 None Conservation&Asset Renewal Project Design- 2100 So.,1000 E.to 1300 E.;Highland Dr., Westminster&Ashton Capital Asset To design for future replacement of deteriorating Design Renewal Plan, galvanized pipe located beneath concrete&pavers District 7 with new PVC main irrigation service line,electronic ' valves,backflow devices,irrigation lines to trees, bubblers in tree planters,irrigation management system,failure&low flow alarms,low voltage controls,landscape lighting,auto-drain valves, replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers,install new sidewalk,curb,gutter as necessary remove&replace parking strip trees that are less than 3 feet from curb. Design$253,275. Engineering fees$38,653. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 15 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m` °. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 41 Parks 6 Tennis Court Reconstruction-Fairmont Park 41 41 6969,200 Minimal 900 East Simpson Ave. Fairmont Park To replace five(5)existing tennis courts with four(4) $800 per year Master Plan,District new post tension courts&two(2)youth program 7 courts,new fencing,net posts,landscaping& irrigation system,sidewalk along north side of courts, • benches&drinking fountain. Design complete. Engineering fees$18,400.Construction inspection& admin fees$70,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 42 Public Facilities 6 Plaza 349 Solar Window Film-349 South 200 42 42 6151,382 None East District 4 To provide solar control window film to reduce UV& No additional increase heat penetration,repair rubber window gaskets, weather strip&re-seal windows. The solar window film chosen is 3M Scotch tint&will reduce solar heat gain by 58%,comfort heat loss in winter by 10%,UV infiltration by 99%. Design$14,550. Engineering fees$2,243. Construction inspection&admin $7,275. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 16 Fiscal Year 2011- o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& n i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 43 Public Facilities 3 Irrigation Water Conservation&Asset Renewal 43 43 $135,568 None Project Design-100 So. Main St.&part of West Temple,100 So.Regent to Main St.,300 So.Main St.to Exchange Place,4th So.Main to Cactus St. North Side Capital Asset To provide design of 4 locations for future Design Renewal Plan replacement of deteriorating galvanized pipe located istrict 4 beneath concrete&pavers with new PVC main irrigation service line,electronic valves,backflow devices,irrigation lines to trees,bubblers in tree planters,irrigation management system,failure& low flow alarms,low voltage controls,landscape lighting,auto-drain valves&replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers. Design $118,679.Engineering fees$16,889. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 44 Public Facilities 14 Liberty Police Precinct&Fire Station#3 44 44 $15,000,000 None Possible Bond Project District 7 Costs associated with the purchase of additional No additional increase property adjacent to the current fire station#3 from Deseret Industries. The existing fire station#3 would be demolished,a new building constructed to house the fire station,police patrol precinct& community rooms. This application was submitted 1 by the Police/Fire Departments as a place holder within the CIP. Application requests$15,000,000. 45 Public Facilities 2 Justice Courts HVAC Energy Conservation 45 45 $377,100 None Upgrades-333 South 200 East Capital Asset To modify existing inadequate HVAC system to No additional increase Renewal Plan improve thermal comfort&livability resulting in an District 4 estimated 13%annual electrical&25%annual natural gas savings. Design$40,041. Engineering fees$5,291. Construction,inspection&admin $17,160. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 17 Fiscal Year 2011- o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 46 Public Facilities 8 Spring Mobile Park Energy Conservation& 46 46 5663,518 None HVAC Renewal-1365 South West Temple District 5 To provide HVAC upgrades to Spring Mobile Park No additional increase building to include installation of a water side economizer,new chiller,control system access& lighting retrofit. Design$68,758. Engineering fees • $11,296. Construction inspection&admin$43,220. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 47 Parks 15 Tennis Court Reconstruction-5th Avenue&"C" 47 47 5597,800 None Street Parks Recovery To design,remove&reconstruct existing tennis No additional increase Action Plan,10 Year courts. Two new courts will be built to meet new CIP Plan FY08-09, tennis standards&sizes as possible. District 3 Reconstruction includes new concrete retaining walls,associated landscape&irrigation impacted by construction,surfacing,net posts&line striping. Design$58,500. Engineering fees$8,300. Construction inspection&admin fees$36,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 18 Fiscal Year 2011- .o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget o Plan Information Project Description Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Public Facilities 5 Sunday Anderson Westside Senior Center 48 48 $110,093 None Building Shell Renovation-868 West 900 South Capital Asset To provide exterior building improvements to include No additional increase Renewal Plan replacing roof shingles with forty year architectural District 4 grade shingles,replace rain gutters,soffit,fascia,& existing siding with 12"surface interlocking steel siding. Design$11,551. Engineering Fees$1,644. Construction,inspection&admin$4,443. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 49 Public Facilities 13 Salt Lake City Police Crime Lab&Evidence 49 49 $9,000,000 None Possible Bond Project Storage Facility All Districts Costs associated with the purchase and/or No additional increase construction of a new Police crime lab&evidence storage facility. Property&site to be determined. This application was submitted by the Police Department as a place holder within the CIP. A..lication re.uests$9,000,000. 50 Parks 17 Tennis Court Resurfacing-Oak Hills 2425 East 50 50 $76,080 None 1216 South 10 Year CIP Plan To design&construct upgrades to four existing No additional increase FY08-09,District 6 tennis courts at the Oak Hills Tennis facility the remaining six courts will received new paint& stripping. Upgrades to four existing courts include repairing cracks,resurfacing courts,new net posts& line striping. Existing fencing will remain in service for these facilities. Design$6,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$4,080. Supports City's sustainabili efforts. • 19 Fiscal Year 2011- . FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& o, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 51 Transportation 9 Wakara Way&Arapeen Drive Roundabout 51 51 5350,000 None Transportation To design&construct a roundabout on Wakara Way No additional increase Master Plan, District &Arapeen Drive in Research Park. Traffic 6 conditions warrant the installation of traffic control measures at this intersection which can accommodate a roundabout as opposed to a traffic signal which has ongoing maintenance&operation • costs. Design$35,000. Engineering fees$35,000. Construction inspection&admin.$10,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 52 Transportation 12 1300 East Traffic Calming Bulb Out-1300 East, 52 52 520,000 None 400 South Submitted by To reconstruct the northwest curb at the intersection Design Constituent of 1300 East 400 south with improvements to Districts 4 include bulb out&landscaping providing a traffic calming device. Construction includes removing& replacing existing curb with bulb out,water wise landscaping or public art. Transportation indicates that bulb outs can cost as much as$20,000. More importantly,the section of 1300 East between 500 South&South Temple is in need of reconstruction. Federal funding has been requested for the reconstruction. If approved,a formal design review will be conducted that could change the width of the street,add bicycle lanes,etc, If a bulbout is built now,it may need to be removed when the street is rebuilt due to being located in the wrong location. • 20 Fiscal Year 2011- .a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m >. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Parks 13 Oak Hills Tennis Court Lighting-2425 East 1216 53 53 $140,200 None South 10 Year CIP Plan To design&provide court lighting to the six bottom No additional increase FY08-09,District 6 tennis courts providing extended play during the spring&fall. Improvements include new light poles &fixtures per the latest court lighting system standards.All conduits from those placed under the newly renovated courts will be installed&all wire systems will be provided&connected to the existing power meter. Design$15,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$10,200. Concessionaire had donated$50,000 for this project. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 54 Streets 14 East Liberty Park Community Organization 54 54 540,000 None (ELPCO)Alley Improvement Study Submitted by To provide funding for a study&preliminary design Design Constituent District 5 of rehabilitation needs&upgrades of the public way alleys between 900 South to 1300 South,from 700 East to 1100 East. Design$40,000. Supports City's sustainabili efforts. 55 Parks 16 Lindsey Garden Parking Lot Resurfacing-7th 55 55 5109,950 None Avenue&"N"Street Parks Recovery To remove&replace old deteriorated asphalt No additional increase Action Plan,Districts pavement&broken sections of the concrete curb 3 wall,with new surfacing,associated base gravel,& new curb wall where needed. Design$7,600. Engineering Fees$1,750. Construction,inspection &admin$5,200. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 0 21 Fiscal Year 2011- , FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& m Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 56 Parks 8 Tennis Court Reconstruction-Lindsey Gardens 56 56 $597,800 None Park,7th Avenue&"N"Street Parks Recovery To design,demolish&reconstruct existing tennis No additional increase Action Plan,10 Year courts. Two new courts will be built to meet new CIP Plan FY08-09, tennis standards. Reconstruction includes new District 3 concrete retaining walls to provide the level foot print required,associated landscape&irrigation,court surfacing,net posts,line striping&fencing. Design $58,500. Engineering fees$8,300. Construction inspection&admin fees$36,000. Supports City's sustainabili efforts. 57 Parks 10 Baseball Park Concessions Stand Improvements 57 57 $374,250 None -Citywide Parks Recovery To design&construct mandated Board of Health No additional increase Action Plan,Districts Improvements to the City concessions stands at 1,2,&6 Sunnyside Park,1600 East 800 So.,Poplar Gove Park,1190 West 800 so.,&Riverside Park,711 North 1400 West baseball fields. Improvements include grease traps,three compartment sinks,floor drains attached to sewer,sealed walls,ceiling& floors,hand washing sinks,exhaust vents,mounted fire extinguishers,exit doors that open outward with correct hardware&self closing screens& upgrades to electrical services appropriate to equipment in building. Each site may need all or part of these improvements. Design$26,250. Construction inspection&admin fees$18,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 0 22 Fiscal Year 2011- -o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& ti °. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Transportation 2 Traffic Signal Installation-600 South 600 East 58 58 $160,000 None Transportation To design&construct a new traffic signal where No additional increase Master Plan,10 Year none currently exists on 600 South 600 East. Traffic CIP Plan,FY06-16 studies which findings include increased traffic, District 4 accident history,&changing traffic conditions indicate that a new light is warranted at this intersection. This project would benefit&be done in coordination with the 600 E.Bike Boulevard project. Design$21,000.Engineering fees$21,000. Construction,inspection&admin fees$5,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 59 Public Facilities 10 City&County,1st Floor South,Heating/Cooling 59 59 $170,292 None Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State Street District 4 To replace the existing fan coil wall units on the 1st No additional increase floor,South side of the City&County Building. Design$16,664. Engineering fees$2,371. Construction inspection&admin$10,255. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 60 Streets 5 1300 East/Richmond Street Rehabilitation-1300 60 60 $1,379,000 None E./Richmond,from 1-80 to 3300 South 10 Year CIP Plan To construct street rehabilitation to include removal No additional increase District 7 of open graded asphalt surface course(OGSC)& replace with asphalt overlay,curb&gutter repairs, ADA accessibility ramps&sidewalk repairs. This project will also include pedestrian traffic safety measures programmed for this section of 1300 East by the City's Transportation Division,including pedestrian sign enhancements at Elgin&Zenith Ayes.,&restriping of the roadway to accommodate bicycle lanes. This street was transferred to the City from UDOT in 2007. Design$67,300. Construction inspection&admin$86,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 23 Fiscal Year 2011- .a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& n Si,' Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes IPublic Facilities 12 City&County,Fifth Floor North Side,Remodel- $884,301 None 451 So.State Street District 4 To provide partial funding needed to finish the No additional increase unimproved space on the 5th floor,north side,to be used as office space for a projected 44 employees. Construction fundin.$884,301. 62 Parks 3 Foothill Blvd.Islands Landscape-Foothill Blvd., 62 62 5107,780 None 900 to 1100 South Parks Recovery To design&replace the existing sprinkler irrigation No additional increase Action Plan,District 6 system within the islands with new deep root watering system emitters at each existing tree,add weed barrier fabric&mulch. Design$8,500. Construction inspection&admin fees$5,780. Su..orts Ci 's sustainabili efforts. 63 Streets 6 900 South Street Rehabilitation-900 South,1100 63 63 5406,000 None East to 1300 East 10 Year CIP Plan To construct street rehabilitation to include pavement No additional increase Districts 4&5 restoration,curb&gutter repair as needed,drainage improvements&ADA accessibility improvements. Construction inspection&admin$27,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 111 24 1 Fiscal Year 2011- .o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier 8 m i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Streets 12 Princeton Ave Concrete Street Replacement- $486,800 None Duplicate of S#9 Princeton Ave.,1700 East to 1800 East Submitted by To remove&replace concrete street pavement on No additional increase Constituent District 6 Princeton Ave.(1155 South),between 1700 East to 1800 East. This application submitted by constituent is a duplication of Engineering's#9 application above. ,treets 13 900 South Road Construction-900 So.,2700 65 65 $300,000 None Duplicate of S#8 West to 3200 West Submitted by To construct street improvements to include No additional increase Constituent District 2 pavement restoration,curb&gutter,drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. This application submitted by constituent is a duplicate of Engineering's#8 a••lication above. I Spaceholder II __ Spaceholder Spaceholder Total General Fund,including CAM and Public $46,387,196 $9,090,000 $9,716,834 $9,716,834 $40,708 $0 Facilities Maintenance Set Asides,FY 2011-12 Total General Fund and Debt Service Projects . $50,144,218 $12,847,022 $13,473,847 $13,473,847 • 25 Fiscal Year 2011- FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board .o 2012 Identifier& m i" Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m E Request Amount_ Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Fiscal Year 11-12 Class "C"Projects 1 Class"C"1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3- 1 1 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 None 3670 West to 4230 West 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to No additional increase See general fund, FY06-16,District 2 include pavement restoration to approx.4,500 lineal project#6(S#1)and feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes Impact Fees#14111 on both sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage &water line improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding. $1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";&$2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction,inspection&admin $254,000. 'Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 2 Class"C"2 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation-1300 South, 2 2 6200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 500 to 700 West 10 Year CIP Plan To provide partial match of the required$680,000 No additional increase FY06-16,District 2 needed to obtain an estimated$10,000,000 Surface Transportation Program grant(STP). The STP funding for the viaduct rehabilitation has been approved by UDOT&FHWA&requires a 7%local match. The$680,000 of local match is being requested over a 4 year period. $200,000 was allocated during the FY 10-11 CIP Process& additional match funding will be requested in FY's 2012&2013. The viaduct needs essential repairs& • rehabilitation as identified in the condition assessment&rehabilitation study,including structural&seismic needs. These funds will be banked until the required match funding can be met. 26 Fiscal Year 2011- o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& f6 , Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Class"C"3 Street Pavement Overlay&Preservation FY11/12 3 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 None Citywide 10 Year CIP Plan To provide asphalt overlay to street pavements as No additional increase FY06-16,Districts 2 selected by Pavement Management System& &7 based on condition&need. Other improvements include ADA pedestrian ramps,sidewalk,curb, gutter repair&design funding for 12/13 overlay project. Design$100,000 Construction inspection& admin fees$59,700. *Funding history includes all Class"C"allocations over 11 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 4 Class"C"4 Concrete Streets Rehabilitation FY11/12- 4 4 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None Citywide 10 Year CIP Plan To provide construction rehabilitation to deteriorated No additional increase FY07-08,District 2 concrete streets Citywide. Improvements to include slab replacement,grinding,resurfacing&joint repair. Priorities include various area within 900 West,900 South to 2100 South as funding permits. Design $16,500. Construction inspection&admin$18,800. "Funding history includes Class"C"allocations over 6 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 10 27 Fiscal Year 2011- a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m i, Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes 5 Class"C"5 500 East Rehabilitation,Phase I-1300 to 1700 5 5 $388,000 $388,000 $350,000 None South 10 Year CIP Plan To provide major rehabilitation to include street No additional increase FY07-08 pavement restoration,removal&replacement of Districts 5,7 defective sidewalk,curb&gutter,ADA pedestrian ramps& upgrades to traffic signals. Project will coordinate installation of major storm drain lines with Public Utilities. Design$100,000-funded O8-09. Construction,inspection admin$30,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 6 Class"C"6 500 East Rehabilitation,Phase II-1700 South to 6 $262,000 $262,000 $0 None 2100 South 10 Year CIP Plan To provide major rehabilitation to include street No additional increase The City expects to FY07-08, pavement restoration,removal&replacement of receives$2.4 of FY 11- Districts 5,7 defective sidewalk,curb&gutter,ADA pedestrian 12 Class"C"funds,not ramps& upgrades to traffic signals. Project will $2.7. Engineering coordinate installation of major storm drain lines with withdrew this Public Utilities. Design$100,000-funded 08-09. application Additional funds will be required in subsequent years, These funds will be banked for future construction use. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Class"C"Fund Total MEI $2 700 000 $2 700 000 $2 400 000 0 28 } Fiscal Year 2011- .o FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board 2012 Identifier& A i. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description m 2 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes Fiscal Year 11-12 Impact Fee Projects 1 Impact Fee 1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3- 1 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 None 3670 West to 4230 West 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to No additional increase See general fund, District 2 include pavement restoration to approx.4,500 lineal project#6(S#1)and feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes Class"C"#1 on both sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage &water line improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding. $1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";&$2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction,inspection&admin $254,000. 'Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 2 Impact Fees 2 Indiana Ave/900 South Rehabilitation Design- 2 2 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 None Redwood Rd.to 3600 West 10 Year CIP Plan To design for future construction street No additional increase See general fund District 2 improvements to include pavement restoration,curb project#35(S#8) &gutter,drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics, Total design cost is $600,000. An additional$300,000 is being requested from the general fund CIP. Design '.600 000. Su•sorts Cit 's sustainabilit efforts. Im•act Fee Fund Total MIIM $2 300 000 $2 300 000 $2 300 000 Total FY 11/12 CIP MIIM $18 173 847 29 F iscal Year 2011- 1.2 o FY 2011-2012 CUCIP Board 2012 Identifier& `m °. Funding Proposed Mayor's Proposed Operating Budget Plan Information Project Description t0 Request Amount Amount Council Allocations Impact Notes ('arrl'urer Capita/Projeet.Jionr 1'3'?011 Budget.1n:end:nem#4 Carryover Projects 200 South Bike Lane Pilot ProjectI $620,000 FUNDS ARE FROM from Budget VARIOUS SOURCES- Amendment#4 III NOT GF FY 12 ALLOCATION Capital Projects from 1.)'2012 Budget.imendment#1 Capital Project-I Pay Station Parking Meter Installation and $5,301,684 FUNDS ARE FROM Budget Amendment On going Costs VARIOUS SOURCES #1 General Fund- $367,829 Other Funds-$1,519,557 CIP Fund-53 414 29R .\ote: Projects Raised bl'Individual Council.Members fir Full C'otntcil'.s Consideration-Stafj'in process of compilin,,list. Raised by ChairNice Chair-Complete Streets Initiative-300 West 1300 South-Pedestrian and Bike Safety and Experience Council Member Simonson-Citywide Pedestrian Safety Council Member Simonson-2100 South- Complete Streets Council Member Martin-Yale Avenue Residents $40000 to Costs are estimates. Request(Yale Avenue,Yalecrest Avenue,Military $70000 Drive from 1500 East to 1700 East)resurface with concrete rather than asphalt overlay. • 30