Loading...
09/03/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday September 3, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Dale Lambert Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; Steven Allred, Acting City Attorney; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Parviz Rokhva, Public Service Technical Planner; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer; Gaylord Smith, Engineering Project Manager Consultant; David Dobbins, Director of Business Services; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Avenues and Subdivision Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use Transportation and Subdivision Planner; Joel Paterson, Planning Special Projects; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Jeffery Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy; Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Coordinator Director; LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development(HAND) ; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Gordon Hoskins, Controller; Mary Guy-Sell, Community and Economic Development Administration; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Randy Hillier, Capital Improvement Project Administration/Budget & Policy Analyst; Chief A. M. "Mac" Connole; Gina Painter, Prosecutor's Victim Liaison; Kurt Cook, Battalion Chief; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment Ms. Gust-Jenson said housing providers wanted to attend a hearing regarding impact fees. She said Council could continue the hearing to a later date. She said a community council had complained that they had not been notified about the sidewalk vending cart public hearing. She said they wanted a continuation of the hearing. A discussion was held regarding when to continue the public hearings. See file M 02-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW LARRY MYERS PRIOR TO HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD (CIP) . Mr. Myers said his experience on the CIP Board offered a helpful service to the City Council and the Mayor. He said Board Members were a diverse group with different ideas. He said the diversity gave a unique view of the City projects which they recommended. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Myers if the CIP Board had ever made a 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 recommendation to remove an item from the list. Mr. Myers said the board had not removed an issue but could have rated the issue lower than others. Councilmember Turner asked Mr. Myers how his background in construction helped him on the board. Mr. Myers said he was able to look at projects which did not make economic sense. #3. INTERVIEW KEN BULLOCK PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mr. Bullock said committee members represented citizens and technical experts. He said the committee functioned well. He said a better understanding of how water rights worked and flowed through the state was needed. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Bullock what items might be on a Public Utilities Advisory Committee agenda. Mr. Bullock said the committee reviewed water shed issues, rate structures, litigations, and projects on water conservation. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Bullock if the committee had discussed sales tax going into water projects and how rate structures should be done. Mr. Bullock said a consultant had been hired. He said they would have a proposal in 3 months. He said he thought there would be discussion by the Governor to eliminate underwriting of water projects which the State subsidized. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARD THE 2002 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY. (SECONDARY WATER) View Attachment LeRoy Hooton, Stephnie Duer, Rick Graham, Jeff Neirmeyer and Gary Mumford briefed the Council. Mr. Hooton said the study focused on using secondary water systems like Utah Lake water or canal water and on providing secondary water to growth areas in the northwest quadrant. He said a second source of water was reclaimed water from the Water Reclamation Plant. He said they had identified green space around the plant which could be watered with reclaimed water if the proper approvals were made. He said there had also been interest from oil refineries for reclaimed water. He said over 4000 acre-feet had been identified which could use reclaimed water. He said Mountain Dell Reservoir held 3000 acre-feet of water. Mr. Hooton said another area the study had looked at was the efficient use of City green spaces and potential savings. He said these were parks, golf courses, parking strips and other areas the City controlled. He said this was an opportunity for government to set an example. Mr. Graham said the report recommended improving the City's irrigation system with central controls. He said several of these had been already been installed. Ms. Duer said the study had not addressed gray water as much as secondary water. She said the difference was that gray water was collected water which was untreated and secondary water was irrigation water which was untreated. Councilmember Christensen asked if bonding for new irrigation systems at golf courses and parks was a potential. Mr. Hooton said the standard payback period was 20 years. He said he would come back to Council with a recommendation to fund a reclaimed water use project. Councilmember Christensen said he encouraged some financial modeling to see if it made sense to move some of the bigger projects forward and to see if there would be fiscal payback. Councilmember Buhler asked where the treated affluent water went. Mr. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Hooton said the west oil drain canal moved it directly to the Great Salt Lake. Councilmember Saxton asked if water sources on site at golf courses could be used for watering. Mr. Hooton said if the source was ground water and the City had the ground water rights then the water was usable. He said it was a site-specific issue. A discussion was held regarding flowing water. Councilmember Saxton asked when new homes were built were the occupants allowed to construct for the use of gray water or secondary water. Mr. Niermeyer said this was addressed under a separate process. He said the recommendation was to develop gray water and secondary water systems for new construction of homes and buildings. Councilmember Turner asked if there were models for developing gray water and secondary water systems for new construction of homes and buildings. Mr. Hooton said retro fitting urban areas was difficult. He said several Cities within Utah now required new growth areas to be fitted for a secondary system. Councilmember Turner asked if the City currently used any on site water sources to water golf courses or parks. Mr. Graham said a well at the Glendale Golf Course helped support irrigation. He said using water from the Jordan River or canals was not allowed without treatment. He said treatment was expensive. Councilmember Jergensen said the study and the staff briefing made it clear that in the future the use of secondary water would cost approximately the same as regular water. A discussion was held regarding a 20-year bond and funding calculations. Mr. Niermeyer said water resources for the next 20 years would be from a petition in 1979 when the City asked for 20,000 acre feet of Central Utah Project (CUP) water. He said that project had kept water costs down. He said in the next 20 years water sources would not be as easy to find. He said the City would rely on conservation programs and moving outside irrigation to lower quality water. He said the study was the corner stone of a 20-year program for the vision of the City. Mr. Hooton said there was a concern for public health. Ms. Duer explained that many cities using gray water had found increased levels of shallow water, and soil contamination and landscape damage. She said it was difficult to maintain regular maintenance for a residential gray water system. She said there were also contamination concerns for bacteria etc. Mr. Hooton said if the City wanted to address water conservation and make substantial savings for the future, requirements for planning new developments and open space should be looked at. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO CLOSE A PORTION OF MARCH STREET (2955 WEST BETWEEN 500 SOUTH AND 570 SOUTH. View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Marge Harvey, Janice Jardine and Jackie Gasparik briefed the Council. Councilmember Christensen asked if the petitioners concerns were addressed. He asked if there was an alternate access to his property. Mr. Wheelwright said Mr. Evans had numerous accesses on Fulton Avenue. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned there was a large amount of vacant land which had the potential for development and would not have clear access. Mr. Wheelwright said development could access property from 500 South. A discussion was held regarding subdividing and access to the divided properties. Councilmember Turner said the business had access on 500 South. He said the 900 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 South railroad tracks cut the land in half. He said he did not feel the street closure would have a major impact. Councilmember Saxton asked why the March Street closure had been requested. Councilmember Turner explained that the Buena Vista subdivision plat had been a city at one time and was laid out in 25 foot lots. He said due to the small lots, alleys and land development many of the lots were being land locked. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was one policy for alley closures and one for street closures. She said the standards were different. Councilmember Buhler said the Council should make the policies clear. Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff would provide examples of the two different standards being applied to the same area for the Council's review and discussion. A discussion was held regarding moving the issue forward to a public hearing. All Council Members were in favor of moving the issue forward. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE LIBRARY BLOCK MASTER PLAN. View Attachment D. J. Baxter, Joel Paterson and Russell Weeks briefed the Council. Councilmember Turner asked if the master plan reviewed the proposed crosswalk and landscape in the street. Mr. Paterson said the plan addressed the need for a mid-block crossing but did not go into detail or cost. A discussion was held regarding the general master plan. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the Council to determine to what extent retail would be included or excluded in the master plan. Mr. Weeks said the draft of the master plan the Council was considering was descriptive with regard to retail on the block. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about housing on the block. He asked if the Central City Master Plan addressed incentives for housing around the Library block. Mr. Baxter said incentives for housing were addressed in both master plans. All Council Members were in favor of moving the issue forward. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 9 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Michael Sears, Randy Hillier; Tim Harpst, Gordon Hoskins; D. J. Baxter, Gina Painter and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council. Mr. Sears said Issue 18, VAWA-Domestic Violence Prosecution the match was 25% not 20% as stated. He said Issue 11, 800 Mhtz Radio Lease payments, there was $21,557 funding in the last year's cost center. He said the actual request was $40, 159.52 not $61, 000. He said the first 11 issues of the handout were housekeeping issues. (See attachment) . Councilmember Christensen asked if the lease rate of the radio system was higher than when first leased. Mr. Hoskins said they made two semi-annual payments of approximately $30, 000 each. He said the lease was for 5 years. A discussion was held regarding Issue 18, Domestic Violence Prosecution. Mr. Sears said the grant would provide an existing position to be continued. Councilmember Saxton asked if the grant was the same as the Police Department' s. Ms. Painter said the funding was existing and would end September 30, 2002. She said funding was used for police officer overtime to arrest offenders not appearing at court hearings for their domestic violence cases. Councilmember Saxton asked that a discussion about interfacing between the Prosecutor's Office and the Victims Advocacy Program at the Police Department be held at another date. 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Councilmember Christensen said he supported Issue 21, Fire EOC/Training Center ($750,000-CIP fund) but he was concerned about borrowing funding. Mr. Fluhart said the Administration recommended borrowing from the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) fund. Council Members Turner and Jergensen said they supported the item. Councilmember Saxton said Council District 7 had an agreement to re-stamp street names in historical areas when ADA ramps were placed or defective sidewalks were replaced. She said this was not being done south of 2100 South. Councilmember Jergensen said he was on the sub-committee for Issue 24, Intermodal Hub. He asked if the $9, 704,335 funding was available. Mr. Baxter said the Federal Transit Administration was the grantor for this. He said Utah Transit Authority had received approximately $4 million from prior appropriations. He said they were working on more. He said current funding was sufficient to meet the budgetary requirement. A discussion was held regarding Issue 25, Parking Validation Program. Councilmember Buhler asked Mr. Fluhart if the Administration anticipated an ongoing source of income for the following two years. Mr. Fluhart said there was not. He said it would be paid from ongoing revenues in future years or from fund balance. Councilmember Saxton asked if the contract could be rescinded. Mr. Harpst said the draft agreement contained a rescind clause fail-safes. Councilmember Buhler referred to the handout and several questions to the Administration regarding Item 25. He asked that written answers be given to the Council before the public hearing. A discussion was held regarding Issue 26, Hansen Planetarium Evaluation. Mr. Fluhart said there were concerns with the mechanical futures of the building and the dome, which had been built later than the building. Councilmember Jergensen said Issue 27, Library Block Open Space Development needed to move forward. He said this allowed funds to be used for certain things and did not obligate the design. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there would be a public hearing for funding. Councilmember Buhler said appropriation was the Council's control for what they wanted to happen. He said the issue deserved more discussion. Councilmember Turner said he was concerned with the amount of funding for landscaping the street median. He said this could be a problem later. He said he wanted to put in the crosswalk first. Councilmember Buhler suggested discussing the issue further. Councilmember Jergensen suggested dividing the two items, 1) landscape median and 2) crosswalk. Mr. Sears said the items could be divided. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE SALT LAKE CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS REGARDING A FUTURE CITY EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTER AND TRAINING CENTER. View Attachment Michael Sears, Rocky Fluhart and Battalion Chief Cook briefed the Council. Councilmember Buhler said the resolution would help the Red Cross raise money for the operation and training center. Mr. Sears said the Administration's intent was not to use City funds for the project but to raise funds for the City' s portion of the $16 million project. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned there was not a need for another building. Mr. Fluhart said the building would be of significant use for the City. He said it would be the emergency operations center (EOC) in case of disaster. He said the EOC would allow key people to come together and work for the citizens. He said fire 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 administration and dispatch would be moved to the EOC building. He said the administration was pursuing potential federal funding sources for the project. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Fluhart if the administration would let an outside source evaluate the proposal and look at the options. Mr. Fluhart said gathering information was beneficial to everyone. Councilmember Christensen asked what the timing was for design and feasibility studies. Battalion Chief Cook said the intent of the resolution was to help with the funding campaign. He said contract development, programming and designing the facility would take from a year to 18 months based on funding. Mr. Fluhart said the Red Cross had employed Deloitte Touche to evaluate the project. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (MBA) BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4. View Attachment Michael Sears, Randy Hillier and Gordon Hoskins briefed the Council. Mr. Sears said the amendment was a housekeeping issue. He said it allowed MBA encumbrances to be carried over. #10. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING IMPACT FEES. #11. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING SIDEWALK VENDING CARTS. Items 10 and 11 were not discussed at this meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. cm 02 - 6 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 30,2002 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002,2002-2003 Biennial Budget Amendment#9 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Type Facts Facts Ordinance The proposed amendment includes The requested The ordinance is $39,750 from General Fund-Fund amendment has presented to Balance and$64,000 from General Fund issues related to amend the Contingency.All other proposed Grants,Public second year of amendments relate to the CIP, Safety,CIP and the biennial Enterprise and Miscellaneous Grants donations to the budget. Funds. City. The briefing and discussion of the ninth budget amendment of fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for September 3,2002. At a future Council Meeting the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorized budget opening items as follows where possible: • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation" --those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications;because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus' --those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since employees involved with these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Washington Square Restoration ($39,750 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping" The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $39,750 from General Fund-Fund Balance for the restoration of Washington Square. The Council appropriated $39,750 in fiscal year 2001-2002 for the restoration of the Page 1 turf and irrigation damage. The appropriated funds were not encumbered and therefore lapsed to fund balance. This appropriation will allow the Public Services Department to complete the restoration work without absorbing the costs from within its current budget. Issue #2: General Fund Encumbrances ($2,385,021 — General Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $2,385,021 in General Fund encumbrance carryover. In order to limit spending to appropriation amounts, the City's accounting system reduces the available funds that a department has to spend when purchase orders are issued and when contracts are signed. If the goods or services are not received until the following fiscal year, the Council has routinely carried the appropriations over to the following year so that the same expenditures are not charged once to the prior year budget and once again to the new fiscal year budget. The Administration requests that encumbrances in the following funds be carried over and appropriated to fiscal year 2002-2003. General Fund Attorney $ 59,448 Community and Economic Development 401,187 Council 326,602 Fire 72,748 Mayor 16,718 Management Services 183,003 Non-Departmental 65,920 Police 61,553 Public Services 1,197,842 Total $2,385,021 Issue #3: Forestry and Sweeping Vehicle Replacement — Lease Payments and Cash Purchases($568,944 —Fleet Internal Service Fund) ("Housekeeping") Enterprise funds account for vehicle purchases within the individual enterprise funds. Within the General Fund, the City traditionally accounts for vehicle purchases within the Non-Departmental classification. When the Forestry and Sweeping programs were moved from the Refuse Enterprise Fund to the General Fund, the vehicle purchases amounts were inadvertently budgeted within the Public Services Department rather than in Non-Departmental. The Administration is requesting that the Council move the appropriation of vehicle lease payments and vehicle cash payments for the Forestry and Street Sweeping programs that were budgeted in the General Fund Publics Services Department budget to the Non-Departmental budget. The requested appropriation would also include the existing funding provided by the General Fund for fleet replacement. A transfer can then be made to the Fleet Management Fund. The requested amendment also establishes this appropriation within the Fleet Management internal service fund. Page 2 Issue 44: Prior Year Outstanding Obligations -Refuse, Golf and Fleet Funds ($1,315,922-Enterprise Funds)("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $1,315,922 for purchase orders entered near the end of fiscal year 2002-2002 and not paid by the June 30,2002 within the Refuse and Golf enterprise funds and within the Fleet Management internal service fund. Because the budget from fiscal year 2001-2002 lapsed, it is necessary to appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior fiscal year.The funding source for this transaction is fund balance (cash reserves). There is adequate fund balance available in each fund to accomplish this request.This request is the same type as Issue#3. Issue#5: Closed-out CIP Projects($401,508-CIP Fund)("Housekeeping'? The City regularly reviews the Capital Improvement Fund and 'closes out" those project accounts where the project work is complete. When these project accounts have remaining balance, the funds can be transferred to Capital Improvement Program Fund Contingency. This would apply for projects that are funded with General Fund revenue only. Class C revenue from closed out projects reverts to the Class C revenue pool. The Administration has included a schedule of remaining balances for each project to be closed. The Administration has also noted other projects that are to be closed that have no cash remaining but had budget remaining.The Federal Highway Administration,Salt Lake County or the Utah Department of Transportation typically funds these projects. Since expenditures in these projects are reimbursed only after actual costs are incurred,closing of these projects does not result in any surplus cash. Issue 46: School District Reimbursement - CIF ($15,782 - CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") The City has received funds from the Salt Lake City School District for work completed on Morton Drive adjacent to school district property. The property was recently sold, and the amount of$15,782 was reimbursed to the City by the school district.This revenue was not previously budgeted. It is recommended that the funds be deposited into the CIP contingency cost center and the contingency budget be increased. Issue 47: Non-CDBG Special Revenue Carryovers ($17,987,027 - Special Revenue Fund)("Housekeeping") This fiscal year is the second year that the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)Statement 34 is in effect. Statement 34 defines the method by which the City accepts and expends donations. In prior fiscal years, expendable trust funds did not require Council approval. In the past, the cash balance in each expendable trust fund controlled the level of expenditure. GASB 34 eliminated the expendable trust fund category. With the elimination,the spending authority of any remaining fund balance lapses at year-end. Council action is now required before the City can expend these funds. Special revenue funds were created by the Council, in fiscal year 2001-2002, to Page 3 account for these types of funds. Funds cannot be used for any other purpose other than those stated in the original trust documents. On June 30, 2002, unexpended budgeted funds dropped to fund balance in accordance with State law (with the exception of the Capital Improvement Projects Fund). The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the balances for existing Housing Special Revenue Fund, Miscellaneous Grant Fund, Special Revenue Fund and Donations Fund projects that were previously approved by the Council in the total amount of $17,987,027. A list of each of these projects with the amount to be carried over for each project is included in the Administration's Transmittal. Issue #8 CDBG Recaptures ($442,560 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") Each year the City Council "recaptures" budgets that have remaining balances and appropriates the budgets for the intended uses in the current fiscal year. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund had $254,610 in remaining balances at the end of fiscal year 2001-2002. The remaining balances are from programs that have been completed or have not expended all the funds within the program time frame. The recaptured funds will be placed into contingency accounts to fund future CDBG programming or cost overruns. An additional $187,950 in Multi- Ethnic funds is being recaptured from a project that was not done and placed back into the original account. Placing the funds back in the original account will ensure that the Program Income funds meet the HUD program guidelines of utilizing the funds for the same eligible activity. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the recapture of remaining CDBG program balances. This request is the same type as Issue #5. Issue #9: Grant Program Income ($990,299 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded programs and projects receive revenue from the repayment of loans or other reimbursement due to liens, etc. A couple of times each year, the Administration requests that the funds be allocated back to the originating program. Issue #10: CDBG Carryover($2,862,163 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") On June 30, 2002, unexpended budgeted funds dropped to fund balance in accordance with State law (with the exception of the Capital Improvement Projects Fund). The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the balances for CDBG Fund projects that were previously approved by the Council in the total amount of$2,862,163. A list of each of these projects with the amount to be carried over for each project is included in the Administration's transmittal. Issue #11: 800 Mhtz Radio Lease Payments ($61,717- MP Fund) In June 1998, the Council approved the purchase of an 800-megahertz radio system for police and fire radio communications. The lease-purchase of the radio system is Page 4 through Motorola with annual payments of $541,000 through 2004. The lease purchase for the repeater boxes at the City Creek Peak transmission tower is being financed through GE Capital with annual payments of$61,717 through 2005. Do to an oversight, only the lease payments to Motorola were including in the CIP budget. The City is using the repeater equipment and is obligated to make the lease payments. The Administration is requesting that CIP Contingency be used to pay the $61,717. The first of the two payments to GE Capital is due on November 1.t. Additional detail is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Issue #12: US Dept. of Energy Solar Roof Partnership($50,000-Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus') During the August 13, 2002 Council Work Session, the Administration briefed the Council on the Million Solar Roofs Partnership. Details concerning the partnership, the grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy and what the expert witnesses hope to accomplish were discussed.This matter was brought to the Council in advance of the Budget Amendment#9 briefing to ascertain that the Council was willing to allow the Administration to make financial commitments to the expert witnesses in advance of formal adoption and appropriation of the federal grant funds. The Council took a straw poll and it was decided that the Council would accept and appropriate the grant funds when the funds where received. The Administration proceeded under that assumption. The City Attorney's Office and Office of the Mayor have staff involved in this partnership. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant funds and to appropriate the funds for the requested uses. The Council will also be requested to adopt a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. Issue#13: Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse Security Camera($5,000—Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus') The City has received a cash grant from the Intel Foundation for upgrading the Security Camera System in the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and Intel Computer Clubhouse. The grant will upgrade the current VHS system to a digital system to provide better resolution and thereby providing better safety for Center participants and the Center's property and equipment. In addition to the$5,000 warded by the Intel Foundation,the Weed and Seed Steering Committee for the Community Prevention component of the Weed and Seed grant has supplanted the purchase price of the new system with$2,000 in Weed and Seed grant funds. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Page 5 Issue #14: National Trust for Historic Preservation ($5,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus's The Salt Lake City Planning Division applied for and has been tentatively approved for funds from the National Trust for Historic Preservation for a consultant to develop and produce a handbook for the Sugar House Business District. The award has been tentatively approved pending the City's selection of a consultant and the approval of that consultant by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The $5,000 grant requires a 100% match. The Planning Division received a $15,000 community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation what was awarded for a Transportation Study of the Sugar House Business District. The $5,000 grant will be combined with the CDBG allocation. Combining funds in this manner is allowable according to the City's CDBG monitor. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant, approve the appropriation request and approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant. Issue #15: County CDBG - Odyssey House Building Improvements ($65,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Odyssey House Therapeutic Child Development Center received $100,000 of 27th Year 2001-2002, Community Development Block Grant funds to provide building improvements. The Administration is recommending that the City enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the County, who will provide an additional $65,000 of County 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant funds. The City will be the lead agency and the project will be coordinated by and under the general supervision of the City's Engineering Division, who will obtain bids, award construction contracts and act as the project manager. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request and approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. The Council may wish to note that the County has not forwarded the Interlocal Agreement back to the City. It is anticipated that the City will have the Interlocal Agreement and corresponding resolution before the public hearing on Budget Amendment #9. Issue #16: State Dept. of Energy Services - Clean Cities ($60,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The City has received a continuation of the Clean Cities program grant. This award has been presented to the City for each of the previous seven years. Each year the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development, Office of Energy Services awards this grant to help offset the Clean Cities Coordinator's salary and benefits, as well as other operation expenses associated with the Clean Cities program. The Clean Cities program is organized to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Page 6 The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the salaries and wages for an existing FTE. Issue #17: Weed and Seed ($275,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The City has received this grant for the past six years. The grant is designed to provide funding assistance to law enforcement to Weed out crime and to provide Seed funding to implement programs and alternate choices for residents and youth that live within a Weed and Seed area. The areas covered by this grant are the Glendale, Popular Grove,and State Fairpark neighborhoods. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution,which was previously adopted by the Council,authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only needed Council action is the adoption of the necessary budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Salaries and wages of current employees are paid with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue#18: VAWA-Domestic Violence Prosecution($21,855-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department Victim Advocate Program has received a continuation of an annual grant from the State. The Victims of Crime Act (VMtk) grant is for overtime expenses for two domestic violence detectives to serve warrants and apprehend fugitives who fail to appear in court on misdemeanor domestic violence charges. The grant requires a 20% match that is met with the Victim Advocate Program Coordinators. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution,which was previously adopted by the Council,authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only needed Council action is the adoption of the necessary budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Overtime expenses of current employees are paid with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Page 7 Issue #19: Utah State University - Crisis Intervention ($13,788 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department has received a pass-through grant from Utah State University through the State of Utah, Interagency Outreach Training Initiative for the implementation of a Crisis Intervention Team. This "Team" is a group of Police Officers who have received specialized training in the recognition of persons who have serious mental illness or developmental disabilities, and are trained to intervene in a way that differs from traditional police procedures. The Administration recommends that the funds be used in the "Train the Trainers" program, for expenses of officers, volunteers and mental health clinicians who will train the officers. The grant requires a 10% match that is met with participation from trained and certifies officers and grant administration time. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution, which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the necessary budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Training expenses of current employees are paid with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #20: Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse ($60,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center has been awarded a $60,000 cash grant from the Intel Foundation. This award is the second year that the City has received these funds. The grant is renewable for 3-5 years. The $60,000 will allow the Sorenson Center to continue the employment of one full time Computer Clubhouse Coordinator for an additional year. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution, which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the necessary budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Employment expenses of current employees are paid with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #21: Fire EOC/2lraining Center ($750,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Capital Improvement Item") The Administration is proposing that the Council appropriate $750,000 of CIP Impact Fee revenue for the purchase of land adjacent to the City's Fire Training Tower for the Page 8 future construction of a City Emergency Operations Center/Training Center. This project would be Phase II of the Fire Emergency Operation Center (EOC)/Training Center as outlined in the 5-Year CIP Plan.There is additional information provided in a separate staff report on the resolution authorizing a collaborative effort between the City and the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross. This item was also discussed during the Fire Department budget briefings.Additional information is also contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Although there are sufficient impact fees collected to pay for the land,there are not enough fees relating to fire impacts. The Council may wish to use fund balance from the General Fund(one-time money)and not impact fees since this would result in a negative balance for fire impact fees. It is permissible to reimburse the General Fund at a later date with fire impact fees after a sufficient amount has been collected. The Council may also wish to note that purchasing the land for a future Emergency Operations Center does not commit the City to construction of the building.Available revenue,need,projected debt service levels and other factors can be considered before appropriating funding for construction. Issue 422: ADA Ramps & Defective Sidewalk - 7th E. from 9th S. to 17th S. ($45,000-CIP Fund)("New grant funds") The Administration is proposing that the Council accept and appropriate$45,000 of State Pedestrian Safety Program funding from the State legislature.The grant funds will be used for the construction of ADA pedestrian ramps and replacement of defective sidewalk on 700 East between 900 South and 1700 South. The grant requires a 25% match that is met with an ADA ramp installation CIP project(cost center 83-03010). There is a resolution that the Council will need to approve which authorizes the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between the City and State. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request and approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Issue 423: Sidewalk on Redwood Rd. from 4th S. to Indiana ($69,500 - CD') ("New grant funds") The Administration is proposing that the Council accept and appropriate$52,000 of State Pedestrian Safety Program funding from the State legislature. The grant funds will be used for the construction of sidewalk on the west side of Redwood Road between 400 South and Indiana Avenue. The grant requires a 25%match. Since there is not a CIP project for the construction of new sidewalks, the Administration requests the $17,500 local match requirement be appropriated from CIP contingency. There is a resolution that the Council will need to approve which authorizes the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between the City and State. Page 9 • The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request and approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Issue #24: Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub ($9,704,335 - Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund) ('"New grant funds") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $9,704,335 in grant appropriations and contributions to the Intermodal Hub Facility. The City has not yet received these funds from the granting agencies. The City will be partnering with UTA and Greyhound in this facility. The City Council has adopted a resolution that authorized an interlocal agreement with the Utah Transit Authority. The resolution covers these additional funds. The City still needs an agreement or tenancy contract with Greyhound for the portion of the facility that Greyhound will occupy. The anticipated funds that will be received are $5,838,860 from the Federal Transportation Administration, $2,000,000 from the Utah Transit Authority and $1,865,475 from Greyhound. The transmittal from the Administration contains details on the Intermodal hub Project. The Council may wish to confirm the following details concerning this project: • Confirm that the Federal grant funds have been received by UTA and that they will be available to the City. • Confirm that the agreement with Greyhound will be completed before the public hearing on this budget amendment item. • Confirm with the Administration that there is no risk of the City completing the Intermodal Hub and funding being refused to the City. • Confirm whether the funds will be transferred to the City or if expenses incurred by the City will be reimbursed. Issue #25: Parking Validation Program($39,000 - General Fund)('"New item") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $150,900 over three years for a Parking Validation Program. The Downtown Alliance has committed staff time and about $5,000 per year for the program. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City has committed $46,000 for the first year. The City is being asked for $39,000 this year, $59,500 next year and $52,400 the following year. The funds will be used to mint the tokens, retool the parking meters, provide maps of participating parking lots and garages, and provide advertising and signage for the program. The transmittal from the Administration has some additional detail on the program. The Council may wish to request additional information on the following issues: • Will the new library parking structure require pay parking and will the token be used in the new library parking structure? Page 10 • • Will the token be given out at only participating businesses in the downtown area or will businesses throughout the City and County offer tokens? • Will all City parking meters be retooled to accept the tokens or only those in the downtown area? • Is this a citywide program or a downtown only program? • What restrictions will be placed on the distribution of the tokens? • Will there be any instances where the City distributes tokens? • Who will hold the licenses to the depictions if the tokens are minted with commemorative depictions? Issue #26: Hansen Planetarium Evaluation ($25,000 - General Fund) ("New item") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $25,000 from General Fund Contingency to fund a condition and feasibility study of the Hansen Planetarium (old City Library building) when it is vacated in December. The study will ascertain the physical condition of the structural, mechanical and electrical components of the building. The City would use the architectural firm on contract as the City's consultant to perform this study. The $25,000 in requested funds covers the cost of the study and the project management fees from Engineering. Issue #27: Library Block Open Space Development ($3,515,000 - General Fund) ("New item") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $3,515,000 in General Fund - Fund Balance for the development of the open space on the east side of the Library Block. The proposed development would include the design features from Civitas Inc. as presented to the Council during the August 13, 2002 Council Work Session meeting. There is approximately $1,000,000 remaining in appropriated General Obligation bond funds for the development of the eastside of the block. The total planning, design and construction budget for the eastside of the block is proposed to cost $4,715,000. Additional schematic designs and detailed landscaping plans for the area will be presented to the Council at a later date. During the briefing on the eastside of the Library Block the Council discussed upgrading the planned mid-block crosswalk on 200 East. The upgraded crossing would cost an additional $318,000. There is $100,000 appropriated for a signalized crosswalk with painted lines. An upgraded crosswalk would include landscaping features. The Council may wish to delay appropriating funds for the upgraded crosswalk until additional information is available from the Administration. If the Council appropriates the requested $3,515,000 for the eastside of the Library Block and the additional $318,000 for the landscaped crossing on 200 East, the remaining one-time funds for appropriation would be approximately $4.0 million. During Budget Amendment 7, the Council appropriated one-time revenue in the amount of $8.00 million to the General Fund - Fund Balance until further discussions could be held concerning the requested appropriations. Page 11 cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, • Rick Dinse, Mac Connote, Jerry Burton, Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, Dan Mule, Rick Graham, Max Peterson, Shannon Ashby, DJ Baxter, Chuck Querry, Kurt Cook, John Vuyk, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen Page 12 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 30,2002 SUBJECT: WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY AND FEASIBILITY OF SECONDARY WATER SYSTEMS STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford CC: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,LeRoy Hooton,Rick Graham,Jeff Niermeyer,DJ Baxter Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Resolution Accepting the study does The study recommends that The City Council not have an immediate the City develop secondary issued a legislative budget impact. Funding water systems for certain intent in June 2001 may be necessary for major City-owned golf courses and requesting that the improvements to park and parks and that secondary Department of Public golf course irrigation water systems be Utilities continue to systems and for a incorporated into long-range explore the use of wastewater-reclaimed water development planning for secondary water reuse pilot project. portions of the City. systems. ACTION REQUESTED: The Administration requests that the Council adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of the 2002 Salt Lake City Water Efficiency Study and endorsing the policy recommendations contained therein. MATTERS AT ISSUE: Secondary Water Irrigation Systems-Salt Lake City holds water rights in Utah Lake water in the Jordan River and Surplus Canal. This water will require filtering and treatment to remove dissolved salts,odors,algae and other suspected solids before it is suitable for sprinkler irrigation and public contact. The study indicates that it will cost about$390 per acre foot to filter and treat this water for sprinkler irrigation. Salt Lake City currently pays $150 per acre foot of potable water from the Metropolitan Water District and$200 per acre foot from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. In the short term,secondary water systems in Salt Lake City are probably not cost effective. In the long run,the development of additional water sources for irrigation purposes will extend the City's current water supplies. As the City's wholesale cost of water increases,secondary irrigation systems will be more cost effective. The Department of Public Utilities is analyzing the options for requiring that secondary water systems be installed in growth areas as development occurs. Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater-The study estimates that the cost of additional treatment of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes to be$223 per acre foot. This cost is less than the cost of treating Utah Lake water because it can be incorporated into the current upgrade at the water reclamation plant. Besides using reclaimed water at the Rose Park Golf Course,the Department of Public Utilities is discussing the use of reclaimed wastewater at an oil refinery,which is also a large water user near the wastewater treatment plant. The Department will be requesting funding for a pilot treatment project during the next biennial budget. This request is contingent upon a commitment by the City to use the reclaimed water to irrigate the Rose Park Golf Course and nearby parks. Replacement and Upgrading of Irrigation Systems in City Parks and Golf Courses- Installing central control systems at City parks and golf courses will result in significant amounts of water savings according to the study. Major irrigation system replacements or upgrades will need to be handled through the capital improvement program and compete with other projects for funding. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND: The Department of Public Utilities entered into a professional service agreement with Stantec Consulting to identify opportunities to improve City irrigation efficiency and to point out opportunities for development of secondary water resources. The Department of Public Services and the Department of Airports also participated in the study. The consultant found that nearly 47% of water supplied by the Department of Public Utilities is used for outside irrigation of landscape and turf. The study makes the following conclusions: 1. Existing Salt Lake City water rights can be used for development of secondary water from Utah Lake or the Water Reclamation Plant. 2. The strategic location of canals and natural drainages present the opportunity to expand use of secondary water throughout the Salt Lake City service area. 3. The northwest region of Salt Lake City offers the best opportunity to install secondary water system infrastructure. 4. Salt Lake City irrigates over 1400 acres of parks,golf courses,roadway islands, and public and airport landscapes,the vast majority using potable water. 5. Many of the City's irrigation systems are outdated. There is a potential for water savings up to 138 million gallons a year at five City golf courses and over 70 million gallons annually at City parks with updated and more efficient irrigation systems, and more landscape and streetscapes that incorporate water-efficient plants. Since some of these upgrades are very expensive,the investment recovery may take over 20 years. 6. The development of alternative water sources at Nibley,Forest Dale,and Rose Park golf courses would eliminate potable water use at these sites. 7. Because of odors and high salt and algae content of Jordan River water,it will be necessary to treat or blend the water with higher quality water such as shallow groundwater to achieve acceptable water for spray irrigation of residential turf and ornamental landscaping. 8. The consultant projects that the cost to treat the Utah Lake water from the Jordan River or Surplus Canal will be$390 per acre foot. 9. The cost to treat reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes is projected to be$223 per acre-foot. 2 The report states that secondary water systems would extend the City's current water supplies by using available lower quality water,such as surplus Utah Lake water and wastewater effluent. The consultant's recommendations include the following: a. Develop a pilot reuse project of wastewater for the Rose Park Golf Course. b. Implement a pilot project to treat or blend Utah Lake water to demonstrate the acceptability of this water source for residential irrigation. c. Incorporate secondary water irrigation systems into long-range development planning for the large undeveloped northwest region of the City. d. Install central control systems at City parks and golf courses. e. Utilize more water-efficient landscape and streetscape design. The purchase prices for wholesale water from the Metropolitan Water District is$150 per acre-foot. Water purchased from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District currently costs$200 per acre-foot. Therefore,in the short term,treating of Utah Lake water for reusing wastewater is not cost effective. However,the cost of water from the Metropolitan Water District is estimated to cost$300 per acre foot by 2005 or 2006. In the long term it may be wise for the City to begin to reuse wastewater or begin to require major developers to install secondary water irrigation systems and treating facilities for using Utah Lake water. As a result of the consultant's study,the Department of Public Utilities hired four summer interns from Utah State University to perform water audits of the irrigation systems at the City's parks and golf courses. As a result of this project,the Department of Public Services has been able to correct many of the minor problems identified by the interns. Major system replacements or upgrades will need to be handled through the capital improvement program and compete with other projects for funding. The Department of Public Utilities is analyzing options to require developers to install secondary water systems in certain portions of undeveloped land. Developers could also provide the treatment infrastructure to bring water sources up to acceptable standards for sprinkler irrigation use. CHRONOLOGY: Tune 1998- The City Council adopted the following legislative intent statement: It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Public Utilities develop strategies to encourage use of secondary water in green spaces. Tune 2001- The City Council adopted the following legislative intent statement: It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including a secondary parallel water system in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant. May 2002- Water Efficiency Study completed Tidy 2002- The Public Utilities Advisory Committee approved the study. 3 Ssll ' 2UU� LEROY W.HOOTON,JR. ...SAI mot`a����i�`�� '�--"��,D 1 ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSO1 DIRECTO. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart,Chief Administrative Officer July 23,2002 SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS-WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Recommendation: The City Council accept the"Final Report for Water Efficiency Study(Study)"dated May 2002 for inclusion in Salt Lake City planning,operations,design,construction and funding of proposed water conservation improvements to existing and proposed new development and open space landscapes. Availability of Funds: 1. Funding for a pilot secondary water system and/or wastewater-reclaimed water reuse pilot project has not been identified to date.However,as these projects are developed,they will be included in future annual budgets for approval. 2. It is anticipated that funding,design and construction of a secondary system in the Northwest Quadrant will be implemented as needed in the 20 to 30 year planning period.If development accelerates in this area of the City's water service area, funding,design and construction will likewise be accelerated. 3. Funding for water efficiency capital improvements at city owned facilities,such as central irrigation controllers and water system upgrades,are addressed on a site-by-site basis separately in the respective budgets of the Department of Public Services'Parks and Golf Divisions,and the Department of Airports. 4. It is recommended that a comprehensive capital improvement program for water efficiency improvements to all City facilities be developed for inclusion in future annual budgets. Discussion: This Study was prepared in response to the City Council's 2000-2001 Legislative Intent Statement that"the Department of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including parallel water systems in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant." Pursuant to this request,the Departments of Public Utilities and Public Services conducted the Water Efficiency Study.The Study evaluates and provides recommendations for secondary water use of Utah Lake canal water,reuse of reclaimed wastewater,and development of a parallel secondary water system. In addition,the scope of the Study includes a planning level evaluation of Salt Lake City-owned green space properties and irrigation systems. It further identifies 1030 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE.SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 041 iS TELEPHONE.13O1.4B3.6900 FAX.S01.4S3.601S a opportunities for improvements to increase water use efficiency in the management of the City's green spaces. Accepting the Study does not have any immediate budget impact. It is a planning document to guide the City into the future. It is contemplated that each of the recommendations will be included in future budge requests and acted upon at that time. The Public Utilities Advisory Committee approved the Study recommendations at its July 11,2002 meeting with the added clause that the City includes evaluation of potential impacts to the downstream environment in its planning and development of secondary water reuse from the wastewater reclamation plant. Related to the Water Efficiency Study, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee at its May 9, 2002 meeting recommended that the Department of Public Utilities immediately begin water checks on City parks and golf courses and other green spaces to take advantage of this year's irrigation season and to review the City's existing landscape and development ordinances. This work is currently underway. Contact person(s): LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. (483-6768),Jeff Niermeyer(483-6785), Tom Ward(483-6884), or Stephanie Duer(483-6860). Submitted by: LeRoy ooton,Jr. Director LEROY W. HOOTON,JR. ..�\ '12 a2�.. 'iU)(�� MAI �I rlr�.�+ ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSOI, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER July 22, 2002 Mayor Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson 451 South State Street Room 306 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: Final Report and Recommendations—Water Efficiency Study Dear Mayor Anderson: Contained in the City Council's FY 2000-01 Legislative Intent Statement was a request that"the Department of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including parallel water systems in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant." Pursuant to that request, the Department of Public Utilities and the Department of Public Services conducted a Water Efficiency Study(Study) that was completed during May 2002. The Public Utilities Advisory Committee approved the Study and recommendation at its July 11, 2002 meeting, with the added comment that the City include evaluation of potential impacts to the downstream environment in its planning and development of secondary water reuse from the wastewater reclamation plant. • The Study evaluated and provides recommendations for secondary water use of Utah Lake canal water, reuse of reclaimed wastewater and development of a parallel secondary water system. In addition, the scope of the report includes a planning level evaluation of Salt Lake City-owned green space properties and irrigation systems. The Study further identifies opportunities for improvements to increase water use efficiency in the management of the City's green spaces. Accepting the Study does not have any immediate budget impact. It's a planning document to guide the City into the future. It is contemplated that each of the recommendations will be included in future budget requests and acted upon at that particular time. I recommend that the Study be accepted. Sincerely, 4400 LeRoy . Hooton, Jr. Director 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX: 801.483-6B1 B 1.A.[R RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 * * * A RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE 2002 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY, AND ADOPTING THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore requested the City's Department of Public Utilities to evaluate the use of secondary irrigation water systems within portions of the City; and WHEREAS, based on this request, the Department of Public Utilities commissioned a study of the potential for secondary irrigation water systems within portions of the City; and WHEREAS, such study resulted in the formulation of a Water Efficiency Study, which includes various recommendations relating to the implementation of secondary irrigation water systems, and certain other water conservation measures; and WHEREAS, the Water Efficiency Study has been submitted to the City Council for review; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Water Efficiency Study; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires at this time to acknowledge receipt of the Water Efficiency Study, and approve and adopt the policy recommendations contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the Water Efficiency Study. 2. The City Council recognizes the critical importance to the City of carefully conserving and managing its water resources. 3. Accordingly, the City Council hereby adopts and approves the policy recommendations contained in Section 5 of the Water Efficiency Study. 4. The City Council encourages the City's Department of Public Utilities to implement such recommendations as the Mayor and the Director of the Department of Public Utilities shall deem appropriate. It is recognized that the recommendations contained in the Water Efficiency Study are advisory in nature and should be implemented in a manner consistent with budgetary constraints and sound management practices. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, UT, this day of , 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Approved as to form and legality TY ATTORNEY'S OFFIC G:\RESOLUTEWater efficiency study.doc 2 -.v4.7,75.,;;;.--"-:,---——--- `.: ,.' -..I _. — ,,,,—,............- ; ., ........... , — . ''• ' " . _. .. „— , --- ------- ,,.. . „,„,.....,„„„,.._.,....., ,,,-,-;;;),Owsiosommt..****4 .. 4.04440..A.4.4444..-,....,...--•=.-. 0 1011110.1111111Milpior.o.=, , ...reito rovookw.mOme?4,-eThinak...,- - A , . ‘ ' ' .1,..ormlailleaNaetr,...7"--=_7„17,...,:r.-",,,---'-- .4",i ' ;At,' , '' '—'' .24...--r'Clt.r • ,.-At ' 1. '''' '''''' -4 ,. '• .'..-,,, ...' ' :.-=-1-K,, 11/1/Nilit=ii-. 04:":. si, , • • •-•• Otlic- ' ';.'%.4 ...,,,.„„.40.••••,....,--.• ..•. . , • . - ,,,,..41„...te• , - • ,' •• ...t.: 4-4,. , ;)-o, .. -,,., , . r 5 .. 5—, . . . irippipommormom :..4 .','-' .„..ze_ • - -4,•-_ . to- AN,.!, --,--\ ...„.... ...e. k ,k. ,-A..' '-.:`,..4k. ... 4 ,., . .1' '.-'. ` I,,'' ' ,•., '.--"-'''"W"',440AZ";.-.k1-,,..'..., ( I It.' - -'''. Ait:- -- ., •--- . .,-. I -t, . .-k. , ..... .. . - - . - ,. - : .„,,„::.:4,„,,,,, vgirric lopoimMook4ww, , At .,-;:e ,„ tr 4 0',... , 11116: , •". %.t. " .it ., , i 1 - . - -,.. ,...-,... .,,,..--.4•,-,..,.;,,..,-.,,,-"4-.I. '''m , . ,. ........---.. ' I t . . „ . _., , . , , ,,,...„....,.. 4' I ‘• '-";...,;,,,4:117'''44 *,011011100.111(Wr'' 'r''' ' , , , ' 4 „ . ' 4q-r'-,, . . , ,, ,, L — t , . .- ,. ,„ . ,,. , , _ , , , ..„..... . ... _,. s - - --., ,,,..,..,„,_.• .,,- ....„ 1 I of Po___,I_w'__., . . ,,,, , •\ ,,, .), (,)„ ) ,„i,,,„,„.4,,,.,,,,,:,•,:,-.,,,,_ • - " -""' -'' ' '=---s --'4-',--';'-'7,4'-'-4-1.-.-4...,,,,,'4.--1.,,,,-,,41:;-:11';.T'..'"-,-,',. ,,- . _l ,,,,,,,,t.7 ,,-.' ' _,,, '-,, ,,,-,,,,%`..,-,,;_1-,,,;,,i ',,l'',•' '- ,,`,Z,;,'''' ,4',,,,,,, e- , , . -... ' , — _,. - Stantec , . t i .., . ' '4 i ••`1 ' , ' ' - ' ''''•''s-:- '-' • '::-` :'''' "'":•-,' , ' • ' :1 h ii 9 P ii'-ering & ..... -........„;:,, ,,-,- 1 , , i_._ • ,,••!:''''„ „ - . , I I I I I I 1 I SALT LAKE CITY 1 WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 I I PREPARED BY I I IM..z00z I I I 1 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ITABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Introduction ES-1 I Purpose ES-2 Conclusions ES-2 City Open Space Water Efficiency ES-2 IParks ES-2 Golf Courses ES-2 IMedian Islands and Park Strips ES-3 Airport ES-3 1 Secondary Water Use ES-3 Utah Lake Water Use ES-4 IReclaimed Wastewater Reuse ES-4 Shallow Groundwater ES-4 IRecommendations ES-4 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Purpose 1-1 Background and Need 1-2 IExisting Irrigation System Efficiency 1-2 Secondary Water System and Sources 1-2 IAuthority 1-3 Acknowledgments 1-3 IProject Team 1-4 I 2.0 OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS— INVENTORY AND EVALUATION 2-1 Methodology 2-1 IOpen Space Inventory 2-1 Irrigation System Evaluation 2-1 IOpen Space Properties Inventory 2-2 Golf Courses 2-2 IParks 2-2 Islands 2-3 IAirport 2-3 ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. I MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY IBuildings 2-3 Irrigation System Evaluation 2-3 1 Operational Deficiencies 2-3 Golf Courses 2-5 IParks 2-5 Median Islands and Park Strips 2-5 IAirport 2-6 Buildings 2-6 IPotential Improvements 2-6 Outdated Irrigation Systems 2-6 I Central Controls 2-6 Irrigation Standards for New Construction 2-7 I Large Median Areas 2-7 Irrigation System Capital Costs 2-7 I 3.0 SECONDARY WATER SYSTEM OPPORTUNITIES AND EVALUATION 3-1 Methodology 3-1 I Water Demand 3-1 Water Quality and Aesthetic Criteria 3-2 Northwest Region Secondary Water System 3-3 ISecondary Water System Components 3-3 Secondary Water System Costs 3-5 ISecondary Water Availability and Quality 3-6 Availability 3-6 IWater Quality 3-6 4.0 SECONDARY WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES AND EVALUATION 4-1 Secondary Water Use Opportunities 4-1 Wastewater Effluent Recycling 4-1 IUtah Lake Water Replacement 4-1 Treatment Requirements 4-1 IWastewater Effluent 4-1 Utah Lake Water 4-2 ISecondary Water Use 4-3 Water Rights 4-3 IPotential Secondary Water Use Site 4-3 ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. it MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY IReclaimed Water Demonstration Project at Water Reclamation Plant 4-4 Demonstration Project Components 4-5 IDemonstration Project Costs 4-7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1 Conclusions 5-1 IRecommendations 5-2 IAppendix A Summary of Utah Wastewater Reuse Requirements Appendix B Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation aList of Figures Figure 2-1 Photos of Alternative Median Landscape Treatments 2-8 I Figure 3-1 Northwest Region Skeleton Secondary Water System 3-4 Figure 4-1 Reclaimed Water Demonstration Project Facilities 4-6 List of Tables ITable 2-1 Potential Water Savings at Parks and Golf Courses 2-4 Table 3-1 Projected NWR Water Demand 3-1 I Table 3-2 Water Quality and Aesthetic Criteria 3-2 Table 3-3 Secondary Source Water Quality and Irrigation Tolerance Thresholds 3-3 Table 3-4 NWR Secondary Water System Pipelines 3-5 I Table 3-5 NWR Secondary Water System Capital Costs 3-5 Table 3-6 NWR Secondary Water Operation and Maintenance Costs 3-5 Table 4-1 Utah Lake Water Quality and Irrigation Thresholds 4-2 I Table 4-2 Existing Sites for Potential Secondary Water Use 4-3 Table 4-3 Primary Reclaimed Water Demonstration Sites 4-4 Table 4-4 Reclaimed Water Demonstration Project Capital Costs 4-7 I I 1 I I I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. III MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Water conservation is an important element of Salt Lake City's water management strategy. Current projections indicate the City's existing water supply can be extended through year 2025 if increased water conservation goals are met. Without conservation, demand from growth will continue to exceed supply during periods of sustained drought, and will exceed the City's normal water supply, including the new Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant, by year 2016. Most of the growth and increased water demand will occur in the less developed western incorporated area of the City. As new development and growth occurs, there exists both an opportunity and defined need to utilize more efficient landscape and streetscape design and develop existing secondary water sources. On average, 47 percent of the total water supplied by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is used during summer for irrigation of landscape and turf. Of this amount, the Utah State University Agriculture Extension Services (USU Extension) has found residential properties waste an average of 40 percent with inefficient irrigation, and large water users (commercial, industrial or institutional) waste an average of 60 percent. To extend our existing water supply and delay future water development projects, the City has established a goal of reducing outside water use by 20 percent from current levels by year 2025. This represents a reduction in total water use (indoor and outdoor) of approximately 10 percent. It will take a sustained effort for the City and community to reduce water waste from current levels. Long-term water conservation will require the adoption of more efficient landscape irrigation practices, lower water use landscape design and plant selection, and capital investment in new technologies for public, commercial, and private irrigation systems. The chart below shows water consumption by user group for 2001, proportionate to each group's respective share of water waste and conservation goal. Salt Lake City Corporation owns and maintains over 1400 acres of open space, most of which is irrigated using potable water. These primarily consist of Institutional city parks and golf courses, but also include 9 3'/o Departments roadway medians, parking strips, and 4.9% 1 landscaping for City facilities. Irrigation at City open space accounted for about 3.5 Commercial Residential percent of total 2001 water use. The age 22.3% 59.4% of many of these existing systems and Industrial new developments in irrigation operation 4.1% and hardware technology provide ample opportunity for significant water savings, 2001 Water Use as well as public demonstration of (City and County Service Area) efficient water use practices. I ' STANTEC CONSULTING INC. ES-1 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY IPURPOSE I The purpose of this report is to provide a feasibility and planning level evaluation of water conservation and efficiency opportunities with 1) existing irrigation of City owned open space, 2) secondary water system and source development, and 3) landscaping I requirements for new development areas. This report provides information as a planning resource for development, funding, and implementation of capital improvement programs needed to achieve the City's increased water conservation and efficiency goals. I Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, in cooperation with the Department of Public Services and the Department of Airports, engaged Stantec Consulting Inc. to I complete this Water Efficiency Study. This project is supported in part by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District conservation program. ICONCLUSIONS City Open Space Water Efficiency I Parks I The City Parks Division maintains approximately 611 acres of irrigated turf at 126 sites, using approximately 311 million gallons (954 acre feet) each season. Eighty (80) percent of the total water use occurs at the medium and large parks (greater than 5 and I 15 acres, respectively). Study results indicate improvements at just 15 of the larger parks could result in improved efficiency of 8 to 77 percent at these sites, with a potential annual savings of 70 million gallons (214 acre feet). This represents 21 percent in I overall water use for City Parks, and a savings of $89,000 annually at 2002/03 peak (summer) water rates for the City service area ($0.93 per 100 cubic feet). Water rates will increase 13 percent by year 2005 under the current City water rates code (Title 17.16.670/17.16.680, 2001). IInstallation of central control systems at park sites will allow automated shut downs during rain and wind events, detection of leaks from broken pipe and sprinkler heads, I and allow better management and control of seasonal irrigation schedules as dictated by weather conditions and landscape water needs. In addition to continued review of opportunities to reduce water waste though irrigation systems operations and I maintenance, Parks should evaluate the cost-effectiveness and water saving potential of capital improvement projects with specific site studies. IGolf Courses The City Golf Division operates 8 courses with approximately 841 acres of irrigated turf. I These courses consume 641 million gallons (1,967 acre feet) of water each season. The study indicates 5 of the 8 golf courses could reduce water use by 12 to 44 percent, a possible water savings of 100 to 138 million gallons (307 to 425 acre feet) annually. This represents up to a 21 percent reduction in City golf course water use, with an Iannual savings to the Golf Division of $125,000 to $171,000 at 2002/03 rates. Golf water use could be reduced with the renovation of the irrigation systems at IBonneville and Nibley, including central control system with weather stations. The STANTEC CONSULTING INC. ES-2 MAY 2002 ■ SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY development of alternative water sources at Nibley, Forest Dale, and Rose Park golf courses would eliminate potable water use at these sites. Median Islands and Park Strips In general, medians and park turf strips are less efficient and more difficult to maintain. Water running and spraying on the street from island irrigation systems (broken equipment, wind, rain, over-irrigation, etc.) result in waste, as well as public perception problems. The City should consider alternative, low water use landscape options for ' roadway center medians and park strips between the curb and sidewalk to improve efficiency, save water, and demonstrate water efficient landscape to the public. This is a planning policy issue for all new development, as well as a capital funding issue for 1 retrofit of existing parkstrip and median spaces. Airport The Salt Lake City airport has relatively modern irrigation systems at eight identified sites. Almost all airport irrigation systems are operated by central controls with evapotranspiration (ET) stations, and much of the median landscape consists of low water use plants. Based upon available information, airport water efficiency is relatively good for the existing landscape, which includes a significant amount of turf. However, the airport could reduce water use considerably by converting turf area to a lower water use landscape, which would also provide high visibility demonstration of water-wise landscaping. Secondary Water Use With proper management, use of secondary water sources (wastewater effluent and Utah Lake water) is feasible for outside irrigation in Salt Lake City. Currently, three of the City golf courses utilize secondary water. Glendale Golf Course uses low quality well water that is pumped into a pond and then used to irrigate the course, and the Mountain and the Lakes courses at Mountain Dell utilize untreated water diverted from Lambs Creek. 1 The Northwest Region (NWR) of Salt Lake City offers the best opportunity to implement secondary water system infrastructure at a reasonable cost. The City has existing secondary water resources, including Utah Lake and Jordan River water, wastewater 1 reclamation plant effluent, and groundwater which may be utilized in a secondary water system in lieu of more expensive treatment to culinary drinking water standards. The strategic location of canals and natural drainages present the opportunity to expand use of secondary water throughout the Salt Lake City service area. While a secondary system uses lower cost water, it requires duplicate infrastructure ' (pipes, pumps, etc.) for delivery that can be costly to install in previously developed areas. The installation of irrigation systems to utilize alternative water sources such as wastewater effluent and Utah Lake water in western Salt Lake City should be considered in long-range development planning for the area. STANTEC CONSULTING INC. ES-3 MAY 2002 111 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ' Utah Lake Water Use Although untreated Utah Lake water is currently used in two Salt Lake County communities, public acceptance is questionable due to poor aesthetic and chemical quality of the source. While Utah Lake water has been used successfully for flood irrigation since the 1800's, sprinkler irrigation requires treatment or blending with high quality water to prevent salt damage to the leaves of ornamental plants and sensitive turf. Treatment and delivery costs for a "backbone" pilot secondary system with 5 million gallons per day capacity are estimated at $15 million, or$390 per acre foot including operations and maintenance (O&M) costs and debt service. The system would serve the relatively undeveloped northwest area of the City, and could be strategically expanded to other areas. Prior to development, a pilot project should be implemented to demonstrate the acceptability of this source for irrigation as an alternative to potable water. Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse Reuse of reclaimed wastewater is becoming more common and accepted throughout the 1 western United States, with two golf course reuse projects completed recently in Utah. The City reclamation plant's proximity to the Rose Park Golf Course makes it an excellent candidate for a pilot demonstration project. Based upon the study results, treatment and delivery costs are estimated at approximately $5M for a 4 million gallons per day capacity system, translating to a water cost of approximately$223 per acre foot including O&M and debt service. Shallow Groundwater 1 Analysis of shallow ground water from several land drains and artesian wells within the City indicate this resource will be suitable for secondary system application without treatment in most cases. The City currently owns several ground water rights intended for secondary water use. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Optimize irrigation system operations and maintenance to increase water efficiency. Perform evaluation of irrigation operations for each irrigation system automated controller. 2. Include regular comparison of water use to established water use and waste 1 reduction goals as a measure of system maintenance and operation efficiency. 3. Perform detailed water audits ("water checks") based on strategic priority of large water use and water waste systems. Incorporate study findings into respective City Capital Improvement Plans and budget funding. All irrigation capital improvement projects should include water check during predesign and at construction completion for efficiency certification. 4. Both the Golf and Parks Divisions have begun installing central control at their sites. Upon validation of operation and efficiency improvements at the initial test STANTEC CONSULTING INC. ES-4 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Isites, it is recommended that funding be established to complete central control installations at all City sites within 20 years. 5. Establish and fund a program for replacement of inefficient City irrigation systems. The typical useful life for an irrigation system is 20 to 25 years. As systems age, sprinkler nozzles, gears, and bearings become worn and damaged, I increasing maintenance costs. If a frequent repair schedule is not maintained, application of water loses uniformity and efficiency. A new well-maintained irrigation system has an efficiency of 80%. Observations at City properties I indicate some irrigation systems are in the range of 30% efficient, providing amply opportunity to reduce water waste at these locations. 6. Require all new irrigation systems to meet updated standards for efficient I landscape and irrigation system design. The City should establish minimum standards for irrigation efficiencies, sprinkler spacing, construction details, acceptable equipment, testing, and associated specifications. Procedures I should be specified for design review and construction, inspection, and acceptance. 7. Utilize more efficient landscape and streetscape design. Require all new and Iupdated landscapes to utilize appropriate lowest water use plants or turf appropriate for the specific site and use. I 8. Consider development of a pilot reuse project for the Rose Park Golf Course. If water conservation goals are met, water demand projections indicate secondary water sources will not be needed for 20 to 30 years. A pilot project will develop I baseline data and experience in Salt Lake City for secondary water system development. As secondary water resources are needed in the future, the feasibility and attractiveness of a secondary system should be reevaluated based upon the state of knowledge at that time. 111 I 1 I I 1 I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. ES-5 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I1.0 INTRODUCTION IPURPOSE Water conservation is an important element of Salt Lake City's water management I strategy. Projections indicate if increased water conservation goals are not met, the City's existing water supply, including the Point of Mountain Water Treatment Plant, will not meet increased demand from growth by year 2016 under a normal precipitation I scenario. As the current scenario, periods of sustained drought will continue to exceed existing supply without additional conservation. Most of the growth and increased water demand will occur in the less developed western incorporated area of the City. As new I development and growth occurs, there exists both an opportunity and defined need to utilize more efficient landscape and streetscape design and develop existing secondary water sources. IOf the average 100,000 acre feet of culinary water supplied annually by Public Utilities from 1992 through 2001, approximately 47,000 acre feet (47%) was used for irrigation of landscape and turf. According to data collected by the Utah State University Agriculture IExtension Services (USU Extension), residential properties waste an average of 40 percent of the outside irrigation water, and large water users (commercial, industrial or institutional properties) waste an average of 60 percent. Some customers apply up to 8 I times more than the water needed for a healthy landscape, measured as plant evapotranspiration (ET). The USU Extension reports that overwatering not only wastes water, but results in less healthy plants, insect problems, increased fertilizer and mowing I maintenance costs, environmental impacts from runoff, and increased landscape damage. 11 While new, well maintained sprinkler systems achieve only 80 percent efficiency Estimated Outdoor Water Waste (2001) (20% waste), outside water use could be reduced 20 to 40 percent on average. Outdoor IExtrapolating this data to total outside water Waste(9,400 use suggests 9,400 to 18,800 acre feet of to 18,800 at) water (20% to 40%) is unnecessarily wasted s°i°to is°i° I on outside irrigation (see pie chart). This Indoor represents a significant potential water Consumption savings of 9 to 19 percent of the total water Landscape (53,000 af) I supplied each year. Most of the savings can ET 53% be achieved simply through changes in (28,200 at) watering habits and sound maintenance on 33% I existing irrigation systems. Additional water savings can be achieved with adoption of landscapes that require less water than prevalent bluegrass turf. ITo extend our existing water supply and delay future water development projects, the City has established a goal of reducing outside water use by 20 percent from current levels by year 2025. This represents a reduction in total water use (indoor and outdoor) I of approximately 10 percent. It will take a sustained effort for the City and community to reduce water waste from current levels. Long-term water conservation will require the adoption of more efficient landscape irrigation practices, lower water use landscape STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 1-1 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY design and plant selection, and capital investment in new technologies for public, commercial, and private irrigation systems. The adjacent pie chart shows water consumption within Salt Lake City by user group for 2001, which is proportionate to each group's respective share of water waste and conservation goal. Salt Lake City Corporation owns and 2001 Water Use maintains over 1400 acres of open space, (City and County Service Area) most of which are irrigated using potable water. These primarily consist of parks and City golf courses, but also include roadwayInstitutional ' Departments medians, parking strips, and landscaping for City facilities. Irrigation at City open space 9.3% accounts for about 3.5 percent of total water use. The age of many of these existing Commercial Residential systems and new developments in irrigation 22.3% 59.4% operation and hardware technology provide Industrial 4.1 ample opportunity for significant water savings, as well as public demonstration of efficient water use practices. The purpose of this report is to provide a feasibility and planning level evaluation of water conservation and efficiency opportunities relative to 1) existing City open space irrigation, 2) secondary water system and source development, and 3) landscaping requirements for new development and redevelopment areas. A further objective of this report is to provide information which will become a resource and checklist for the development, funding, and implementation of capital improvement programs needed to achieve the City's increased water conservation and efficiency goals. BACKGROUND AND NEED Existing Irrigation System Efficiency Nearly 47 percent of the water supplied by the Public Utilities is used for outside irrigation of landscape and turf. According to the Utah State University Agriculture Extension Services (USU Extension), landscape overwatering accounts for 40 percent of residential outside water use and 60 percent of commercial outside water use on average. Improving the efficiency of these systems will not only extend the City's water supply, but will provide community leadership in demonstrating current water saving technology and an educational example of water efficient irrigation and landscape practices. Secondary Water System and Sources A secondary water system would extend the City's current water supplies by using available lower quality water, such as surplus Utah Lake irrigation water and wastewater reclamation plant effluent. A secondary system uses lower cost water, but does require duplicate infrastructure (pipes, pumps, etc.) for delivery that can be costly to install in STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 1-2 MAY 2002 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY previously developed areas. However, with proper planning, a secondary system could be installed in growth areas as development occurs. Areas of proposed development, such as western Salt Lake City, present the opportunity to incorporate secondary water use as part of the initial water infrastructure. The City's existing and proposed water reclamation facilities are in close proximity to these developing areas and offer excellent ' opportunities to utilize an existing water resource by recycling wastewater effluent. Many of the large open space areas are near existing streams and canal right of way that could be utilized in the delivery of secondary water to strategic high irrigation water use locations. Located in the eastern half of Salt Lake City, the Jordan & Salt Lake Canal offers the potential for cost efficient expansion of secondary water use in developed areas. Although secondary water systems do not require the level of treatment required for culinary or drinking standards, spray irrigation water must be of suitable water quality so as not to damage plants or require extensive maintenance of the irrigation system being used. Possible secondary water sources include Utah Lake water and wastewater effluent. Both sources require additional treatment for secondary use. In the case of 1 Utah Lake Water, treatment is needed to improve water quality to an appropriate level for sprinkler application on ornamental flowers and shrubs, and in the case of wastewater, to meet public health standards. AUTHORITY The Department of Public Utilities entered into a professional services agreement with Stantec Consulting Inc. to identify opportunities to improve City irrigation efficiency and development of secondary water resources. This report is sponsored by and prepared for the Department of Public Utilities in cooperation with the following City agencies: • Department of Public Services, Parks Division • Department of Public Services, Golf Course Division • Department of Airports This project was supported in part by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District conservation program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Stantec Consulting project team wishes to thank the Department of Public Utilities, Department of Public Services, and Department of Airports and specifically the following individuals for their assistance in the conduct of the Water Efficiency Study. Department of Public Utilities LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. Director Jeff Niermeyer, P.E. Deputy Director Tom Ward, P.E. Project Manager Stephanie Duer Water Conservation Coordinator Nick Kryger GIS Manager STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 1-3 MAY 2002 11 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 Department of Public Services I Rick Graham Director Val Pope Parks Division Director Steve Wetherell Golf Course Division Director I Lee Bollwinkel Parks District Supervisor Bob Burgess Parks District Supervisor Eric Nielsen Golf Course Superintendent I Steve Williams Golf Course Superintendent Dell R. Cook Landscape Architectural Project Manager Department of Airports ITim Campbell Director Tim Gwynette Manager of Environmental Programs I PROJECT TEAM 1 The following people worked on the Water Efficiency Study as part of the Stantec Consulting Team: IJim Olson Project Manager Brenda Sherwood Project Engineer I Chris Cozens Rick Aust GIS Mapping Technician Project Manager (Aqua Engineering) Darren Salvador Project Engineer (Aqua Engineering) I Kathy Alsup/Sherry Brugman Word Processing I I I I I I I I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 1-4 MAY 2002 II SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 2.0 OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS— INVENTORY AND EVALUATION IMETHODOLOGY IOpen Space Inventory Salt Lake City has several large open space areas such as parks and golf courses, which are irrigated by pressurized irrigation systems using potable water. Some of these Isystems date back as far as the 1800s. Improving the efficiency of these systems will help to extend the City's water supplies. To improve system efficiency, these systems were inventoried and evaluated. Operating deficiencies were then identified and ranked I by priority. The inventory was accomplished by interviewing staff from Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Services. Certain sites were also visited to field verify the condition of the irrigation systems. This information was I then compiled into a database to be incorporated into the City's GIS Mapping System. In addition, questionnaires were completed by Val Pope and Steve Wetherell, respective Parks and Golf Division managers, as part of the inventory of water use and irrigation Isystem conditions at parks and golf courses. Irrigation System Evaluation IExisting irrigation water use was reviewed and recommendations were made for improvements in operations, equipment, water sources, and landscape treatments that I would result in more efficient use of the treated water supplies being utilized for outside irrigation of open spaces. Meetings with Dell Cook, City Landscape Architect and Val Pope, Parks Division I Manager, were held to discuss existing irrigation systems and practices at City parks and public buildings. In addition, Steve Wetherell, City Golf Division Manager, Eric Nielsen, Golf Course Superintendent, and Steve Williams, Golf Course Superintendent, I were interviewed regarding irrigation system conditions and opportunities to improve irrigation efficiency. I Questionnaires were also completed by City personnel to assist in documenting and evaluating the condition of the irrigation system and water supply for each particular site and rate each of the sites on general condition and priority upgrade. The questionnaire I included: irrigated acreage, type of irrigation system (manual or automatic), general system conditions, priority of upgrade (design frequency of repairs and condition of existing components), historic annual water use, central control or ET weather station, I percent of system that is manual (no automatic controller), year of original installation, year of last upgrade, any water supply issues, number of seasonal adjustments made to controller, special site conditions, and proximity of alternative water sources. IThe parks are grouped into four (4) size categories: large, medium, small, and miscellaneous. IPark Size Area, Acres Large > 15 I Medium < 15 and >5 Small <5 and > 1 Miscellaneous < 1 I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-1 MAY 2002 11 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 Golf courses, roadway medians, and airport property areas are treated as separate i categories. Visual observations were conducted at three golf courses (Nibley Park GC, Forrest Dale I GC, and Rose Park GC) and two park sites (Liberty Park, and Pioneer Park). Sugarhouse Park, one of the largest parks in Salt Lake City, was visited but is not included in the report because operation and maintenance of this park is under jurisdiction of the Sugarhouse Park Authority, an entity independent from Salt Lake City ICorporation. The water use information presented and conclusions drawn are based on gross comparisons of water use and estimates of irrigated acreage. No water audits of existing irrigated sites were completed. The open space property inventory and Ievaluation data is in Appendix B. OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES INVENTORY ISalt Lake City open space properties are grouped into the following categories: I 1) Golf courses 2) Parks 3) Roadway islands (medians) I 4) Airport 5) Buildings Interviews and site visits were conducted and a questionnaire was developed to Iinventory the above properties. A database was developed from the City's existing records that includes important factual information on the size, age, physical setting, irrigation system, operation and maintenance, and water use. Department of Public IServices staff was also asked to comment on any specific water supply issues, constraints, and conditions at the major properties (see Appendix B). IGolf Courses The seven City golf courses have a total irrigated area of 840 acres and utilize 641 I million gallons (1,967 acre feet) of water annually. Irrigation practices at the golf courses range from modern centralized control irrigation at Wingpoint, Mountain Dell, and Glendale to largely manual systems dating to the 1930's at Bonneville and Nibley Park. I Opportunities exist to replace potable water irrigation with secondary water sources at all courses. I Parks The total park irrigated area totals 611 acres at 126 sites. Thirteen (13) large (>15 I acres) parks totaling 375 acres and 15 medium sized (< 15 and > 5) parks totaling 118 acres account for 80 percent of the total area. There are 38 small ( 5 acres) neighborhood parks with a total area of 96 acres and 65 miscellaneous sites with a total area of 22 acres. Annual potable water use at the large and medium-sized parks is 265 I million gallons (813 acre feet). Liberty Park, the largest single water user at 52,000,000 gallons (160 acre feet) annually, is strategically located as a candidate for an alternative water source. Other parks that are also located near existing water courses and canals Iand are candidates to replace potable water use with secondary sources. STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-2 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 Islands I Salt Lake City has extensive irrigated turf medians. Based upon 2001 data from the Parks Division, there are 40 islands (medians) with a total area of 40 acres. The Parks Division and Public Utilities are currently completing a program of installing meters and I backflow protection on all small park spaces, which did not all have meters in the past. This leads to problems in obtaining accurate historical water use data for these sites. However, the nature and age of the medians make them problematic. Questionnaire results indicated that staff has significant concerns about water waste, maintenance, and Isafety. The study evaluation and results do not include privately maintained medians or park strips between sidewalks and the street curb. IAirport The Salt Lake City airport has relatively modern irrigation systems at eight identified I sites. The total irrigated area of airport properties is 134 acres. Almost all airport irrigation systems are operated by central controls with evapotranspiration (ET) stations. Historical water use at the airport was not available but calculated water use would be I102,000,000 gallons annually. Buildings IEleven (11) public buildings with a total irrigated area of 10 acres are maintained by the Public Services Department. Historical water use is not available for public buildings but Idoes not comprise a major fraction of the outside irrigation demand. IRRIGATION SYSTEM EVALUATION IYear 2000 water use at each site was reviewed and compared to the calculated historical evapotranspiration (ET) requirements of bluegrass turf for the specific site. Based upon this evaluation, sites were prioritized based upon potential water savings. I The calculated ET of 22-inches was obtained from Utah State University weather station data averaged over a 29-year period. Rough order of magnitude estimates of potential water savings for the larger Salt Lake City open space is shown in Table 2-1. IOperational Deficiencies I The scope of work did not allow a comprehensive evaluation at each site for potential irrigation operating deficiencies. However, generalized comments can be made such as "manual quick coupler irrigation is not as efficient to maintain as an automatic irrigation I system". A detailed review and analysis at each site is necessary to identify specific inefficiencies and corrective operational or infrastructure requirements. A water audit (on those sites with automatic irrigation) will address distribution uniformity of the specific I irrigation zones. The process involves conducting catch can tests and calculating the coefficient of uniformity and distribution uniformity of the irrigation water applied for each control zone. I It is our opinion that operational deficiencies should first be addressed by reviewing irrigation run times programmed on the controllers, verifying the controller run times at each site, and making controller adjustments as appropriate. Standard maintenance I practices should include periodic inspection to identify broken or misaligned heads and to verify sprinklers are distributing uniformly. More detailed water audits should be done I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-3 MAY 2002 U SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Ion a strategic basis, initially targeting sites with larger water use and waste. Water audits should be conducted as part of predesign activities prior to investment of capital Ifunds into any irrigation repair project. Table 2-1 Potential Water Savings at Parks and Golf Courses I 2001 Potential Potential Potential Irrigated Water Calculated Water Water Annual Water Site Area Use Turf ET Need Savings Savings Savings Description (acres) (MG) (inch/season)' (%) (mgal) ($) I Parks Liberty Park 80 51.7 24 8 4.3 $5,346 Jordan River Trail 82 1.1 1 0 0 - Jordan Park 30 0.3 1 0 0 - I Fairmont 25 15.8 24 8 1.4 $1,741 Riverside Park 24 16.7 26 15 2.6 $3,233 Westpointe 21 22.0 40 45 10.1 $12,557 Sunnyside Park 20 20.4 37 41 8.3 $10,320 I 11'h Avenue 20 12.4 23 4 0.5 $622 Rosewood 19 0.8 2 0 0 Hidden Hollow 19 0.7 2 0 0 - Constitution(Northwest) 18 13.0 27 19 2.5 $3,108 Donner 17 8.2 18 0 0 I 17`h S.River Park 16 10.3 24 8 0.9 $1,119 Lindsay Gardens 12 7.9 26 15 1.2 $1,492 Sherwood Park 12 0.7 3 0 0 - Herman Frank's Park 9 7.6 32 31 2.4 $2,984 I Pioneer Park 9 8.0 36 39 3.4 $4,227 Washington Square 8 7.1 33 33 2.4 $2,984 Warm Springs 8 9.6 47 53 5.2 $6,465 Memory Grove 6 14.1 80 73 10.2 $12,682 I Rotary Glen 8 3.3 16 0 0 - Popperton Park 6 3.7 23 4 0.2 $249 Raging Waters 4 10.3 95 77 7.9 $9,822 Ensign Downs 5 0.8 6 0 0 - Poplar Grove 6 3.4 22 0 0 - ' Reservoir 4 8.0 75 71 6.1 $7,584 Glendale 5 5.0 38 42 2.2 $2,735 Glendale Youth 4 0.1 2 0 0 - Parks Total 497 264.7 -- -- 71.7 $89,146 I Golf Courses Bonneville 115 119.1 39 44 52.9 $65,771 Forest Dale 61 29.9 19 0 0 - Glendale 150 100.6 25 12 12.2 $15,168 I Mountain Dell 190 138.7 27 19 25.7 $31,953 Nibley Park 50 25.2 19 0 0 - Rose Park 116 83.0 27 19 15.7 $19,520 Wingpointe 1 194 144.4 28 21 31.5 $39,164 IGolf Course Total 876 640.9 -- -- 138.0 $171,578 Grand Total 1,373 905.6 -- 209.7 $260,724 1 Et of 22 inches does not account for larger water requirement for high use turf and varying mow height I (golf greens,tees, etc.)or additional water required to leach salts from poor soils. Based upon 2002/03 peak summer rates for the City service area, each 10 MG in I reduced water consumption represents approximately$12,556 in culinary water bill savings. I As detailed water audit and other site specific analyses are completed, actual irrigation water use should be validated by subtracting out culinary use at the site (bathrooms, drinking fountains, club house facilities, etc.) and the irrigation acreage should be verified by actual measurements of turf and irrigated plants verses non-irrigated park I space (parking lots, play areas, sport courts, buildings, natural areas, etc.). Examples of sites for data validation include the 1-inch seasonal water use calculation for the Jordan ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-4 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY River Trail and Jordan Park sites. Likewise, Memory Grove and Raging Waters indicate excessive seasonal water usage of 80 and 95-inches respectively. Golf Courses. With the exception of Forest Dale and Nibley Park, significant water savings appear possible at the City's golf courses. Manual operation and the age of systems are two chief reasons for water waste. However, it should be noted that only 25% of the Nibley Park irrigation system is automated, yet water use is very close to calculated ET requirements. The single greatest water waste occurs at Bonneville where the irrigation system dates back to the 1930's and 75% of the system is comprised of manually- controlled impact sprinklers. Three courses, Wingpointe, Mountain Dell, and Glendale, utilize modern central-control systems and automated evapotranspiration data via a weather station. However, historical water use data indicates that water savings are still possible at these locations. Based on calculated water use at Mountain Dell, it appears that increased water supply piping is warranted. Conveyance for the course was not upsized when the course was increased from 18 to 36 holes. Parks. Currently, there are no central irrigation control systems in use at any large or medium-sized parks in Salt Lake City. However, an automatic central control system is proposed and under development for Liberty Park and a water conservation and irrigation efficiency demonstration project is being implemented at Washington Square. Parks intends to strategically install central control at other sites as funding allows. Seasonal automatic controller run time adjustments and shut downs are currently completed manually by going to each irrigation clock at each park. The Parks Division currently has two full-time plumbers responsible for all park irrigation systems in the City. Each park irrigation system requires a minimum of four (4) and maximum ten (10) visits a season to make repairs and adjustments. Experience observing park departments of similar size and complexity indicate that the maintenance staff should be increased by at least two seasonal employees. Alternately, capital improvements to modernize and automate irrigation systems would help mitigate the need for a larger maintenance crew as well as improve water efficiency. The typical useful life for an irrigation system is 20 to 25 years. As systems age, sprinkler nozzles, gears, and bearings become worn and damaged, increasing maintenance costs. If a frequent repair schedule is not maintained, application of water loses uniformity and efficiency, resulting in water waste. The reliability of 50% of park irrigation systems are generally rated as "low" by staff, while a new well-maintained irrigation system has an efficiency of 80%. Observations at City properties indicate some irrigation systems are in the range of 30% efficient, providing amply opportunity to reduce water waste at these locations. Although the 103 small parks and miscellaneous public sites account for only 20% of the total irrigated area, they require a high level of attention and represent potentially significant water waste. ' Median Islands and Park Strips. Salt Lake City has numerous irrigated turf medians. In the past, some medians did not have water meters and were charged on estimated use. Parks and Public Utilities are currently installing meters with backflow devices at STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-5 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Ithese locations, which will help identify water waste and baseline data for tracking median and park strip water conservation. IAlthough part of the City's unique appeal, the extensive turf medians require a high level of maintenance due to their age and construction (high curbs). The size, location, and I visability of individual medians are problematic for reasons related to irrigation system design, construction, automatic control, maintenance and water waste. Airport. Based on available information, the existing airport irrigation systems are well Idesigned, operated, and maintained. Buildings. The small area irrigated at public buildings reduces their priority in the I evaluation of irrigation systems. However, City Hall (Washington Square Park) is a high visibility landmark that is scheduled for a demonstration project to educate the public on efficient water use and conservation landscaping practices. IPOTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS I Review of the City's open space properties, existing irrigation systems and water use, clearly shows that water savings are possible. The following paragraphs describe general improvements to irrigation systems followed by specific activities that can be I implemented at parks and golf courses. High priority improvements are grouped together. IOutdated Irrigation Systems The typical useful life for an irrigation system is 20 to 25 years. As systems age, sprinkler nozzles, gears, and bearings become worn and damaged, increasing I maintenance costs. If a frequent repair schedule is not maintained, application of water loses uniformity and efficiency. I A new well-maintained irrigation system has an efficiency of 80%. Observations at City properties indicate some irrigation systems are in the range of 30% efficient. A 10-acre park in Salt Lake would utilize almost 10 million gallons per season at 80% efficiency. At I 30% efficiency, water waste would be on the order of 17 million gallons per season. The respective annual cost of wasted water at 2002/03 rates would be $21,136 or$2,114 per acre. ICentral Controls I Central control systems for irrigation present one of the best opportunities to save and make more efficient use of irrigation water. A central control system (CCS) assures accurate scheduling and rainstorm shutdown with minimal labor. A modern CCS allows frequent adjustment of water application to match actual ET requirements, and timely Inotification of irrigation problems such as excessive water use and valve and/or electrical problems. It is possible that the same water savings illustrated above could be realized through a central control system by matching the actual irrigation water applied I to the irrigation water requirement. A 10-acre park site could require $25,000 in equipment to upgrade to central control. The City of Pueblo, Colorado installed a central control system and implemented an irrigation scheduling program. The $75,000 spent Ifor the improvements resulted in $125,000 savings during the first year of operation. ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-6 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY IIrrigation Standards for New Construction I The City should establish minimum standards for irrigation efficiencies, sprinkler spacing, construction details, acceptable equipment, testing, and associated specifications. Procedures should be specified for design review and construction, inspection, and acceptance. I Large Median Areas IThe City should consider alternative landscape options for roadway islands. Maintenance, safety, water waste, operation, and public perception have all be raised as reasons to revise design of roadway islands. Water running and spraying on the street Ifrom island irrigation systems (broken equipment, wind, rain, over-irrigation, etc.) are an important water conservation public perception problems. Examples of non-turf medians are shown in Figure 2-1. IIRRIGATION SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS I Rough order of magnitude costs for improvements to parks and golf courses can be estimated based on a unit cost per acre. A grand total of 1,373 acres of park and golf course turf are irrigated with a total of 906 million gallons per year. Our analysis Iindicates a potential savings of 210 million gallons, roughly 23%. Replacement of 25% of the irrigation systems (343 acres) and appurtenances would be necessary to eliminate the estimated 20-25% water waste. On a rough order of I magnitude basis it will cost in the range of $1.0 to $1.5 million to replace a 100 acre irrigation system. The resulting capital investment to replace 343 acres of irrigation is in the $3 to $5 million range. Based upon the current summer retail water price in Salt ILake City, the payback on this investment is in the range of 12 to 20 years. Increases in water rates will shorten this return on investment. I I I I I I I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-7 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Figure 2-1 ALTERNATIVE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS • 142 > • i _ i I I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 2-8 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 3.0 SECONDARY WATER SYSTEM OPPORTUNITIES AND EVALUATION IMETHODOLOGY I The large undeveloped northwest region of Salt Lake City presents an opportunity to construct a secondary water system as development occurs to minimize disruption of existing infrastructure. Additionally, secondary sources are located in the NWR, thereby reducing the cost to convey water to the point of use. The NWR study area was divided Iinto four sections to make water use projections easier . A skeleton water distribution system was developed based on projected water demand I for approved land uses under the City General Plan. Preliminary estimates indicate there is a total of 4.5 million gallons per day of average new water demand for nine (9) land uses. In a maximum water use month, a 90-percent demand increase can be I expected over average use. The daily and hourly peaking factors are estimated to be 50% greater than average. IWATER DEMAND Potential water users include agriculture, commercial landscapes, golf courses, industrial Iprocess water, institutional users, parks, residential landscape/turf, and other uses. Land use area and projected water demand for the NWR by each land use in the City I General Plan are shown in Table 3-1. An irrigable factor was used to account for hard surfaces. Water demand is differentiated between agricultural and other non-agricultural land uses. ITable 3-1 Projected NWR Water Demand 1 Total Area Irrigation Irrigated Area Projected Water User Type (acres) Factor (acres) Demand (mgd) I Agricultural 1,246 0.9 1,123 0.71 Commercial 280 0.2 56 0.02 Golf Course 191 1.0 191 0.08 I Industrial 791 0.2 158 0.06 Institutional 50 0.5 26 0.01 Parks 36 1.0 36 0.01 I Residential 1,025 0.8 810 0.31 Vacant 7,942 0.5 3,970 1.51 Undesignated 9,916 0.5 4,959 1.88 ITotal 21,477 -- - 11,328 4.60 I I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 3-1 MAY 2002 r SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY WATER QUALITY AND AESTHETIC CRITERIA I There are seven (7) identified user categories in Salt Lake City that could substitute secondary water for potable water. Each user type has its own criteria for treatment, disinfection, and aesthetics. Level of treatment and disinfection are specified by the State Reuse Standards. Each use will also have aesthetic requirements defined by compatibility of water quality and plant tolerance or visible spotting. The use of an alternate source may not be adequate for widespread public acceptance. Protection of public health mandates different disinfection requirements. A higher degree of disinfection is linked to applications where public contact is possible. Disinfection is a lower priority if human contact is prevented. Water quality and aesthetic requirements of each water use category are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Water Quality and Aesthetic Criteria User Category Level of Treatment Disinfection Aesthetics Fodder Crops Secondary Yes (low) No Commercial Landscape Tertiary Yes (high) Yes Golf Course Tertiary Yes (high) Yes Industrial Process Secondary w/NH3 Yes (low) No Conversion Public Parks Tertiary Yes (high) Yes Greenbelts Tertiary Yes (low) No Residential Tertiary Yes (high) Yes In 1996, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) evaluated the feasibility of using Utah Lake water for outside irrigation. Findings indicate that a combination of partial treatment and blending with an equal volume of high quality water is necessary to assure acceptable quality for long-term use of Utah Lake water. Salt Lake City secondary water sources are compared to 1996 water quality in Table 3-3. City sources are either similar to or of poorer quality than the water quality in the 1996 study. Water quality of Water Reclamation Plant effluent is also presented in Table 3-3. Various water supply scenarios were reviewed to compare sodium concentrations in Utah Lake water. Dry year water supply conditions have a detrimental impact on the quality of secondary water sources that will require an even greater fraction of high quality water at an earlier point in the irrigation cycle. Analysis of the 1993 Water Supply and Demand Study indicate a 55% increase in sodium concentrations could occur during a dry weather year as compared to average water year. The 1996 JVWCD study data indicates that average water supply scenarios the sodium concentrations will exceed plant tolerance by July. In a dry year, the sodium concentration increased anywhere from 40 to 48% over average year values exceeding tolerance thresholds at the beginning of the irrigation cycle. It is possible that the overall quality of Utah Lake will ' decline in the future from the values evaluated in this study, which would impact the feasibility, aesthetics, and acceptance of any secondary use. I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 3-2 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ITable 3-3 Secondary Source Water Quality and Irrigation Tolerance Thresholds IConstituent Source Total Sodium Boron Sodium Chloride I Water Dissolved Adsorption (B) (m (Na) (CI) Solids Ratio g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) I Tolerance 1900-3800 3-9 0.7-3.0 33-150 100-200 Thresholds Utah Lakeb 1000 4.4 0.4 212 305 (8/94)I Salt Lake 896 4.1 0.3 188 259 Jordan' (8/00) I Cahoon 864 4.1 0.3 166 256 Maxfield' (8/00) I 1100 N 2100 W 4160 17.3 1.6 950 969 (Sir Timothy Dr) Liberty Park 768 1.2 0.08 41 58 I (Artesian) Forest Dale 1920 9.7 0.17 350 611 (Pond) I Nibley Park 1664 1.6 0.14 60 122 (Spring) Nibley Park 1800 8.2 0.33 300 503 I (Pond)SLC WRP 1044 7.7 --- 243 293 (Effluent) 1 aTolerance threshold represents limits for water sprinkled on foliage of moderately tolerant plants. bResults from 1996 Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Secondary Water Feasibility Study. °Results from 2000 SLCDPU Irrigation Water Quality Monitoring Program. INORTHWEST REGION SECONDARY WATER SYSTEM Secondary Water System Components IThe secondary water system could be supplied by both Utah Lake water and recycled wastewater effluent. There are several diversion points for supplying Utah Lake water to potential users as shown in the GIS database map in the Appendix. The existing water 1 reclamation plant is also relatively close to several existing sites in northern Salt Lake, while the proposed water reclamation plant is strategically located to supply recycled wastewater to the undeveloped areas of the Northwest Region. A skeleton secondary I water system (see Figure 3-1) has been identified to convey water throughout the Northwest Region . Pipelines total 81,300 linear feet and range from 14-inches to 28 inches in diameter. The NWR flat topography also requires elevated storage tanks. I Pipeline sizing and flow capacities are shown in Table 3-4. In addition to facilities shown in Figure 3-1, a physical chemical treatment facility will be required to meet water quality goals and assure long-term success of a secondary water system using Utah Lake water. 111 STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 3-3 MAY 2002 I �u vim/ v (__. _curt.\\:.„5,, ,-L---p._\„,,y VI 0 \ i €.- , 1-''- -- \ 1 ________\_,f_ i_ r.,,,,) , 1 r--\_ ___:( ,, ) , 1 3( r,--c„ . r I -; SEC;TIO ISECTION 1 x , l STORAGE - \''';' � -, 1 • a,-i 111 TANK#1 _ �� - -- "' 1 .S.E.. 28"NW LINE � y„ ,i ;t 7 N i'i - ' .77- jil.,) '''-'', " '��k,.t....-.,.��_ ' i I CON_ WATER `_ PU P S TION \ SURFACES RAGE J RESERVOIR \ `/} IOSED PO ` _ CILITY SECTION 2 Z 'Ttle 1 N l -,f--'\_ 20"SW LINE STORAGE _ 14"SE LINE 5 TANK#2 STORAGE SECTION 3 TANK#3 s i — ., , L —- \/ \ Legend _ Q S.L.C. Boundary f -�� - \ NProposed Secondary Water Line �� _ _---_ __ - 1 —_ _i IA/Main Rivers � `/Canals/Waterways Figure 3-1 S.L.C.Airport = TpII Northwest Region Skeleton Section 2 Secondary Water System '/" '� Section 3 6000 0 6000 Feet "r�� ISection 4 N Stantec J I I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ITable 3-4 Northwest Region Secondary Water System Pipelines IAvg. Day Flow Max Day Flow Pipe Length Pipe Size Line (mgd) (mgd) (ft) (in) I NW Line 2.4 10.3 41,000 28 S Line 2.0 8.6 9,300 24 SW Line 1.3 5.6 16,000 20 ISE Line 0.6 2.7 15,000 14 Secondary Water System Costs. The basic components of a secondary water system I include: (1) treatment; (2) pumping; (3) transmission; and (4) storage. The capital cost for these basic system facilities is shown in Table 3-5. I Table 3-5 Northwest Region Secondary Water System Capital Costs I Component Capital Cost($) Treatment (5 mgd) $ 3,000,000 Pumping Station $ 400,000 Transmission Pipelines $ 3,350,000 IStorage Reservoirs (3 @ 1 mgal) $ 3,600,000 Surface Storage Reservoir (10 mg) $ 700,000 Total Capital Cost $11,050,000 I Engineering, Administration and Contingency @ 35% $ 3,868,000 Total $14,918,000 IIAnnual Debt Service (20 years @ 4.0%) $ 1,085,000 ITable 3-6 shows annual operation and maintenance costs to deliver the secondary water. No costs are shown for delivery of high quality blending water. ITable 3-6 NWR Secondary Water Operation and Maintenance Costs 5 Component Annual Cost ($) Treatment (5 mgd at 6 months) $118,000 I Pumping (5 mgd ) $ 60,000 Transmission (lump sum) $ 10,000 Storage (lump sum) $ 10,000 IAnnual O&M Cost $198,000 I The annual debt service plus O&M cost for one irrigation season is $1,283,000. The total water use per year is 3,314 acre-feet (assuming a 6 month irrigation season). The unit cost for secondary water is $387 per acre-foot. By comparison the City's 2002 I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 3-5 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY summer retail potable water cost is $405 per acre-foot, which will increase to $444 in 2005 under the current rate ordinance (17.16.680). The previous estimates assume all capital infrastructure is constructed as a single project. Many communities require portions of this infrastructure development burden to be borne by development as it occurs by adoption of appropriate ordinances and new development design standards. If and when the City determines a secondary system is to be constructed for the northwest area, appropriate capital infrastructure development standards should be adopted so correct infrastructure is built as development occurs. Likewise, the City will need to determine and adopt appropriate metering, efficient irrigation design, and pricing policies for a secondary system. SECONDARY WATER AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY Availability Review of water supply and demands indicate that Utah Lake water will be available under most climatic scenarios. Even though the current drought has been prolonged (four years), during the summer of 2001, identified water users in the NWR would have all the secondary irrigation water they needed. It should be noted that there have been climatic conditions in the recent past when Utah Lake water was not available and the City fulfilled irrigation contracts with potable water. The reliability of supplying secondary water is enhanced by the proximity of wastewater effluent in the NWR. However, availability of Utah Lake water to customers on the east side of the City (under severe drought conditions) would be at risk under prolonged drought unless recycled wastewater conveyance to these sites is built into the secondary water system. Water Quality There are constraints to use of Utah Lake water and wastewater as replacement water to existing high-quality potable sources. While Utah Lake water has been used reliably for flood irrigation since the 1800's, use by sprinkler application requires treatment or blending to reduce salts to prevent leaf damage to ornamental plants and to eliminate sprinkler clogging by dispersed solids. Wastewater must be treated to remove pathogens for protection of public health. While the removal of pathogens is relatively straightforward, improving Utah Lake water quality by removing dissolved salts is expensive. Some sensitive plant species and process applications require water treated at or near culinary standards, and will not be suitable for secondary water application. Utah Lake water quality is also subject to further deterioration (increased dissolved salts) as drought conditions continue and, for that matter, as each irrigation season progresses. Communities such as Riverton are implementing secondary water systems without providing treatment to improve water quality. Time will tell whether the Riverton secondary water irrigation system can be made to operate trouble-free and customers will accept Utah Lake water given documented water quality problems. I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 3-6 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I4.0 SECONDARY WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES AND EVALUATION ISECONDARY WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES Wastewater Effluent Recycling I Use of wastewater effluent in place of potable water for open-space irrigation (i.e., golf courses) is being utilized in two instances under current Utah State Water Reuse IRegulations, and other projects are under development. Feasible options for wastewater recycling are available in close proximity to the existing City Water Reclamation Plant. Irrigation of the Rosepark Golf Course is the most obvious example. I Public Utilities also has land near the Reclamation Plant that could be utilized for demonstrations of water reuse, of reclamation solids reuse as a soil amendment, and of low water use turf and plants for use on City open space or public sale. The strategic I location of the proposed water reclamation plant in the NWR creates many other potential uses that can be identified as the infrastructure develops. I Treatment and reliability requirements for wastewater recycling are set forth by the State of Utah Division of Water Quality. There are reuse options that would require both Type I water where human exposure is likely, and Type II water where human access to the I reuse site is restricted. As a minimum, Type I reuse requires the addition of sand filters to the water reclamation plant plus the implementation of reliability features to divert out- of-compliance product water. IIt is envisioned that reuse of wastewater effluent will be linked to the use of Utah Lake water such that the two sources are interchangeable. The availability of wastewater is not subject to climate or drought and would provide the overall reliability of the Isecondary water system with the implementation of appropriate physical links. Utah Lake Water Replacement IThe feasibility of substituting Utah Lake water for outside irrigation depends on providing reliable and "adequate" quality water at a cost-effective price. A notable example of I Utah Lake water use in Salt Lake County has identified the problematic nature of using this alternative water source without further treatment, including (1) poor availability/timing; (2) low pressure; (3) sediment clogged sprinklers; (4) odors; and (5) I damage to plants. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) studied the technical problems and economics of utilizing Utah Lake water and concluded that water quality is marginal for sprinkler irrigation and that crop/landscape damage would result I without removal of dissolved salts and fine suspended solids. In the JVWCD study, the cost of treatment pushed the price of secondary water higher than providing potable water. ITREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Wastewater Effluent ITreatment and reliability requirements for wastewater recycling are set forth by the State of Utah Division of Water Quality. There are reuse options that would require both Type I I water where human exposure is likely, and Type II water where human access to the reuse site is restricted. As a minimum, Type I reuse requires the addition of sand filters iSTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-1 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 to the water reclamation plant plus the implementation of reliability features to divert out- of-compliance product water. Wastewater effluent treatment requirements are 111 summarized in Appendix A. Utah Lake Water IUtah Lake water has been found to contain high salt and mineral concentrations and large amounts of suspended silt, clay, weed seeds, and odor producing algae. These Iconstituents require treatment and blending with a cleaner source in order to provide acceptable sprinkler irrigation quality water for residential outdoor use. ITable 4-1 compares typical Utah Lake water quality and desired constituent values for preventing damage to turf and ornamentals from long-term sprinkler irrigation. ITable 4-1 Utah Lake Water Quality and Irrigation Thresholds Constituent Typical Utah Lake Irrigation Value Thresholds I Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 150 mg/1 5 mg/I Dissolved Sodium (Na) 140 mg/I 80 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 824 mg/I 600 mg/I ISodium Adsorption Ration(SAR) 3.32 4 Odor Level (1-12) 4-12 6 I Chlorine Residual 0.0 mg/I 0.5 mg/I 'Goal set for risk free irrigation of turf and/or ornamental plants Blending with higher quality source water and/or treatment is necessary to utilize Utah I Lake water. Treatment alternatives include a chemically assisted solids contact clarifier process in which the influent passes through intakes screens followed by a chemical 1 dosing point where powdered activated carbon, chlorine, alum or ferric, and a polymer is added as needed. Finally, the water is treated in a solids contact clarifier to settle out the solids, and finally, into a storage reservoir where chlorine is added to maintain a residual for control of algae. I Membrane treatment is also an alternative to reduce dissolved constituents. Previously I thought to be cost prohibitive, treatment to high quality for a portion of the flow followed by blending with the low quality source water may be feasible. Use of microfiltration for turf irrigation only, may be feasible with poor quality Utah Lake water where higher levels of membrane treatment (ultra filtration or reverse osmoses) would be needed to reduce Idissolved salts for use on ornamental plants. Feasibility level cost estimates for a pilot treatment project are provided in Table 4-4. IA third option would be to blend Utah Lake water with higher quality reclaimed effluent or potable water. I IlSTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-2 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ' SECONDARY WATER USE Water Rights Review of potential water rights conflicts is part of the approval process for all wastewater reuse projects. The State Engineer must interpret all wastewater reuse applications for concurrence with Utah Water Law. The two existing reuse projects were approved because in one case the reuse project sponsor owned the original water right and in the other there is an agreement with the water right owner. ' As the water supply and wastewater collection enterprise utility for Salt Lake City, Public Utilities may use and reuse the water until it is discharged to the waters of the State. The recently constructed Tooele Water Reclamation Facility is reusing effluent to irrigate a golf course. Based on the "Tooele City Final Reuse Plan", November 2000, Tooele was able to reuse wastewater effluent for secondary irrigation purposes. John Mann, Regional Engineer for the Division of Water Rights Weber River/Western Region, signed a letter dated August 11, 1995, stating "until the City relinquishes control of its water/wastewater by releasing it to he commingled with waters of the State, it is the City's to put to beneficial use. This use being either municipal use or sale to other for use." It is not known whether downstream water users impacted by the new point of ' reuse are planning to take action to restore effluent discharge to its previous location. The Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility (CVWRF) is also irrigating an "executive" golf course that was constructed on land owned by the Joint Powers Authority. Water rights owned by one of the municipalities that discharges to the CVWRF are being utilized to make recycled water available for irrigation. Discussions of water rights with Central Valley staff did not indicate that potential conflicts were pending with 1 downstream water users. Potential Secondary Water Use Site Salt Lake City has several existing open space sites where secondary water can be utilized in place of high quality potable water. The following list includes sites with the greatest potential for reclaimed wastewater and secondary water use. A demonstration project utilizing reclaimed effluent from the water reclamation plant is described in the next section. Table 4-2 Existing Sites for Potential Secondary Water Use ' Location Comments Golf Courses Rosepark Proposed demonstration project site. ' Wingpointe Difficult soil conditions—new upgrade to control system underway. Glendale New irrigation system and well in place. Forest Dale Relatively good efficiency even though irrigation system is old. Nibley Park Relatively good efficiency even though irrigation system is old. Bonneville Major water waste—need alternate supply close to golf course. STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-3 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ILocation Comments Parks & Institutional Facilities Rosewood Park Demonstration Project site. I Jordan River State Park Not under City control. Sugarhouse Park Not under City control. Utah State Fairpark Not under City control. ILiberty Park Implementing new irrigation system. University of Utah Not under City control. I North Gateway Freeway UDOT cooperation needed. City has plan on shelf. Industrial Water Reclamation Plant Demonstration Project site. I Tesoro Refinery Several potential uses; strong interest shown. Gravel Pit in North Gateway Reclamation of hillsides as gravel pit is closed Area out. I Northwest Region Undeveloped at this time, so infrastructure development costs are less. IRECLAIMED WATER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT WATER RECLAMATION PLANT I To save capital cost, utilize existing facilities, and achieve high quality reuse water, microfilters can be immersed in the wet well of the utility water pump station in the existing chlorine contact basin. Chlorinated effluent (See Figure 4-1) from the water I reclamation plant will be filtered and conveyed directly to the points of reuse. The projected seasonal water use and peak day water demands for identified reuse sites are presented in Table 4-3. ITable 4-3 Primary Reclaimed Water Demonstration Sites ILocation Irrigated Applicatio Peak Comments Area n Use (acres) (mgal) (mgd) IWater Reclamation 20 10 1.25 • Landscape Plant irrigation I • Turf irrigation • Utility water Rosepark Golf Course 116 80 1.0 • Turf irrigation IJordan River State Park 40 20 0.5 • Turf irrigation Executive Golf Course I Rosewood Park 19 10 0.25 • Turf irrigation I Proposed Turf Farm 120 60 1.0 • Turf irrigation TOTAL 345 180 4.0 I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-4 MAY 2002 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY ' Public Utilities owns approximately 120 acres north of the Water Reclamation Plant which could be used for a secondary effluent demonstration project. Conceptual opportunities for this demonstration project include: • A turf farm demonstrating effluent application and beneficial use; • Plant, grow, demonstrate and supply alternative low water use turf (turf could be used for sodding of City open space and resodding of City parks, golf courses, and other public space); and ' • Provide an opportunity to explore use of Reclamation Plant solids as a soil amendment, which has been done successfully at many locations throughout the country. Prior to implementation of this alternative, a detailed alternatives analysis, cost-benefit and needs study will be needed to determine the appropriate elements of successful implementation as demonstrated in other communities. Demonstration Project Components The reuse demonstration project has been conceived to produce and deliver 4 mgd of reclaimed water to four demonstration sites. The project components include: ' • Microfiltration Equipment • Pump Station • Pipelines Trunk link to Rosepark Golf Course Lateral line to Rosewood Park - Lateral line to JRSP Executive Golf Course - Trunk line to Turf Farm (to be determined) • Storage (existing secondary sludge holding tank) • Power to Equipment • Instrumentation and Controls • Miscellaneous Support, Supplies and Equipment • Contingency • Design Engineering and Regulatory Approvals. It is important to note that the State regulations require all secondary water piping to be uniquely identified from culinary pipe to prevent accidental cross connections and contamination of the drinking water system. Industry standard is to use purple plastic pipe with identification as secondary water. It is also implied by the Uniform Plumbing Code that all piping on an end user's site (i.e. Golf Course) may require different pipe materials or other identification distinguishing on-site secondary piping from culinary. Any costs associated with retrofit of golf course piping are not included in this analysis, and should be validated with the State prior to project development STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-5 MAY 2002 I I I i / Proposed Turf Farm Location (to be determined) 4 Turf Farm Trunk Line / Jordan River I '` Slate Park PFacilityg&Treatment Pumping (\ ' Reclaimed Water Storage(Exisitng) Rose Park G.C. Trunk Line I 1 Rosewood I / r' Rose Park ) Park Lateral L Golf Cou f ' Rose Park \ Golf Course Rosewood Park _1 ec `\Ex Executive Call' ' Course Lateral Jordan River \ Slate Park I \ Executive G.C. Legend_ I 0 S.L.C.Boundary -� A/Canals/Waterways 7 Turf Farm Trunk Line NRose Park G.C.Trunk Line �` NSecondary Water Line Laterals - ` �./ __ -.Reclaimed Water Storage Figure 4-1 NE Pumping&Treatment Facility WWTP Reclaimed Water Demonstration Project Facilities S.L.C.Airport A r"1 CommunilylNeighborhood Park ZUUU U 2000 Feel P. ... .- =Golf Course -- - 4 I Li Special Use Park L J State Park N Stantec I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I Demonstration Project Costs 1 Table 4-4 shows capital costs for construction of reclaimed water demonstration project components. ITable 4-4 Reclaimed Water Demonstration Project Capital Costs IItem 4 MGD 2 MGD Pilot Demonstration Demonstration Treatment Facilities $2,500,000 $1,700,000 1 Pumping Facilities $ 200,000 $ 150,000 Storage Tank Improvements $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Rosepark Golf Course $ 144,000 $ 144,000 ITrunkline Rosewood Park Lateral $ 44,000 $ -- JRSP Executive G.C. Lateral $ 96,000 $ -- I Trunkline to Turf Farm $ 106,000 $ -- Electrical/Controls $ 200,000 $ 170,000 Miscellaneous Equipment $ 150,000 $ 100,000 I Subtotal $3,540,000 $2,364,000 Engineering, Administration & Contingency @35% $1,239,000 $ 827,000 Grand Total $4,779,000 $3,191,000 Annual Debt Service (20 years $ 348,000 $ 232,000 4.0%) Annual O&M Cost $ 145,000 $ 75,000 Annual Debt Service Plus Annual O&M Costs $ 493,000 $ 307,000 ICost Per Acre-Foot $ 223 $ 278 1 To supply reclaimed water at an average flow rate of 4 mgd and 2 mgd for 180 days will cost$223 and $278 per acre-foot, respectively. By comparison, the potable water cost 111 at 2002 summer retail rates is $405 per acre-foot. I I I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 4-7 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICONCLUSIONS 1. Nearly 47% of the water supplied by Salt Lake City is used for outside irrigation Iof landscape or turf. 2. Based upon sample results, overwatering of 20 to 70% per site accounts for 40% of outside residential water use, and 60% of large property outside water use in Ithe Salt Lake City service area. 3. Salt Lake City irrigates over 1400 acres of parks, golf courses, roadway islands, Iand public and airport landscapes the vast majority using potable water. 4. Several factors result in water waste at Salt Lake City open space properties I including: old age of irrigation systems and related poor reliability, manual controls, and inadequate capital and operating budgets. I 5. Potential water savings up to 138 million gallons a year total (or 21%) is possible with improvements at five City golf courses. I6. Fifty (50) percent of the park irrigation system reliability are rated "low" by staff. 7. Potential water savings of over 70 million gallons annually (or 26%) is possible at IParks. 8. With proper management, use of secondary water sources (wastewater effluent and Utah Lake water) for outside irrigation is feasible in Salt Lake City. I9. The Northwest Region of Salt Lake City offers the best opportunity to install secondary water system infrastructure at a reasonable cost. I10. The development of alternative water sources at Nibley, Forest Dale, and Rose Park golf courses would eliminate potable water use at these sites and possibly Ilower annual water costs. 11. The strategic location of canals and natural drainages present the opportunity to Iexpand use of secondary water throughout the Salt Lake City service area. 12. Existing Salt Lake City water rights can be used for development of secondary Iwater from Utah Lake or the Water Reclamation Plant. 13. Use of secondary water sources is increasing in the Salt Lake Valley and Utah. Wastewater effluent recycling is in place at two locations for golf course irrigation I and more are in development. Wastewater effluent recycling should be demonstrated first at the Rose Park Golf Course due to its close proximity to the existing Salt Lake City Water Reclamation Plant. I14. Although Utah Lake water is currently used in two Salt Lake County communities, public acceptance is in question due to poor aesthetic and Ichemical quality of the source. I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 5-1 MAY 2002 SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 15. Treatment needed to achieve acceptable water quality for turf and ornamental plant irrigation is the primary challenge to cost-effective use of Utah Lake water. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Optimize irrigation system operations and maintenance to increase water efficiency. Perform evaluation of irrigation operations for each irrigation system automated controller. 2. Include regular comparison of water use to established water use and waste reduction goals as a measure of system maintenance and operation efficiency. 3. Perform detailed water audits ("water checks") based on strategic priority of large water use and water waste systems. Incorporate study findings into respective City Capital Improvement Plans and budget funding. All irrigation capital improvement projects should include water check during predesign and at construction completion for efficiency certification. 4. The City parks will benefit from the installation of a central control system by ' allowing for automated shut downs during rain events and automating seasonal irrigation schedules as dictated by weather conditions. Both the Golf and Parks Divisions have begun installing central control at their sites. Upon validation of operation and efficiency improvements at the initial test sites, it is recommended that funding be established to complete central control installations at all City sites within 20 years. 5. Golf courses will benefit from the renovation of the irrigation systems at Bonneville and Nibley, including a central control system with weather stations. Establish and fund a program for replacement of inefficient City irrigation ' systems. The typical useful life for an irrigation system is 20 to 25 years. As systems age, sprinkler nozzles, gears, and bearings become worn and damaged, increasing maintenance costs. If a frequent repair schedule is not maintained, ' application of water loses uniformity and efficiency. A new well-maintained irrigation system has an efficiency of 80%. Observations at City properties indicate some irrigation systems are in the range of 30% efficient, providing I amply opportunity to reduce water waste at these locations. 6. Require all new irrigation systems to meet updated standards for efficient landscape and irrigation system design. The City should establish minimum standards for irrigation efficiencies, sprinkler spacing, construction details, acceptable equipment, testing, and associated specifications. Procedures should be specified for design review and construction, inspection, and I acceptance. 7. Utilize more efficient landscape and streetscape design. Require all new and updated landscapes to utilize appropriate lowest water use plants or turf appropriate for the specific site and use. 8. Consider development of a pilot reuse project for the Rose Park Golf Course. If water conservation goals are met, water demand projections indicate secondary water sources will not be needed for 20 to 30 years. A pilot project will develop baseline data and experience in Salt Lake City for secondary water system development. As secondary water resources are needed in the future, the STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 5-2 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY Ifeasibility and attractiveness of a secondary system should be reevaluated based upon the state of knowledge at that time. I 9. Utah Lake must be treated or blended with higher quality non-potable water such as shallow groundwater to achieve acceptable quality and aesthetic characteristics for spray irrigation at residential turf and ornamental landscaping. I A study should be undertaken to develop treatment/blending options and cost effectiveness for the use of Utah Lake water. A project should be implemented to demonstrate the acceptability of this source as alternative to potable water. I 10. The installation of irrigation systems to utilize alternative water sources such as wastewater effluent and Utah Lake water in western Salt Lake City should be considered and incorporated into long-range development planning for the area. III I I I I I I I I I I I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. 5-3 MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I IAPPENDIX A ISummary of Utah Wastewater Reuse Requirement I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISTANTEC CONSULTING INC. MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY I Type 1 treatment I • Secondary treatment (activated sludge, trickling filters, oxidation ditch, etc.), with effluent quality of BOD < 25 mg/I and total suspended solids < 25 mg/I I • Filtration, such as sand filters, membranes, etc. • Disinfection eliminating pathogenic microorganisms by chemical, physical, or biological means (chlorination, ozonation, UV radiation, membranes, etc.) IType 2 treatment I • Secondary treatment (activated sludge, trickling filters, oxidation ditch, etc), with effluent quality of BOD < 25 mg/I and total suspended solids < 25 mg/I I • Disinfection eliminating pathogenic micro-organisms by chemical, physical, or biological means (chlorination, ozonation, UV radiation, membranes, etc. IType 1 effluent quality • BOD < 10 mg/I (monthly arithmetic mean) determined by daily composite I sampling • Turbidity< 2 NTU (daily arithmetic mean) and < 5 NTU at all times • Fecal coliform = none detected (weekly median) determined by daily grab I samples with no sample > 15 organisms/100 ml • Chlorine residual > 1 mg/I (after 30 minutes contact time) at all times • PH between 6 and 9 IType 2 effluent quality 1 • BOD < 25 mg/I (monthly arithmetic mean) determined by daily composite sampling • TSS < 25 mg/I (monthly arithmetic mean) determined by daily composite Isampling • Fecal coliform < 200 organisms/100 ml (weekly median) determined by daily grab samples with no sample > 800 organisms/100 ml I • PH between 6 and 9 IType 1 additional requirements • Alternative disposal or temporary storage must be activated if the instantaneous values for turbidity or chlorine residual are exceeded for more Ithan 5 minutes • Irrigation must be at least 50 feet from any potable water well, and unsealed 1 impoundments of reuse water must be at least 500 feet from any potable well • Ground water discharge permits may be required I I STANTEC CONSULTING INC. MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY i • Additional requirements may apply for residential irrigation at individual homes, and proposals for such use should be submitted to the local health Idepartment Type 2 additional requirements I • Alternative disposal or storage must be available if quality requirements cannot be met I • Irrigation must be 300 feet from any potable water well, spray irrigation must be 300 feet from public areas, and unsealed impoundments of reuse water must be 500 feet from potable wells II • Ground water discharge permits may be required • Irrigation and storage sites must be fenced and signed to exclude public I I I I I I I I I I 1 STANTEC CONSULTING INC. MAY 2002 I SALT LAKE CITY WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY 1 APPENDIX B Salt Lake City Open Space Property Inventory and Evaluation I I r I I 1 I s I I I 1 I I 1 STANTEC CONSULTING INC. MAY 2002 Milli NM S 0111 1 ON NM r 1 f ! Mt Mt B elli MI M' ' a Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority or How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments 28 holes are watered ofl Mountain Dell Parleys an supply line sized for Golf Course Canyon Golf 190 00 190 00 _ 2 100 1960 1990 watering 18 holes. Glendale Golf 1630 West Course 2100 South Golf 160.00 160 00 _ 100 1998 Wingpointe 3602 West Golf Course 100 North Golf 159.00 159.00 High salinity,High pH 100 1968 Front Nine has decreased water pressure due to Rose Park Golf 1386 North development on West Course Redwood Rd Golf 116.10 116.10 3 95 1960 1985 side of Redwood Rd. Hilly,sloped #14- Pressure and volume course. 100% problems on the lower Morning and Bonneville Golf 954 Connor #2-40% side(west of Wasatch evening canyon Course Street Golf 115.00 115.00 #6-0% 1929 1980 Blvd.). Daily winds. Supply pressure has been steadily declining since the installation of the system and is Forest Dale 2375 South currently inadequate for Golf Course 900 East Golf 55.00 55.00 1 29,892,156 100 1997 system operation. Daily Pressure has declined. Inadequate supply for an (1)-9,305,018 8 or 9 hour window (2)-8,816,540 Current irrigation (3)-5,732,322 infrastructure is not Nibley Park 2730 South (4)-1,297,870 conducive to effective Golf Course 700 East Golf 45.00 45.00 5 (5)-0 25 1950 1993 rmgation as needed Artesian Well 500E 800 S Park 0.25 0.15 5 1 1 NO 0 1947 1978 0 0 100 0 No N/A No Davis Park 1980 E 960 S Park 0.50 0 38 5 1 1 _ NO 100 r ? 100 0 0 0 No 6 No Chicago St- Madsen Park S.Temple Park 2.00 2.00 5 1 1 NO _ 100 1978 1978 75 0 25 0 No 4 No 1965 W-500 Park Shop S. Park 2.00 2.00 5 1 2 NO 100 1978 1978 75 0 25 0 No 5 No Research Pollock Rd Tennis Fort Douglas Park 3.50 2.60 5 1 1 NO 100 1978 7 80 0 10 0 No 8 No 90 (between moody& Research 400 S 2000 E Park 2.75 2.75 5 1 3 NO _ 100 1978 0 10 _ 0 popups)_ 0 No 7 No (1)-7,835096 Reservoir(2 1300 E.South (2)-562,535 70(moody Up,2 Down) Temple Park 6.50 4.22 5 1 3 (3)-174,296 NO 75 2 '2 10 20 popups) 0 _ No 5 No NOTE: Each category was sorted first by Pnority of Upgrade,then by Page 1 General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. an NIS A 111111 R111 1111111 MI IN In 111111 all SO 11.1 emu 411111 11111 $1111 1 1 Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Prionty of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments (1)-568,519 Popperton 1350 East 11 (2)-1,414,566 Park th Ave Park 8 00 6.00 5 1 3 (3)-1,746,000 NO 100 1987 ? 75 0 25 0 No 7 No 1968 (Front) 800 South 1978 Rotary Glen 2270 East Park 8.00 8.00 5 1 1 3,333,000 NO _ 100 (Back) ? 100 0 0 0 Service is too small 5 No 1500 West- Sherwood Park 400 S. Park 12.00 12.00 5 1 1 (1)-715,886 NO 100 1945 1993 75 0 25 0 No 10 No 11 th Ave.M Sac Shrub 11 th Ave St. Park 25.00 20ac Turf 5 1 1 12,449,829 NO 100 1978 ? 75 0 25 0 No 6 No New Part Stratford Park 20th E 2600 S Park 2.00 2.00 4 1 1 NO 0 ? _ 2000 0 80 20 0 No 4 No 2100E 1900 1998 Dillworth Park S Park 4.50 4.00 4 1 1 NO 10 1970 (50%up) 0 50 50 0 No 4(Batteries) No Peace Gardens Park 12.00 12.00 4 1 1 8,705,679 NO 0 1947 N/A 0 100 0 0 No N/A No 17th S.River Park Park 17.00 16.00 4 1 1 10,291,699 NO 100 1985 1985 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Swede Town 1500 N 800 IA Park 0.75 0.53 5 2 1 NO 100 1978 ? 80 0 20 0 No 5 No Constitution (Northwest) 1300 W 200 N Park 18.25 18.25 5 2 1 12,988,426 NO 100 1980 ? 100 _ 0 0 0 No 8 No 600 East 215 6th East Mini South Park 0.25 0.13 4 2 1 NO 100 1982 ? 0 0 100 0 No 6 No 500 North Jackson Grand St. Park 1.00 _ 0.75 4 2 1 NO 100 1978 ? 40 0 30 0 No 8 No 2710 East (1)-4,216,021 Donner 940 South Park 17.00 17.00 4 2 2 (2)-4,016,291 NO 100 1990 ? 100 0 0 0 No 6 No - 0.75 Turf, 1050 East 0.25 Faultline 400 South Park 1.00 Bushes 4 2 1 NO 100 1980 ? 75 0 25 0 No 6 No 1040 E 1125 Inglewood Park S Park 0.50 0.38 3 2 1 NO 100 ? ? 75 0 25 0 No 6 No Washington Parleys Cross Connected,No Insufficient Park Canyon Park 2.00 2.00 2 _ 2 N/A NO 0 1960 ? 0 80 20 0 Backflow 0 No Water Supply West Temple Jefferson Park 1000 S Park 3.25 3.25 2 2 2 NO 100 1985 1985 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Elizabeth 2400 S. Sherman Mini Highland Park Drive Park 1.50 1.00 1 2 2 NO 100 1986 _ 1986 0 0 100 0 No 4 No NOTE. Each category was sorted first by Prionty of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 2 r - - - N OM 4111111 O la 111/1 1 ,- IS - NB r r - OM Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments 1200 W 1700 A mess. Pools line Raging Waters S Park 8.00 4.00 3 3 1 10,291,699 NO 100 1980 1999 70 0 30 0 imgation N/A all of it Washington State St 449 (1)-6,220,052 Square S Park 11.00 8 00 3 3 2 (2)-914,119 NO 100 1987 1987 0 0 100 0 No 4 No (1)-3,757,465 (2)-2,496,997 Pioneer Park 300 W 350 S Park 9.00 9.00 3 3 3 (3)-2,368,332 NO 100 ? ? 100 0 0 0 No 4 No 1200 W 1300 Rosewood N Park 22.25 18.90 3 3 1 792,187 NO 100 1979 ? 80 0 20 0 No 8 No (1)-12,324,904 Fairmont 900 E 2361 S Park (2)-3,420842 Still Working 30.00 25.00 3 3 3 (1( j(ANSI! NO 50 1900 1985 20 50 30 0 No 4 No on Park (2)-13,468,675 (3)-6,878,337 25%on (4)4,594,535 Manual Liberty Park 600 E 1000 S Park 100.00 80.00 3 3 6 (5)-2,755,823 NO 50 1876 2001 N/A 50 25 Moody's All cross connected 4 No (1)-131,657 at north Jordan River (2)-964,987 temple to (3)-30,670 21st South. Trail Park 82.00 82.00 3 3 4 (4)-0 NO 50 1847 1847 N/A N/A 100 Some River on auto 4 sessions Yes 1200 W 1700 Glendale S Park 6.00 5.00 2 3 1 5,032,145 NO 100 1974 _ ? _100 0 0 0 No 4 No 900 N Beck (1)-7,461,818 Warm Springs Street Park 9.00 7.65 2 _ 3 2 (2)-2,143917 NO 100 1974 1988 ? 7 100 0 No 6 No Redwood Meadows 1780 W 400 fi Park 1.25 0.94 4 4 1 NO 100 1982 ? 80 0 20 0 No 6 No 170 North B Kletting St. Park 0.25 0.13 2 4 1 NO 100 1985 7 75 0 25 0 No 6 No Fountain& Taufer Park 80%Spray Cross Connected,No Irrigation on Mini 300E 700 S Park 1.00 0.75 2 4 1 NO 100 1977 1999 0 0 20%Brass 0 Backflow 4 same line. 619 West 500 Guadeloupe North Park 1.00 0.75 2 4 1 NO 100 1992 7 75 0 25 0 No 4 No Richmond 450 E 600 S Park _ 2.00 2.00 2 4 1 NO 100 1981 1999 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 800 South (1)-3,308,634 Poplar Grove 1200 West Park 6.75 6.00 2 4 2 (2)-131,657 NO 100 1960 1995 0 0 100 0 No N/A No 100% 100% popup 5th Ave and C Battery Moody 5th Ave Tennis Street Park _ 0.50 0.13 5 5 1 NO Control 7 7 0 0 heads 0 No 6 No North Temple City Creek &State St. Park 4.00 3.00 5 5 2 NO 100 1995 ? 40 50 10%Drip No 8 No Beldon Park 359 E 560 S Park 0 25 _ 0.15 3 5 1 NO 100 1985 N/A 0 0 100 0 No N/A No NOTE: Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 3 NM 111111 NM 111111 S 1 GM 11111 MN NI S MI 11111 Mt NIB NM 81111 SE 1 Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments Miller Park 1708 E 900 S Park 0.25 0.25 3 5 1 NO 100 2 2 75 0 25 0 No 4 No Beatrice Evans Park 1260 E 10th S Park 0.25 0.25 2 5 1 NO 100 1995 ? 0 0 100 0 No 5 No 1100 North (1)-9,013,278 Westpointe 2000 West Park 23 00 20.70 2 5 2 (2)-13,346,995 NO 100 ? 2 95 0 5 0 No 8 No 600 North Silver Center St Park 0.25 0.09 1 5 1 NO 100 2 2000 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 340 West Pugsley 2100 South Park 0 25 0.19 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 ? 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Shipp 579 4th Ave Park 0.25 0.19 1 _ 5 1 NO 100 1985 ? 0 0 100 0 No 6 No Downington Cotton Park 300 E Park 0.25 0.20 1 5 1 _ NO 100 1995 1995 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Liberty Park Seven Backflow is cross Canyons 600 E 1000 S Park 0 25 0.20 1 5 0.00 NO 100 1992 1992 0 _ 0 100 0 connected 4 No 1825 S Lakeline Drive Arcadia Park (2050 E) Park 0.25 0.22 1 5 1 NO 100 1999 1999 0 0 100 _ 0 No 4 No Parley Pratt 2300 E 2100 Plaza S Park 0 50 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1998 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Westminster 1990 E 1700 Park S Park 0.50 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 N/A 0 _ 0 100 0 No 4 No Nelli Jack Mini 1500 W 1195 Park S Park 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 1985 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Stanton Mini 360 E 540 S Park 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 N/A 0 0 100 0 No N/A No Weseman Park Park 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1998 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No First Encampment 1700 S 500 E Park 0.75 0 60 _ 1 5 1 NO 100 1998 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 2000 E 2250 Hillcrest Park S Park 0.75 0.75 1 5 1.00 NO 100 1994 1994 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 14th Ave Park 14th Ave&H Park 0.75 0.75 1 5 1 _ NO 100 ? 2000 100 0 0 0 No 2 No Curtis Mini 2300 W.1430 Park S Park 1.25 100 1 5 1 NO 100 1987 1987 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 1780 W 1565 Miami N Park 1.00 1.00 1 5 1 NO 100 2001 ? 75 0 _ 25 0 No 4 No NOTE Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by Page 4 General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. 9 WM I E 111111 111111 In NS SO MI 1 SS NIB MI NS MI all S Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments Wasatch 1700 S 1700 Hollow E Park 2 00 1.75 1 5 1 NO 100 1989 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 1800 E 1200 Laird Park S Park 1 75 1.75 1 5 1 NO 100 2000 ? 75 0 25 0 No 6 No 9th S.River Park 1400E 900 S Park 4.50 4.00 1 5 1 NO 100 1995 1995 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 800 North 80 Ensign Downs East Park 7.00 5.25 1 5 1 780,966 NO 100 1998 ? 75 0 25 0 No 4 No Herman (1)-4,504,769 Frank's Park 700 E 1300 S Park 10.00 9.00 1 5 2 (2)-3,088,706 NO 100 1900 1982 80 _ 0 30 0 No 4 No (2)-3,278,712 ' (3)-1,860,405 Lindsey 9th Avenue& (4)-1,540987 Gardens M St. - Park 15.25 11.50 1 5 5 (5)-0 NO 100 2001 ? 100 0 0 0 No 5 No 1255 E 2160 Hidden Hollow S Park 20.00 19.00 1 5 1 690,452 NO 100 1999 1999 0 _ 0 100 0 No 4 No Sunnyside 840 South Park 1600 East Park 25.50 20.40 1 5 2 20,404,613 NO 100 ? 2000 90 0 10 0 No 6 No 1060 South (1)-83,034 Jordan Park 900 West Park 33.50_ 30.00 1 5 2 (2)-218,431 NO 100 1930 1983 0 50 50 0 No 4 No 3.75 Turf, North Gate 300 North 1.25 Wild Way Park Beck St Park 5.00 Flowers 1 5 1 NO 100 1996 ? 75 0 25 0 No 8 No (1)-12,539,595 (2)-2,710,940 2001 739 North (65%of Park)-1 1 (3)-1,348738 (65%of Riverside Park 1400 West Park 28.50 24.20 (35%of Park)-5 5 4 (4)-70,317 NO 65 ? park) 60 35 5 0 No 6 No Oak Hills Ball Wasatch Will receive new system Diamonds Blvd.1220 S Park 2.50 1.25 this year NO _ ? ? No No (1)-5,219,158 (2)-3,361,745 375 North Will receive new system (3)-3,012,405 Memory Grove Canyon Rd Park 8 75 6.50 , this year (4)-1,707,803 NO _ 2001 2001 _ No No Memory Freedom Trail Grove Park 0.50 0.00 NO ? ? No No Foothill Blvd. 900 S Foothill Islands Drive Island 0 50 0 00 5 1 1 NO 100 1990 ? 0 0 0 100%Drip No 5 No 650 North 625 100% 100% 13th&J East Island 0.25 0.25 5 1 1 NO (Battery) ? ? 0 0 0 Moody No 2 No 1925 E 1210 Laird Circle S Island 0.25 0.25 5 1 1 NO 0 7 ? 0 0 100 0 No No 100% 150 West 300 Battery 100% Quince St. North Island 0 25 0 25 5 _ 1 1 NO Control 1975 ? 0 0 Moody 0 No 2 No NOTE: Each category was sorted first by Pnority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 5 Mr - s w r - = * M r MB S e is SO M a s N Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of . How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments 1350 W 1150 Glendale Circle S Island 0.75 0.75 5 1 1 NO 0 1946 1946 0 50 50 0 No N/A No High Salt Level in Jordan River water. 3/4 under construction 2nd S. 200S-810 due to I-15 islands/West West Island 2.00 2.00 5 1 7 NO 100 _ 1975 N/A 0 0 25 75(Moody)Old Main,Old meter pits 6 No expansion 600 S to 900 8th West Islanc S Island 2.00 2.00 5 1 10 NO 0 0 ? 0 0 100 0 Manual System N/A No 200 South 2nd S.Islands 810 West Island 2.00 2.00 5 1 7 NO 100 1975 ? 0 0 25 75%Moody Old main and meter pits 6 No 12th East 12th East Island South Temple Island 2.50 2.50 5 1 12 NO 0 ? ? 0 0 100 0 No backflows or meters 1 No 1700 E.1300 Brass Cross connection on all 7th E.Parking S. Island 3.50 3.50 5 1 18 NO 0 ? ? 0 0 0 Heads Islands N/A No 4th Ave 0.50 50% Main on the west side a1 Shrubs are in 4th Ave Stairs Canyon Rd Island 0.50 Shrubs 5 1 2 NO 50 1960 1982 0 0 50 Hosebib the bottom of the hill. 1 poor shape 100% some 2nd West 200 West battery Islands North Temple Island 1.75 1.75 5 2 12 NO control 1975 ? 50 0 50 0 Service is too small. 8 No Dea Island 2080 West- (dist 1) N Temple Island 0.25 0.25 2 2 1 NO 100 1988 1988 0 0 100 0 No 8 No 0.13 Turf 4th North 400 North 80 &0.37 Stairs West Island 0.50 Bushes 4 3 1 NO 85 1975 ? 0 0 85 0 No 8 No 1300 E 2400 Old Brass 1300 E Parking S Island 1.75 1.75 3 3 4 NO 100 ? ? 20 0 0 Heads No 4 No 100 North Boy Scout Dr. 1200 West Island 2 00 2.00 3 3 3 NO , 100 1980 ? 100 0 0 0 No 8 No Prison Islands 1325 E 21005 Island 0.50 0.50 2 3 1 NO _ 0 1962 N/A 0 80 20 0 All cross connected N/A No Wall St Island 200 W 740 N Island 0.50 0.00 4 4 1 NO 100 1989 ? 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 8th East 800 East Islands South Temple Island 2.75 2.75 4 4 NO 100 1990 ? 100 0 0 0 No 6 No 10th East Island 1000 E 500 S Island 0.75 0.75 3 4 1 NO 100 1975 1975 0 0 100 0 No 5 No NOTE. Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 6 Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Pnority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) 8 of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments 2810 E 2400 Parley's Way S Island 2.75 2 50 2 4 1 NO 100 ? 2000 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 2170 E 2350 Oneida Island S Island 0.25 0.25 5 5 1 NO 0 1950 N/A 0 90 10 0 No N/A No 100 West 350 New Almond St. North Island 0.25 0.06 2 5 1 NO _ 100 1982 ? 0 0 100 0 No 5 landscaping 1300E 1100 Harvard Island S Island 0.50 0.50 2 5 1 NO 100 ? ? 75 0 25 0 No 5 No 1340 East Virginia St South Temple Island 0.50 0.00 1 5 5 NO _ 100 ? 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No North Temple 300 West 100% Island North Temple Island 0.25 0.00 1 5 2 NO _ 100 2000 ? 0 0 _ 0 Bubbles No 4 No 900 West 100 Park-N-Ride North Island 0.25 0.05 1 5 1 NO 100 1984 ? 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 1700 E 2100 Waters Island S Island 0.25 0.12 1 5 1 NO 100 1998 1998 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 1300 S 1500 E 1300 S 1500 Island E Island 0.25 0.22 1 5 1 NO 100 ? 1996 0 0 100 0 No 4 (Battery Clock) No 800 West 13th S.Island 1355 South Island 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 0 1978 1984 0 0 100 0 No N/A No 2550 E 1650 Brass Battery Clock Skyline Island S _ Island 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 00%Bal 1980 1997 0 0 100 Moody's Cross Connected 4 No 100% valve In 9th S.Islands 1400 E.900 S Island 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 ? 2001 heads 0 0 0 No 5 No Independence 1450 North Island 1780 West Island 0.25 0.25 1 5 _ 1 NO 100 1988 ? 0 0 100 0 No 3 No 100% Normandy 1350E 1100 Battery Island S Island 0.25 0.25 1 5 1 NO Control ? ? 0 0 100 0 No 3 No 100% popup Yalecrest 1600 E 1020 moody Island S Island 0.25 0.25 1 _ 5 2 NO 0 ? ? heads No 0 No Jefferson Circle 150 W 1725 5 Island 2.00 2.00 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 1985 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 200 S to 300 8th West Island N Island 2.50 2.50 1 5 9 NO 100 1999 1999 100 0 0 0 No 6 to 8 No Federal 1450 East (4 Islands)-5 1 Heights South Temple Island 0.50 0 50 (1 Island)-2 5 5 NO 25 ? 0 25 0 75 0 No No NOTE. Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 7 r MN r r r err sr ma rr r mu w r so riff as am r r Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % % %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments 40% Auto, 600 East (South Temple to 600 5)-5 1 40% 6th East Island South Temple Island 2.75 2.75 (600 S to 900 S)-3 3 12 NO Battery 1960 ? 80 0 20 0 One tap for each Island 6 No Bonneville 10th S. Blvd. Foothill Drive Island 0.50 0 00 NO ? ? No No North&South Terminal 10%sprays ponds Drive Airport 60 Maxicom 1980 90%rotors Terminal Terminal 90%sprays Fronts Drive Airport 10 Maxicom 1981 10%rotors Observation& 90%sprays Cargo 3700 West Airport 10 Maxicom 1982 10%rotors 80%sprays North Support 1200 North Airport 5 Maxicom _1983 20%rotors K-9&Tree 10%sprays Farm 2200 North Airport 20 ESP 1998 90%rotors Ball field Executive 80%sprays Terminal 2200 West Airport 25 ESP 1979 20%rotors Weather& ESP- 90%sprays Service FAA North Temple Airport 3 _ manual 1978 10%rotors Greenhouse 1200 North Airport 0 5 ESP 1993 Drip Public Service Glendale Youth 855 W 1355 5 Facility 5.25 4.00 3 5 2 125,673 NO 100 1996 1996 0 0 100 0 No 4 No Public 10th East 1000 E.250 Service Senior Center S. Facility 3.00 2.25 2 2 1 NO 75 ? ? 0 0 100 0 No 3 No Public North Westside Sr Service Parking Center 900 W 900 S Facility 2.00 1 00 2 4 1 NO 100 1978 1989 0 0 100 0 _ No 4 No Public 17th S. 600 W.1700 Service Retention S. Facility 0.75 0.75 _ 1 5 1 NO 100 1985 1985 0 0 100 0 No 4 No 5822 W.- Public Fire Station Amelia Service Training(dist 1;Airheart Drive Facility 0.75 0.75 2 4 1 _ NO 100 ? ? 75 0 25 0 No 8 No Public Dee Glen 2425E 1216 Service Smith Tennis S Facility 2.75 0.28 5 1 1 NO 0 1978 9 0 0 100 0 No 0 No Public Post St.Tot Service Lot 950 W 500 S Facility 0.50 0.25 _ 1 5 1 NO 100 1980 2001 0 0 100 0 _ No N/A No Public Fire Station 273 N.1000 Service (#7) W. Facility 0.50 0.25 1 5 1 NO 100 1982 _ ? 0 0 100 0 No 2 No Public Galagher Tot Service Lot _ Facility 0.25 0.15 2 4 1 NO 100 1980 1980 _ 0 0 100 0 No 4 No NOTE: Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 8 In w IN E M O OS I — r 1 w I — WI MO OM — — Appendix B. Open Space Properties Inventory and Evaluation Subjective Ratings Water Supply Control Age of System Type of Sprinklers General System Priority of How many Condition and Comments Upgrade Central seasonal Do any Special Total Irrigated (efficiency,reliability, (Rating 1-5) #of Historical Control Year of adjustments are Site Area Turf Area age,etc.) (Rating 1-5)1- 1-high,5- Taps/ Annual Water or ET %Auto- Year last % %QC %pop-up %other Any Water Supply made to controller Constraints Other Description Location Category (acres) (acres) high,5-low) low Meters Use(gallons) Station? matic Installed upgrade Impact valves spray (describe) Issues? during yr? Exist? Comments Public Van Ness Tot Service 80% Lot 430 E 850 S Facility 0.25 0.15 5 1 1 NO 100 1980 0 0 0 20%Spray Bubblers No 4 No Public Fire Station 1015 West- Service Tennis(dist 1) 300 N Facility 0 10 0 10 2 4 1 NO 100 1992 1992 0 0 100 0 No 8 No 1300 E Gully 1300 E 1050 Open (undev) S Space N/A Parley's Historic Nature Open Walk(undev) Space N/A NOTE: Each category was sorted first by Priority of Upgrade,then by General System Condition,and finally by Irrigated Turf Area. Page 9 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 23,2002 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-04—Joan and Ryan Williams request to close a portion of March Street(2935 West)between 500 South and approximately 570 South STAFF REPORT BY: Marge Harvey,Constituent Liaison/Policy and Research Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has transmittal notes that the presented as a new clearly stated the petitioner will be ordinance.Both the positive aspects of the required to purchase the Utah Code and Salt proposal. All necessary property at fair market Lake City Code regulate City departments and value. Salt Lake City review and approval of divisions have reviewed Code 2.58 states that the street closure the proposal and City shall retain title applications. State law recommended approval until the land is sold at requires public hearings of the petition to close a fair market value. before both the Planning portion of March Street. Commission and the The applicant has City Council to consider agreed to all conditions the potential impact of of the City departments losing the public benefit and divisions and has of the street. (Please agreed to purchase the refer to the Master Plan property at fair market and Policy value. Considerations section for Council's street closure policy.) KEY ELEMENTS A. The property is located in a Heavy Manufacturing"M-2"zoning district. The petitioners state that vandalism,trespassing and theft are a problem in the area and are the main reasons for the street closure petition. Mr.Williams,the petitioner,would like the road closed to stop the theft and vandalism of his property and to incorporate the portion of March Street into his property for future expansion. Mr.Harris of Turner Gas,an abutting property owner,would like the street closed to prevent theft and vandalism. He would prefer not to install a 15-foot landscape buffer, curb and gutter improvements along the March Street frontage as required for a recent expansion of his business. He has indicated that the March Street property is not used regularly or needed by his business. B. City departments and divisions involved in the review of the proposed street closure have recommended approval of the request and identified specific requirements including easements for existing public utility infrastructure. The petitioner has agreed to all conditions of the City departments and divisions and has agreed to purchase the property at fair market value. Public Utilities will require an easement for unrestricted access to maintain existing sewer and water mains in the street. Consistent with City policy,the Property Management Division recommended that the property be declared surplus and sold at fair market value. The petitioner 1 will be responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of an independent appraisal of the value of the property. C. At the June 7, 2001 Planning Commission hearing,Mr. Steven Evans,an abutting property owner spoke against the closure stating that he needs the 500/570 South portion of March Street for access to his auto salvage business. Mr.Evans would like to have March Street improved and maintained for his access needs. Doug Wheelwright,Planning Division,stated that"the preservation of third party access interests are always included in street closures,and therefore Mr. Evans would be able to use the street for occasional access." Mark Harris,representing Turner Gas Company,the other abutting property owner, spoke in favor of the closure. The Planning Commission voted to forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation that March Street be closed between 500/570 South and to declare this portion of the street as surplus property. D. On July 15,2001,City staff met with all three parties,Rodger Tsclamy,attorney for Steven Evans,Mark Harris of Turner Gas,and the petitioner,Ryan Williams. Mr.Williams and Mr. Harris disputed Mr.Evan's claim that he requires access from March Street(see letters in the Administration's paperwork for details). Mr.Tsclamy stated he would have a site plan prepared to verify his client's claim. After reviewing the site plan,Mr.Williams hired Olympus Aerial Survey,Inc. to take aerial photos of the area. Please refer to the attached maps for details. E. After the meeting, staff consulted with Deputy City Attorney,Lynn Pace,regarding third party rights which were clarified as follows: "a third party right pertains to access right that utilize the subject property for purposes other than a public street",(utility easements for underground lines are an example). It was determined that if the Planning Commission's motion to approve the street closure was based on the understanding that Mr.Evans would still be able to use March Street for vehicle access to his property,then this should be corrected. In light of this possible miss-communication and because of the new information(site plans and aerial photos),Planning staff elected to take the petition back to the Planning Commission for a rehearing. F. On October 4,2001,the Planning Commission reheard the petition and again voted to forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation that March Street be closed between 500/570 South and to declare this portion of the street as surplus property. The street closure is conditioned upon the following: a. Payment to the City of the fair market value of the street property,consistent with Chapter 2.58 of the City Code. b. Execution of an easement agreement between the applicant and the City Public Utilities Department. c. Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install any required improvements(grading and landscaping). G. The petitioner indicated that he has not had further contact with Mr.Evans since the second Planning Commission hearing. The petitioners have told Mr.Evans that they will make March Street accessible to him if this portion of March Street is closed and purchased by them. The petitioner's tenants have not had contact with Mr. Evans and state that he has not used this portion of March Street since the Planning Commission hearing. The petitioners and their tenants affirm that vandalism,trespassing and theft continue to be a problem in the area. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration access issues relating to Mr.Evan's business. H. As noted by the Administration,both the Utah Code and local ordinances regulate review and approval of street closure applications and the disposition of surplus property. The Planning 2 • Commission must consider and make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. According to Salt Lake City Code,the City shall retain title to the surplus property until the land is sold at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. In addition,the ordinance requires that the City Council be offered an opportunity to request an additional public hearing. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Additional options may be identified at the Council Work Session on September 3,2002. 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance closing a portion of March Street(2935 West) between 500 and 570 South. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance closing a portion of March Street(2935 West) between 500 and 570 South. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. During the Council's recent alley policy discussions,Council Members expressed support for the following modifications. Council Members may wish to consider adjusting the Council's street closure policy to ensure a consistent policy direction. (Please refer to the Master Plan and Policy Consideration section for the Council's street closure policy.) a. Shift the focus to consideration of a proposed request with demonstrated public benefit rather than supporting closure/vacation whenever possible. b. Require an evaluation and documented demonstration of public interest versus private interest. The standard should be to demonstrate an over-riding public purpose,rather than an over-riding private interest. c. Include neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council. Planning staff has indicated to Council staff that the current street closure procedure does not require Community Council notification and review. (Please note that currently,the Planning Commission agenda is mailed to Community Council Chairs. A Planning Commission hearing notice is mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of a proposed street closure.) 2. The Administration's transmittal notes that at the Planning Commission hearing,Mr. Steven Evans, an abutting property owner spoke against the closure stating that he needs the 500/570 South portion of March Street as access to his auto salvage business. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration access issues relating to Mr.Evan's business. Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for details. Key points include: a. Administrative staff believes that Mr. Evans has sufficient access to his property from Fulton Street(3000 West),an improved city street,unlike March Street which is a dirt street that is a dead-end. b. In 1998,the City closed and sold to Mr.Evans the portion of March Street that abuts his property. The property is not a stand-alone lot and does not have access rights by itself. It cannot be built on or used for storage of materials or vehicles due to a public utility easement. c. The petitioners have informed Mr. Evans that they will make March Street accessible to him if this portion of the street is closed and purchased by them. d. Planning staff indicated that during the Planning Commission field trip to view the property, it was apparent that the property is fenced and a large amount of material is stored on the property blocking access to March Street from Mr. Evan's property. 3 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: a. 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. b. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,whether the abutting property is residential or commercial. c. 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. d. 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. e. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the street. 2. Council policy statements contained in the City's Transportation Master Plan are summarized below: a. Focus on ways to transport people,not on moving vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods. b. Support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life,not necessarily the quantity of development. c. Support the creation of linkages(provisions and incentives)to foster appropriate growth in currently defined growth centers. d. Support considering impacts on neighborhoods on an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems. e. Support giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. 3. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: a. is aesthetically pleasing; b. contributes to a livable community environment; c. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and d. forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. 4. 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. This portion of March Street is not designated in the City's master plans as a potential component of the bicycle or trail system or as a mid-block walkway. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • February 13,2001 Petition delivered to Planning • June 7,2001 1st Planning Commission Hearing • June 15,2001 Meeting with Planning staff,applicant and abutting 4 property owners. • October 4,2001 2nd Planning Commission Hearing. • October 23,2001 Received Ordinance from City Attorney • November 2001-May 2002 Planning staff diverted for Olympic related petition processing,Planning Commission support, and dealing with backlog of projects and transmittals due to Olympic related workload. • May 31,2002 Additional contact with applicant as to any private discussions or settlements with objecting property owner • June,2002 Planning staff updated property owner mailing list, documented police statistics on alleged crime problems related to public access to March Street,and requested revised ordinance from City Attorney to add necessary technical language for street closure. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Chief Dinsie,Chief Querry,LeRoy Hooton,Margaret Hunt,Rick Graham, David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,Max Peterson, Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Jackie Gasparik,Annette Daley,Janice Jardine File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division, Street Closures,March Street(2935 West) 5 PETITN 400-01 -04I ;wF 1'3` `^.y—..f,.- —� r .t L<i� F1'"� t i. fi • ! +}��e ,.,3 �,�m��wi�a�� r� -,� '', a E. � �� a �;. � i�„<���..�•t �a f Street To Be . . . — r 49 � ,✓ ° Portion Of Street :. s 3 Previously Vacated J t Y f¢; } �¢ 'p '\� ,; i5 1'S4Y' �.4.h r -.•, 1 Yy .�+ C c • Yc F., I ) %%OCR► AV j.^ .ki 'a A. r,.�,..? rksv, „. •ti9 c+ �au •.b • - 's, ,. ,- 3►7 ,-,.- - r r t,- .gK,t a *.y4 • .. ' •" a,ay t '3' ,-?- a; ? r ., t ,, .. .., ...y..' . 't y x aY r't,.v , � r.t .f3s- r s `. 1 sr,4,ja =- • ... .ti:a,+ -a- vw. c,s'_USouth Street r aif« .04-i4Sretl,. ,C -' .. ,- - , ,t.•r;" t 4> - e kX v. at, -: *.. t• •:�,_' t '%r ,`fit �; 7 a t4�*�j ;3KhYb 55 , k ..k �; . ` L r a. ? . ty Entrance.._,-;„ , - ' — • *,,, - ' :.,..... ::1-f,:-:‘ -'':;t7c. ''1,,L-;2--e'"k-fr' - — ' '1,- ,-,;,:iiirt ' 4, illY,.... >'''' -'4,4.-.--,';),,,,''', .' - . - . _ 1:-'-..'"'-`-' lipi it � � rt- � �ram, �,. �` • , �:� Gate _ Turner Gas la '"�+E, h Williams Property, ''' b_ . .,,,,-„.....,..- ^r -, 3 Y-,,_, .._-_,-,..-.._: _ _, _ -: _ .-_ -„.:-„. , : . ...,..,,,i,,., .. ,..,,,- -...,-. ,' H �j ' 'fi�xx ��� Y'as� l. ., , , 4, ..t'' n „ry " 'om -_ 3r' r, Entrance Gate y .jam _ '. ,.5,-.[ w- ' .-r -" • Entrance Gate' �S � { { l ., �x� K Yr !dr ^ j - y 4, -', a -; , t .}"w- +c t o - 9 '3 , : f, '''''- 4 - i Evans Property . , #„ { Y, ' Y N..T hI eS r _ -j t Aft_ t. } Entrance Gate ,: I._ • r -- • Cam'' f.' ,F a s _ .St - _ fK�`,t � '.d„ , ::.0.' =i-i. ,, -_-;;;`,..-'-,...' _. . _ .. ... ---,*--' --'-_ - -' , .- ' '- - - _ , -..z.i'..X1',-'_;,,,:-F.---:_lk •-• "-' &,.. .nk,-,--..,...--4 ... ,„.,,,..,..„.„,,:, __. ..._ _ ..__, ..._ :. .. :. , . ., .... . - . „,,,,..,4,-,-,..,,...-„, ,...„: - ,,,,,y4,,,,,,,,A-,,.. , -,-.1t:1.7„.-.7..--,,--„,-.,_.„..._.-,:- _ - ...- .._ - - .... ..-,- ,. .. - ,..„---- . - -,...-4.---„,.:,-..„.,,,- :- -. _ ,,,,, ,,,..„.,,„,,,. . ._ _ .„..., r.„-,_ t-qe.7,..'s "... . i' tom. Y -S ,-o -.y1 ; ..*A t'i. MARGARET HUNT S 1 t?L ,r";,6a t��CITY"CORPORATI,O ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 13, 2002 FROM: Marg r is x, RE: Petition 400- -04: A request by Joan and Ryan Williams, requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of March Street (2955 West) between 500 South and the railroad at approximately 570 South; and to declare the subject portion of the street as surplus property. This property is located in a Heavy Manufacturing"M-2"zoning district. STAFF CONTACT: Jackie O. Gasparik, 535-6354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Both the Utah Code and local ordinances regulate review and approval of street closure applications. Utah Code, Title 10-9-305, discusses the process for determining the public's interest in the street and Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58, regulates the disposition of City-owned property. State law requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider the potential impact of losing the public benefit of the street. Once the Planning Commission recommends that the street is no longer needed for the benefit of the public, that recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. All street closure requests must be approved by the City Council, following an advertised public hearing. The disposition of the property is regulated differently. The Planning Commission must consider and make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If they recommend that it be declared surplus, the property must be disposed of according to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58, City-Owned Real Property. This ordinance states that the City shall retain title to the surplus property until the land is sold at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. In addition, this ordinance requires that the City Council be offered an opportunity to request an additional public hearing. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO 1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-SO05 ANALYSIS: All necessary City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the petition to close the public street, and to declare the subject property as surplus. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of the various department/divisions and has agreed to purchase the property at fair market value, as determined by the City Property Manager. PUBLIC PROCESS: At their June 7, 2001 hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward to the City Council, a favorable recommendation that March Street be closed between 500-570 South, because it is no longer needed as a public street. They also recommend that the property be declared surplus and disposed of according to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58. At the Planning Commission Hearing Mr. Steven Evans, an abutting property owner, spoke against the closure stating that he required the remaining portion of March Street as access to his auto salvage business. In response to Mr. Evans objection to the street closure, Doug Wheelwright of the City staff stated "that the preservation of third party access interests are always included in street closures, and therefore Mr. Evans will be able to use the former street area for occasional access." This statement seemed to somewhat relieve the concern of the Planning Commission about the need of the street to remain for Mr. Evans' benefit. After that statement was made, Mr. Harris, representing Turner Gas Company, the other abutting property owner, spoke in favor of the closure. The public hearing was closed and a motion was made based on the findings of fact, to approve the petition and it passed. Staff met with all three parties (Mr. Steven Evans' Attorney, Mr. Rodger Tsclamy, Mr. Mark Harris of Turner Gas, and Mr. Ryan Williams) at a meeting on July 15, 2001. At that meeting Mr. Harris and Mr. Williams disputed Mr. Evans statement that he uses and requires access from March Street (see attached letters). Mr. Tsclamy said that he would have a site plan drawn up to prove his clients situation. Staff received the site plan June 22, 2001 (see attached). After seeing the site plan Mr. Williams hired Olympus Aerial Surveys, Inc. to take some aerial photos of the area (see attached). After the meeting, staff consulted with Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, about the issue as to third party rights being retained. A third party right pertains to access rights that utilize the subject property for purposes other than as a public street. Utility easements for underground lines are an example. If the Planning Commission's motion to approve the street closure was based on the understanding that Mr. Evans would still be able to use the subject street for vehicle access to his property, then this was possibly miss-communicated. After reviewing this new information and because of the confusion of the statement made about third party access rights Planning staff decided to take this petition back to the Planning Commission for a rehearing. On October 4, 2001, the Planning Commission reheard this petition and re-voted to forward to the City Council, a favorable recommendation that March Street be closed between 500-570 South, because it is no longer needed as a public street. They also recommend that the property be declared surplus and disposed of according to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58. approved the petition with conditions see attached minutes. The Planning Commission made specific findings of fact as contained in the staff report. The petitioner is anxious to have their street closure petition heard by the City Council for a final decision on the matter. They have had no further contact with the neighbor Mr. Evans, since the second Planning Commission hearing. At the Planning Commission Hearing they told Mr. Evan's that they would make the street accessible to him if March Street was closed and purchased by them, and that all he had to do to gain access would be to contact the tenants of their building. The petitioner's tenants have also had no contact with Mr. Evans and he has not used the subject portion of March Street since the Planning Commission hearing. Vandalism, trespassing and theft have continued to be a problem in the area, and is still the main reason for the street closure petition. . . RELEVANT ORDINANCE: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58 regulates the disposition of City-owned property. Utah Code Utah Code, Title 10-9-305, discusses the process for determining the public's interest in the street TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Table of Contents 2. Chronology 3. Ordinance 4. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 5. Mailing Labels and List 6. 2"Planning Commission Hearing(October 4, 2001 rehearing) • Copy of postmark from original notice • Staff report and attachments • Minutes • Agenda 7. 1st Planning Commission Hearing(June 7, 2001) • Copy of postmark from original notice • Staff report and attachments • Minutes • Agenda 8. Support Documents 9. Departmental Comments 10. Original Petition Packet CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2001 Petition delivered to Planning • February 21, 2001 Petition assigned to Jackie Gasparik • June 7, 2001 1st Planning Commission Hearing • June 15, 2001 Meeting with planning staff, applicant, and abutting property owners. • September 6, 2001 Received letters requesting a second hearing. • October 4, 2001 2nd Planning Commission Hearing. • October, 2001 Preparation and refinement of transmittal packet. • October 23, 2001 Received Ordinance from the City Attorney. • November—February 2001 Planning Staff diverted to work on Olympic related petition processing and Planning Commission support. • March —May 2002 Planning Staff dealing with backlog of current planning projects and transmittals due to Olympic related workload. • May 31, 2002 Additional contact with applicant as to any private discussions or settlements with objecting abutter property owner Evans Automotive. • June, 2002 Planning staff updated property owner mailing list and attempted to document police statistics on alleged continued crime problems related to continued public access to March Street between affected business in the area. Revised ordinance requested from City Attorney to add necessary technical language for street closure. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Closing and abandoning a portion of March Street) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF MARCH STREET (APPROXIMATELY 2955 WEST) BETWEEN 500 SOUTH AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS (APPROXIMATELY 570 SOUTH), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-04. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, 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 closure and abandonment of this portion of that street will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and WHEREAS, the title to the closed and abandoned portion of the street shall remain with the City until sale for its fair market value, or equivalent; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That a portion of March Street (approximately 2955 West) between 500 South and the railroad tracks (approximately 570 South), which is the subject of Petition No. 400-01-04, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, be, and the same hereby is, closed and abandoned and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a street. SECTION 2. Reservations and disclaimers. The above closure and abandonment 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 rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said closure and abandonment is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This street closure and abandonment is conditioned upon the following: 1. Payment to the City of the fair market value of the street property, consistent with Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code. 2. Execution of an easement agreement between the applicant and the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. 3. Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install the required improvements. 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. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been satisfied, as certified by the Salt Lake City Property Manager and the Director of the Department of Public Utilities. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. 2 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordina0l\Closing a portion of March Street-Oct 23,2001.doc 3 EX1(TBIT"A" JOHN W.FRANCOM&ASSOCIATES • LAND SURVEYORS • 595 SOUTH MAIN STREET BOUNTIFUL,UTAH 81010 /" BUS:IS011295T500' - MARCH 22, 2001 - • , _ RYAN WILLIAMS MARCH STREET (TO BE, VACATED) BEGINNING AT,',THE: NORTHEAST. CORNER OF BLOCK 17,. BUENA VISTA SUBDIVISION',•ACCORDING'TO`THE•OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE;_SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER AND.RUNNING .'HENCE SOUTH • 00°,15 1.6"'• 00--FEET ALONG THE EAST--LINE OF;--.SAID BLOCK 17; THENCE..NORTH;'89?57'40" EAST 35.-00.FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°15'l6" WEST 393 OO FEET TO.THE SOUTH 'LINE OF. 500 'SOUTH.STREET; THENCE SOUTH 89°57 40" WE$T,35.0O FEET TO THE POINT OP:BEGINNING. • CONTAIN•S: 0 316 ACRES ✓ ,AL, 5 • w JOHN W. c�A FRANCOM No.4861 ygiu OF`Aa, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OCTOBER 4, 2001 ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS MINUTES AGENDA SALT' CORPORATIOI STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH .gym cram ��� .,d�a "Yr. ��soma. yam. ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, September 19, 2001 Dear Property Owner/Resident The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is currently reconsidering and reopening the public hearing on Petition No. 400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of March Street (2955 West)between 500-570 South; and to declare the subject portion of the street as surplus property. The requested action will facilitate current and future commercial redevelopment of the two abutting properties (Williams property and Turner Gas Co.) and for security of the abutting business owners. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the issue and invites your participation. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission concerning this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The public hearing is scheduled for: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2001 SALT LAKE CITY & COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET AFTER 5:00 P.M., PLEASE USE THE EAST ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING ROOM # 126 6:40 P.M. Since it is difficult for us to inform all interested persons about this issue, we would appreciate your discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you have any questions or would like to review the proposal, please feel free to contact Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354. If you have any questions,comments or would like to review the proposal you may do so at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment please call Jackie Gasparik,at 535-6354. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided with a 24 hour advance notice.Please call 535-7757 to request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 001-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 ®Acc.cioo o«cr+ ti • • .4„: I 1 I 11)1 jfi NoTicE oF '211- Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 1t ,I r---rX) c-7 SE519.01 • SALT r A', 1 04Lai G RP`` I r. iI:i Ni STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH .a. .,:��,. �� ad r*vak,:kwan ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner DATE: Friday, September 28, 2001 SUBJECT: Petition # 400-01-04 Closure of a portion of March Street (2955 West)between 500 South and railroad at 570 South. The Planning Commission previously reviewed and approved Petition#400-01-04,on June 7,2001,with conditions(see attached minutes). However, at the hearing an abutting property owner,Mr. Evans was opposed to the closure stating that he required the remaining portion of March Street as access to his auto salvage business. In response to Mr.Evans objection to the street closure,Doug Wheelwright of the City Staff stated"that the preservation of third party access interest are always included in street closures, and therefore Mr. Evans will be able to use the former street area for occasional access". This statement seemed to somewhat relieve the concern of the Planning Commission about the need of the street to remain for Mr.Evans'benefit. After that statement was made,Mr.Harris representing Turner Gas Company,the other abutting property owner,spoke in favor of the closure. The public hearing was closed and a motion was made based on the findings of fact,to approve the petition and it passed. After the meeting,staff consulted with Lynn Pace,Deputy City Attorney,about the issue as to third party rights being retained. A third party right pertains to access rights that utilize the subject property for purposes other than as a public street. Utility easements for underground lines are an example. If the Planning Commission's motion to approve the street closure was based on the understanding,that Mr. Evans would still be able to use the subject street for vehicle access to his property,then this was possibly miss-communicated. The Planning Commission needs to make the decision,whether or not Mr. Evans' claim for continued use of the street,is sufficient to prevent the approval of the street closure petition. The applicant(Mr.Williams)has future plans to expand on their property,which will be facilitated by the street closure. Turner Gas Co.has built a new office building over the summer and does not want to have to install the required 15' landscape buffer or curb and gutter improvements along the subject street closure property. The redevelopment of this property would also be aided by the street closure. Recently,Turner Gas decided to install security fencing along March Street. They could not wait any longer due to continued vandalism,theft and the length of the street closure process. Staff met with all three parties(Mr. Steven Evans'Attorney,Mr.Rodger Tsclamy,Mr.Mark Harris of Turner Gas, and Mr.Ryan Williams)at a meeting on July 15,2001. At that meeting Mr.Harris and Mr. Williams disputed Mr. Evans statement that he uses and requires access from March Street(see attached letters). Mr. Tsclamy said that he would have a site plan drawn up to prove his clients situation. Staff received the site plan June 22,2001 (see attached). After seeing the site plan Mr.Williams hired Olympus Aerial Surveys,Inc. to take some aerial photos of the area(see attached). After reviewing this new information and because of the confusion of the statement made about third party access rights City Staff has decided to take this petition back to the Planning Commission for a rehearing. Planning Staff has also talked with the Attorney's office about enforcement of the City's conditions in the Ordinance that closed the portion of March Street we sold to Mr. Evans in 1998. The conditions in violation are that Public Utilities must have unrestricted access to their underground utility lines,that no 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: 901-535-6174 ®r+ee.ceo o>vc.+ structures,buildings, fences,etc. may be within 15 feet of these improvements. No storage of materials can occur on top of these facilities. Mr. Tsclamy was going to respond with a possible settlement for the two parties (Evans, Williams)to work out the street closure issues,but as of today,he has not contacted staff or Mr. Williams. Analysis of Mr. Evans' Claims as to why the street should not be closed. 1. Mr. Evans'need for access for himself and his tenant's business. City Staff believes that Mr.Evans has sufficient access to his property from Fulton Street,which is an improved City street. Unlike March Street which is a dirt street that is a dead-end. 2. Mr. Evans said that the closure of this portion of March Street would cause him and his tenants' to have internal circulation conflicts. It was difficult for staff to see into Mr. Evans property,but from reviewing the submitted site plan and the air photos staff believes that there may be some fencing on the Evans property that may have to be relocated but this is not likely. It appears that Mr. Evans and his tenants could all access from Fulton if they do not already do so. Fulton as an improved street would seem to be the preferred access for these businesses. Typically, internal circulation of an abutting property owner has not been included in the consideration of closing a City street. 3. Access to the former street parcel now owned by Mr.Evans. When the City sold Mr. Evans the prior closure petition portion of March Street this property was to be combined with his existing property and is not a legal stand alone lot and does not have the right to have access by itself. It cannot be built on or be used for storage of materials or vehicles, due to the public utility easement. 4. Conflict between abutting property owners and the City's view of the closure of the subject portion of March Street. March Street is a platted old residential street from the Buena Vista Subdivision. The Buena Vista Subdivision was recorded as a residential subdivision plat in the late 1800's. It was an isolated pocket of residential/agricultural land uses in the middle of encroaching industrial development and the major transportation facilities. In the 1980's,approximately, 65 residential dwellings were purchased by the airport and removed to allow for aircraft over-flight. For at least thirty years,the City has viewed the Buena Vista area as being in transformation from residential to industrial development. The City would prefer to vacate as may of these old streets as possible where they exist only on paper. The streets that are built and well used are to be used and up-grated to industrial standards.This section of March Street was a remnant of the old residential subdivision,was dead-ended by the railroad and was previously partially closed and sold. The City Transportation and Engineering Divisions have no real interest in seeing this portion of March street built and improved because we have no interest to use this street for transportation needs in the area and would rather not maintain it in the future. Mr. Evans would like to have the road improved and maintained for his own personal access needs. Mr.Williams would like the road closed to stop the theft and vandalism of his property and to incorporate the subject property into his property for future expansion. Mr.Harris of Turner Gas Co. wants the street closed to also stop theft and vandalism of his property and has a financial interest not to build improvements on a road that is not regularly used or needed by his business. Findings of Fact A) The street closure and the proposed development are consistent with the applicable City Master Plans. B) A majority of the abutting property owners to the proposed street closure property have consented to the street closure petition. C) Currently this section of March Street is not needed for primary access to or as required street frontage,for any of the abutting properties. D) This street closure will not have a negative affect on traffic circulation in the immediate area. E) As proposed,the street closure will not have a negative affect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services. F) The portion of March Street to be closed can be declared surplus to the City's need as a public street,and therefore can be purchased at fair market value by the abutting property owner consistent with City policy(City-Owned Real Property Chapter 2.58). RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council,to schedule the required public hearing before its body for Petition#400-01-04,and close the street subject to the following conditions: 1) The signing of an easement agreement between the applicant and Public Utilities. 2) Payment to the City at fair market value of the street property,consistent with City Code 2.58. 3) Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install the required improvements. • Based on the findings, Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the former street property is surplus to the City's needs and therefore can be sold to the abutting, petitioning property owner(Mr. Williams.) Attachments: 1). Letter from applicant. 2). Letter from Turner Gas. 3). Letter from Budget occupant of applicants property. 4). Findings and Order. 5). Site Plan of Evens Property. 6).Air Photos. 7). Original staff report. PETITION ...=. 1.,t _ '1 i� y Y ', ., 'a , Y 4.p� k' e .MY w.•+^K. w^�r�.•...w.:rrc..,.,v. �a.wv„ -.... ..3'''' 5�+0(�JJ�� ° J �f N 1 g 0-'' `,.' a.rw e I44;• Ta 3 61ie�. ,. ,, .r .,..,, , ,,''''V V ...s 4 ,✓ v R9+•b4kF"" ti !R � .�a�wsxJL3. .D ' F< Gtl }�Yf� ' f y'••�Ynf+�a'+'3 fH � '.„".. } J•n«:r-. �.-._ {p`!`"'Jt'3�p{ F�q '�•y+? 1` 1 ,xt,:� e f4ifw Q ' 1' d,, 1W9 �'��r e. .1 � ' +� wi48' iiika, E-Q i, h , ,„ Street To Be Vacate d '1 "Q. r 1 d u. ' ,, s 1, hl, a ,,,y ��i +.ri 't .rr.r':. r, i �i >, t tl ' ' Portion Of Street 4, `''.1 Kl,, s.'a ° Previously Vacated '. , c� c Sx%9-Ai, 1.! 5 x� yK .. 4 ` ,is x. i , J i < `+ :W+r"4.M^•w1 .c T M i' i 11, :� Max.-" �"— 4 ' / �`� w�t 'w"Q` °"S�' �„ i' i ,- r a • � �„r� 5 r , a.w �"' J1'>'tv 4.U, h•rv�..,t�.�vsl ao. v 7' a 1'�,��'y4y I {wr �J f� �.p� � -I'r�� 1. }Mt'!r'�y,"'�� �S�kg 4w�'a�l. T3u.3'� `rr ; 1 � �'t�`Ex�1''+ �t + a ,� a'.tk y �� �. { ! p savoy.,Llk c n:,,, KZ Kt of �g 1�-,,, 7 i x: ��ra0,,f, Z, t w" t ,, x�,— clf,t a the v ', 'L ,h. 5 1 , .:, '�°^•Nt if of yam..',. ,,r � 9 "' r e a '-" ( }l7'� y 0:, N v,� '`'' � .«. �c�rrcl t r^i.t �a by v r ., a .w i �' ! f. i. y ' �13?4` a ,,,,,,,,,I,:,,' 'a r yf r.V .1•. t R � F IxI Skp�a 1 I tJ LC "I .Q^S ( ( � r ' " ' , ey�a � f F ,E � i r AVt ✓ _ , 1 t,r,::,�.,,,r... N., ••r va r.,:i;..:, 'uaw+,�'areF >til vv.h�t at 'ILA.kF s ; (I,' � ay � 'uv (au f r y4h fh �, ;k i el:+i1 , . ‘yjo j ! ,"_ "v w � Ra , L ey h x,y ?' ,? vrh 3M . wa'? r . 4 � , .{ ','Si.., .,e NY b ' ., N UVUO(I ACV 1,-,117 I _ ________----- . — - -- __ , --- -- „0",-,L ____--- ,_ ,• . " 1 , ___---0 °e --LIT----:------- ! ' „O;VI , „0-,I9 I -"---------- .- ' - . , _ __ „ , • - 0:£Z. _ -—---.., : g nr 43AV 3)C15.37715 I , -- • . . V., I •-•-- -- . I , I cy , I , . • • . ss- - -; • . -.. i -- • '"---4,..::.- •_•,i,-.4.,-4-,,a•pi _,I • 4 I 0-„,,, .„7.1•••-=:,..q.--,Fli;_;•, oV,t,. I-• 1 f.:..i., A' '11,CX.‘g,",?1,6i ' J,,., ;,%,4-',?: :-•11t.A..t-C.V.,'.'- 0,4, • , ,z--,,,. "-- $,•,.;:-I4t.A7q-...1 1 p -.4 ,','R- .4,..4*.Z;r.'Aii./.;-- --,4,-$..1E ,,4, ,, 1 1- ,i-k..1/4.47,n - i 2-- e..,,-k_T-,:• -,-.,...----4.,;:,,f• - -. 4 'ArAtittel) -4? at,_4: ...---v,, --, :41.4.9 -.: ' 1 .`",''`i-,4-., k C, E ° :. ...- ..-i '-';4 ,..-- 'A-- ''.:_gerS11:16 ..-1014,:m trl ,,‘• :r41 I ir:S'4•0'!P-& • V••g . .. ,it+- ';‘.' . *" ; I -..--1• 11.•*.:'1 1'1' .t."4,. -1•' '.,!(7. ,A'W":7,T7.."- --,,r-,t-,-7.-,!_4,‘;,`-`_;.1-.2,.:41.-,--,--,,,,-.-Z :,cf.:4,•,,!,s_,,,_ . ---- I,0-•, -4 -- 4,: . • 1 1 • • ' •• ,•. --- . • I i ; • , ; ....,- - - •__ ______.,_11_,-1,.., ..ty, e. I , Yi .•.:. I 1,1 ... 1 o , 1 ...--8 ,,,./ 41.A _•, , _ . . , 001-:•#, . .. ,...• ,---. /\N 1 1 I ,. ,- ., .'!- V-- / . i '-,A, , . . .•' _0,, ,.,7 • <M `',.; 0 , . , 0- . - .., . -: - 91- 1;1 t - 0 7ZE „L7 SZ. • Cc:4r--- II Y--- - . , ,---A _... Z i , , ' 1 0 0 t--. 4 0-os- ___, ,-. ti ui 0. ,- 1 - • wn, • , .---.1„. • 1 i= •. . Ca j>.• • .',D: i III f- r----- -. .. . • I • , . ., .. " 1-..• . „, ,. , , • II i .• , ,-. ,,," -. 1 • z• • , * - ' -1 ,•0111 .07£L .' ! . 1 1 , ' il + 0 • ‘--- I X ,-• W: . -;47-47 ' -' 0 ' %•..% U -- I-' .4 a_ . ,0 . . , ., &6 I • .• i ... , I S . . i 1. - ..------• A'cx, / ' . •• ,/- .-:;.-11.,11.72-.-..-- 'Ve.:_e.,-.'1'>?-:',1.11 . . 1 , , 1-c. -•--... -' -- / ' — .. ' 1.4.1,":".";:r1M.q:,,;--1?-:•-_. • 11 -A,, • ,//.. _.• .„..,,,,,,,1_,.:^-i:4 -A,,;;I:k;,:;',,)v.r.,'•.'"..,-. il .01 1 tx1 P—ki 1 i ,, ,,,. 4,:::.,.;....,,,,:4114,./:.,,,...a;-.L7-,-L--,,:-----‘ .. _ _ :. .00-0.Trixii: .•.1- ;,., _;.•:-.:—. , ..-;,,.i,„., ,T,,:- ,,,!:„4,,,„....,e.•,- ,f .-,..,., ,•::•:_:/..-. . 0 5:::.1-1.44.A.A.;,,:inq: -;.;:1,:.1.- .'..::--‘',•.,,..-:,.•,'• I ! --,-,1 •,,- .„--•4.-.4.,,,,, 4C.lk?„,.,,..,,,;:t/J.,-,.. ,..:,:',.--.:,..:1 ,;,':,;-: .,.',,,:.,z: .....-. . . . - 1 sts - :":',,e:'''''s le,4.,i .:.;t''..,'.,:f.i:•-1.,=},',..,::7',.:,:-..',;•-`,.::---'::::.', .. : —": .- . - " I :•::',,,c-rzi.',0';;N:,!.-!",'.:''':,,,.;'S.";',-,--,.,.•'--:'.-•- , :-,. . — ---- —-. -'— — • ; • : :.. , , .9. - .• ; , eill• ' '`.:4":4`;',-:-."-'''"flcvs'%% .1.,;:;:"....:::.-"..;-:::...1:-"J...,,.-:.-;:.. •. .- • . - 1 . . " - -•-:-..-=',,,-,,ii,,,,:,-'-'''•i.,..,,,-:.,4;•:-..?r!:;aV::Ig::,2. ,.,..,•--,:----; .:., . ...-. - , - -', •,1-e-.......------- .....41.::: &-'i."'-';'•.;-.1'.,'.: raf,„e„.,:i..,-,•:*,,,,-,-.; v4--,A,*-._;.--'. .:.';.‘4'..-le.-',' ,1:-V4'0::fN•---,;,!;e,..-f--'::•;::::.:: .. • L , ' -'• / -.,-; ' '-'_-e...:k.b.,.-,,..,.... ,,..7.-,.. .-1,,.,.<1..,, .;-„,,. ... . . , / ' • /r• '''.; • 2..'•=''*--,.:-.•,F440,-.:;`.4.-a..,--4....--: -, '- - - 1 i ' / / '' •:4'..11 ';`...''•-"--'.':i.%"-.:',."-' ,.."'-''-- -;.:•,..' •-• 1 , • ,.--: ;: '.e 4.,--:',4-,,.'44.144..!_i::-!,?,'-- ';--......"..'"; I _ _ -- 1 ' ' -'' '' . 2....--'-:'..`,7 :0;*4.;;-:!'Z')'-7.::.--:-....;.7".-,:-•'.: i ..0-.i_b .0;hs /- .. ./-, e,,...,;...,. :-.A-,c",:::,1•:&:),,•.....••:-...: .1 • . .' '.- .r1 ..1 ''.41' A"‘ / / // ' ' + 55: --, , • - -:t_,.:e. -,... -1'-,.: - . , ,. ..- _,/./-- • ''...1::Y-f,-..' : "ie- - si '-• A , tr}e #-t -:!- h R ',`„ tt' "$ 3v ` i '4 it �. .g *rasogext 440. -' tia*. 1.1: _• 4 s + > S' - t j .X__ x ar s+ ______i •,} r•• -PJ..1- a y . n ykma y l< � .ep" ,I,k : - cy �-, Atli m r # .xi�.x� " '� .s- '�-4 � � - - w em {r '�� s "-. ��:_,' - ''c1 : 113 •'1 K.• tea- s. -;;<x.-.- 'x2`g,7".. - .a> _ $, - 'S` •"�.`- '<" Z.=_„�". ;ter 500 South Street ,.�..�•.�+�r � � - n "�ti •ate �s n'a+-1--*a � 's-' x1� . z,., ,..„..4.::....._:... gi � r _ ,-,.,: °} «.i Turner Gas s `w Ric �§ xha �Srm .... ' -�P., '} � )'�' -j 5,s zce�*- x � 6 Vl �tx } may- `•S' sr� "L^<' t'4 �l`.CDI�, y�� e v T' 'y 3. "'t - „fit h 9"• '<,. ..� -:. _max a� --�,� ,�,,.x _. e ,: :._ - r.�+.-1 - ,�.- • • i 9 -- F :=-•-..-:; ''{^ _ 4 k` lr, t --- --ar sei'::, `,-F33-3 ' T r"*- M,riy' -`,"3' f t sx" .':., t s a-r-fi' `, - ` „`-' ' '� ' -- ,yea. - - Y� s s , a t. s } Evans Property -r • a ; a. 1gy4 s 3" NT e i ' T :<r., - :., _ „--- - ;•" '-- _ '' ';.,- .' -...1.v - sue' r: ' _ K r'~ fi , -r - &i. , %•". 5& s t- '`` ? ,feD -'. _,`.. >-it=+"u+a s,=` "3- rS-`a1 F ,y-4-yr ,', T - .r:. -e n _ - - N'+tr ,y :``r•::K4A' a ✓' R xa 4 t ,. i it i prat tr. <fryrtF`>'- i�,tE Y � < 'r'c' 3. - �..,';. k ^+ ", �Z ,:„, .. = urn 'raF � � : ix`z _ 4 '� -'- i.��.,=-: Y - - ' `�, -.a • d.1.y .F J,�r n �-aIt -l'r -a. . P q 4 i 1 - n. �y4,`. -yX4 v ti IF .i. �' _' ~' jai: '9.`L�. 3,L4 _- `i" ='Y des-y ,,ap- c `,;;'"''' '- FR e F Y ;%"'i'/ S T'I s `4'=a i s h!" 2 Yam' •Ri ,s': - $ vvss .,; !, �.'f,,,., 'rs r Yi �k . .n- _ ,may Nri •3'�, ,i..:Xr' u_ .-?..•'- =..fir v , - .,3 •0. d `�'; ._ ._...... 'tom � x,,,,,o,,iFt:r, ..r4"%• :-5.'y - - `4.- _ - z a_. .= '\kY i - ':y4'n`: "�:i�44' . r.T•i - ''y''''-` rr.R;y-,:k.„ .-y '.-.,„-:' „ ' 1,4,,_ .:Mo., South Street - ;e.'.' ,, ,�r;-.,,<: -, r.. v t'. 4= 'T�4i2.e7 :a _$A-:-.---,'' --,ts' -.' r:-ii--•••: ' t'2:: '7,-,r t.:''.- ;-- :i:::: sf •f _ _ c i f -.: fir' J'*�' _�? r .. 'y!' s i_ i .• �.� ?t � 1 5„ l._ yy sls 5,; i f .i 3 . •#, ,-' 6•m•'' Arti et fo. • • "`. ., '' .:A- ; gr �., .'fie. - ,. 1. • • s _ • t. ar RYK, —IA* ^�`. '-a ed yo, ,_ _. a, : Turner Gas{ance Gate = - "b Williams Property . �=-ts,�=f- 3,; 1 „ S A kY: +Pi 4 1 :2ti- , V .15 ;g NyF _' i"4---i¢f x - -4 . �s , ;• :ft ,' g j _y ?t' ,74.,= .. '`-4 t f i ,ass �`, . +''s '. ' 61f , Entrance Gate y _ _ ! j ;� ,-',--.:A., --:- • . F �# iiii 1 {r, _ is ''-'' --" -",,i,:r.',,,' .;"'',: ; -;••.k:, ,,-.--.• .,?_._ <7,_,.it. .-2.: --:-.--:- ---- r �2 ; y� - ` V' < r • • r " • = Entrance Gate' x tP ,.t :g-. r' m �"� .. ,if,.o...e +•s, s, ..'c' fit" ,rj'` .•.- fig. - 4.. ,,e k {' Evans Property , il-:s ,N_ E i-;, 3� .i �S 1'lit` C I'd `7:- .. } i c v'a. Y ... v'z ".' <.3, h _.-,_`F �'n``� _ -: _ y -• Q+ ?% s" • "t sa13 'aY ,/ i�ttss �^ py� t' t Entrance Gate ,�` Fr "yam' f..� f` - fig. :;g*,�*- r r .. s,'' �- �, _, .. mr, _ �:'.'� .emu,,' S1-'t' : art- �' � _ - =;` i\_:�w=. - .� Ly ', -may , ,y; :,V,. • �y rst** o a a+'``_+ '.- -„ ;k • _• ' '�t -,, 'a 4 '. - • y$...,r 's f : 'a<. _ :'.,tom. - _ per' ."{',.x..�;6 ,mac+ -'K{3'' • 'ai•.z 3'd ,. ' ...tau 3 A:pl. fY 14 osstr _ .# " _ L J te 3•'T+ - - �y _ J - -g de f 1 - �- g�T : 1 �� t-3 - � '�A�• t �} „y jf - r S1 'rf. T '{f3 'Y� 2y' d�Y. " — t�al ey 'r x f� rT '. 4 • • - •.E' ;J-i"e Ya'r hi, - -'. 7-` ,.. : "'s ;Y z • t t id'7 s,' Ftt`. �• -`T`-s .1 'Rr� '.tt'� t i -:,3 ""x y„ ,��, ; is �` � chi- - �..,'-- a. •.. g!7,i"s�'� 5 i"v3;,:.�± ; �Fc�4f`'L'�,� .;f?r:,y ��- si, ii;v �7a s..h_"„^�Fv;;%,-C�x;'s'-�z,3'a•f •-$�.. •f- �.. ,if,-ys�ft `'-t-` sssir r.Sra ,> t+ . x•,s � : S:X ' .3T� z.x+fYT.ti:s.s..:at�!�=_ fi - - T-;cr-+,. • a ' x sz- rz � - Yt- X i, i io , r -,y-, 3 ' a S zn ,:44 f t J,4t - -.-, _ } aN r ; - - yitr2� _ . : r � }4SNNdg � � ��- 3 / -Y • - , ! � w " , �-•• • f : : •' - te ' ems+. r .' };5L ''f_' t{ • $ -L 's III » .-�R-P.+ .+ `y 6 - ,,A t ✓ ,, ,..-",,,,-..---,-.--„:::--z-=,-,.•_,--- .. -• :f iVe-4,- -1-.--,-,-;,',..-x")---P-,;,:_- - 5-,-..,."""A` - ,f,-z---.-41,....:,,,'IL:ii.f..-_,sti,_,L,- - _--.4,_.---;!..;,-,-,..A.v:_:-.-...,--.---. -_- ,..,:_i_.%,c1-, v•-, • 4 - = .,_44 .., ,,.. t_tr,„,„.,...._._.„,_ , ...,,_ ..4,3z._,......t..„.. 41 . ... __, .... _ ..._ .., _..., ., _ _ . . . ::,..,„_ ,,,,,.,,,,: ,k,,;__ . ,;.,....,..z.,,:---'2-.,-"-:;'$•4'.: _,- --7-':-,_--•.',;-'- ,.-,4&'' '-,,. --,,-:g -.,-o, ,4'l j� - r *c--- ram-=` '---.�, is - * t' .. �: = -- r I.; l xs " - F r.' .r' " _' i f -:1L'''',WA-r..,-'...'.:-''.,•,-,---'cz..--."--`',.:, ',„.,---..--.-:-'.1 ---..----`.,7,-r.:•-s:„ "'-- - '-- -,- • _ tea- -`E ., 3 c'•;<"''-'- ;om: ff �'' F.€,t,i3�z3a�' 3' '�£_-. f:..„-,1,,,,,,,..... ,=. -$i , 3 fir �'F`.- - P - LL:-„,___,.,,,,, ..._, ,,r;:i.„.... ...--- ,_.....,11,..,_,, ,,.._ .. _ ,......,_ . _...,. _,,„,„.7_, _ ,--.7.x".„:„.--„,....„-.„-„.:,,,,,,,,,--.=i;--„,..„,,__,...,_....,,_,:_,..:„..,-•__,7„... ; _,____.,_1_.f.....__,_=....:.,,,,...,.::•-:.-4,0,,-,%.-,.,,,...,.- _:_-' , -,_, : . ._ .., .,"'„,,,,,., ,,,""., (.`,..ci','-...",:::' ..''' r --�"a r, nth s* x' .- £ -'L < 'X ' } " -:' ri •ilt _ . ,. Z .:(,•-; ,;: i _ -, y .w4 1 g ' 3 • }s 1 ,yitC >v es v '� '> ��4i- .' 1'•1-fi r !-t C- L - - . -- - � `• �,. s f -v?- . t i - sss t a�j, fi• '3 =M b t-t $ -'- - ; a it'd. y - c ;...x- '�.'9rh Y• 1" F5 S SA [ i .., Y • .,> • S .. »t � [ . Y 1. ':' , • z a J L•�ir r R,. ne• ,- - F �tvatt • r � 4 t F' .f ' ° : -`t .�. - s '; r-Y `�" S., '' 'fie �.. , V SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, October 4, 2001, at 5:53 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Stephen Boyden, Andrea Barrows, Mary McDonald, Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Kay (berger) Arnold and Kent Nelson. Arla Funk was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Nelson Knight, Jackie Gasparik and Everett Joyce. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:53 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Nelson moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 16, 2001, subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested. Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Boyden and Mr. Jonas abstained from voting, as they did not attend the meeting. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not iote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-554, a request by Pace Pollard Architects, representing the Utah Opera Company, requesting a conditional use for additional building height of up to three stories or forty-five feet for an addition to the Utah Opera Company production studios at 336 North 400 West. Mr. Knight presented the staff report. This petition is the first submitted for additional height based upon a text change amendment to the zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission considered on April 19, 2001. The City Council adopted the text change on September 20, 2001. The text change allows non- residential uses of up to forty-five feet or three stories (whichever is less) as a conditional use in the MU-mixed use zone. This request is being made to allow an expansion of the Utah Opera Company's current production facility at 346 North 400 West. The proposed addition would be approximately 28,200 square feet in size, and would be three stories in height. The addition would include additional office space; a rehearsal studio/theater with seating for 100, practice rooms, a music library and a stage set assembly/storage building. The latter Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 4, 2001 backyards. He felt that not being able to build garages one foot from the property line is unfair to the new property owner. He felt that a one-story garage would not impact a neighbor. Ms. Barrows asked if a DRT was required on a permitted process. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the DRT looks at most projects that have building permits issued. Planned developments are reviewed by the DRT to determine the zoning requirements. Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing. Members of the Planning Commission felt that the subcommittee and staff did a great job reviewing and writing this amendment. Motion for Case #400-01-47: Ms. McDonald made a motion based on the finds of fact to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed revisions for Petition No. 400-01-47, to amend Chapter 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot Standards) and Section 21A.54.150E (Planned Development Standards) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Boyden and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING — Petition No. 400-01-04, by Joan and Ryan Williams, requesting to close a portion of March Street (2955 West) between 500-570 South; and to declare the subject portion of the street as surplus property. The requested action will facilitate current and future commercial redevelopment of the two abutting properties (Williams property and Turner Gas Co.) and for security of the abutting business owners. Ms. Gasparik presenEed the staff report. This petition was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2001. There was a possible miss-communication as to whether third party rights are retained if a public street is vacated. The Planning Commission needs to make the decision, whether or not Mr. Evans' claim for continued use of the street, is sufficient to prevent the approval of the street closure petition. Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. Mark Harris, manager of Turner Gas, stated there has been a lot of vandalism on his property. He believes closing the street will help to stop the vandalism. March Street has no street lights. The only light that illuminates March Street is Planning Commission Meeting 7 October 4,2001 from the interior lighting from the adjoining businesses. He is waiting for this street closure so he can fully fence his property. Ryan Williams, petitioner, stated he has been cited twice because of material that has been dumped on the property by others. He has been cited because transients live on the property. He has built fences for tenants. Vandals cut holes in the fences and steal property from his tenants. He would like the street closed to help stop the vandalism, stop property from being dumped and to keep transients off his property. He stated Mr. Evans does not want the road closed because he won't have access to his property. Mr. Evans originally asked to have the street closed. It wasn't until Mr. Williams started getting cited, that he decided to petition to close the street. That was when Mr. Evans protested about closing the street. Mr. Williams will be relocating his business from Ogden to this property within the next five years. He is planning on paving and putting curb and gutter on the road and into his property. A driveway could be built over the easements. Mr. Muir asked what utilities had easements on March Street. Ms. Gasparik stated there is a sewer and water easement on March Street. Mr. Wheelwright explained that Mr. Williams could build the proposed private drive without affecting access to the easements. Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Williams to explain the vandalism problems of his tenant. Mr. Williams explained some of the vandalism problems of the property using a map. Ms. Gasparik explained there is a problem with vandalism in the area. Local business owners are requesting street closures to help remedy the vandalism problem. Ms. Barrows asked if a road was surplussed and purchased, could the road be used as access. Ms. Gasparik stated that only the owner of the road could access the road, unless the property owner gave an easement to Mr. Evans. Ms. Barrows asked if the owner of the road could fence and gate the access. Mr. Wheelwright stated yes, and keys would have to be provided to the utility providers for access. Mr. Williams explained a transient was living in a corner of his property until being kicked off. The transient moved onto the access road. It took Salt Lake Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 4, 2001 City three months to get the transient to move off the access road. Mr. Williams had to remove the transients' property. Steven Evans, business owner, would like access to the street. He agreed that Mr. Williams has a security problem. He stated he needs access to this street for his business. He doesn't mind if the road gets closed as long as he is allowed access to his property. He has arranged his lot with the assumption that he can use March Street. If this petition were approved, he would like time to rearrange the lot. He parks vehicles on the street for up to three days. He crushes vehicles on this property then loads them onto a truck that is parked on the street. Mr. Jonas felt that it appears that Mr. Evans violates some conditions for the use of a road. Mr. Evans explained his property interests and vehicular movement using a map. Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing. Ms. Gasparik stated she has spoken to the applicant, Mr. Williams, suggesting they negotiate occasional access easement for Mr. Evans. Mr. Jonas stated he is comfortable with their previous motion. He believed the street needed to be closed and purchased by Mr. Williams for security reasons. He would like to see the area get cleaned up. Ms. Arnold agreed with Mr. Jonas. She wanted a time frame included in the motion. Ms. Gasparik stated it would take two to three months before this petition got through the City Council. Ms. Barrows felt two to three months was sufficient time for Mr. Evans to clean up the portion of the road he has been using. Mr. Nelson asked if there was a way for the Planning Commission to give access to Mr. Evans. Mr. Wheelwright explained that if the petition was approved, the parties have an option to negotiate a right-of-way. He explained that the City Council will balance the competing interests between all the parties and make a decision of whether to close the street or not. If they approve the decision, it will remove the access right from Mr. Evans. Motion for Case #400-01-04: Planning Commission Meeting 9 October 4, 2001 Mr. Jonas made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council, to schedule the required public hearing before its body and close the street. Based on the findings of fact, the Planning Commission recommends that the former street property is surplus to the City's needs and therefore can be sold to the abutting, petitioning property owner (Mr. Williams). Conditions of Approval: 1. The signing of an easement agreement between the applicant and Public Utilities. 2. Payment to the City at fair market value of the street property, consistent with City Code 2.58. 3. Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install the required improvements. Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. Arnold asked if there should be a time frame recommended for Mr. Harris to have his trucks off the property. Mr. Wheelwright suggested a time frame of 15 to 30 days after the City Council hearing. He believes there shouldn't be a big problem for Mr. Harris to remove his property in a timely manner. Mr. Boyden felt that since security is a problem, it doesn't make sense to enlarge the time frame. Mr. Jonas hoped that the parties could negotiate terms for Mr. Evans to access the property when necessary. BREAK PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-48, a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition No. 400-01-12, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning, between 200 and 900 East. This item was postponed. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-45, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the zoning district map so that all of the parcel at 1321 South 500 East Street is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. The rear 60' of the parcel is presently zoned R-1-5000. Planning Commission Meeting 10 October 4, 2001 L_NOTE_The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,October 4,2001,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p m.,in Room 126 During the dinner,Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday,September 20,2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-554,a request by Pace Pollard Architects,representing the Utah Opera Company,requesting a conditional use for additional building height of up to three stories or forty- five feet for an addition to the Utah Opera Company production studios at 336 North 400 West. (Staff Nelson Knight at 535-6260) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-47,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend Chapter 21A.24.010G-Residential Flag Lot Standards and Section 21A.54.150E- Planned Development Standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.(Staff: Ray McCandless at 535- 7282) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.400-01-04,by Joan and Ryan Williams,requesting to close a portion of March Street(2955 West)between 500-570 South;and to declare the subject portion of the street as surplus property. The requested action will facilitate current and future commercial redevelopment of the two abutting properties(Williams property and Turner Gas Co.)and for security of the abutting business owners. (Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-48,a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning DirS St een,III! a Rrgiecy alt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the �(��oritinelalal CoitliTrit nted Zoning,between 200 and 900 East. (Staff: Doug Dansie at 535-6182) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:30 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-45,a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the zoning district map so that all of the parcel at 1321 South 500 East Street is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. The rear 60'of the parcel is presently zoned R-1-5000. (Staff: Everett Joyce at 535-7930) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:55 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-49,by the Salt Lake City Administration,requesting that Salt Lake City adopt an ordinance that grants the Mayor authority to approve temporary uses relating to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,which are not currently allowed by existing ordinances. 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. The Woodbury Corporation is requesting an extension of time for petition number 410-458,which granted approval for the renovation and expansion of the Redman building,located at 1240 East 2100 South in the Sugar House Business District.The Commission granted planned development approval for residential condominium ownership and subdivision approval on October 19,2000.(Staff: Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. L PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVEI OPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH SLATE STREET ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY 11T 84111 TELEPHONE 801-53S 7767•1AX 301 53561)4 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING JUNE 7, 2001 ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS MINUTES AGENDA STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT' f A` �,�CITY( C ORPO ms, I�,Ol:,l ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Dear Property Owner/Resident The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is currently reviewing Petition No. 400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City close a portion of March Street (located approximately between 5th South and the railroad) for the security of the abutting business owners, and to declare the street as surplus property. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the issue and invites your participation. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission concerning this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The Planning Commission is the approval body for this decision. The public hearing is scheduled for: THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001 SALT LAKE CITY & COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET AFTER 5:00 P.M., PLEASE USE THE EAST ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING ROOM # 126 6:40 P.M. Since it is difficult for us to inform all interested persons about this issue, we would appreciate your discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you have any questions or would like to review the proposal, please feel free to contact Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354. If you have any questions, comments or would like to review the proposal you may do so at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment please call Jackie Gasparik, at 535-6354. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided with a 24 hour advance notice.Please call 535-7757 to request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1341 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 NOTICE OF HEARING 2 • Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street ti AJ U C...'4C,11# Salt Lake City,Utah 8411 I n V ytsof UNIVERSITY PARTNERS VII. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION # 400-01-04 STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF MARCH STREET /SURPLUS PROPERTY JUNE 7, 2001 REQUEST Petition No. 400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City close a portion of March Street (located approximately 2955 West between 5th South and the railroad at approximately 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property, to facilitate the long-term maintenance of the property. The applicant has stated in their petition letter that as a result of the previous closure of March Street, the property they own has become a dumping ground for trash and debris as well as a place for transients and homeless to live. The City has cited them for trash and debris and their attempts to stop the dumping have failed. They contend that closure of the street would help prevent the dumping and vandalism on the adjacent properties and prevent further costs for clean up and repair of buildings. The section of March Street to be closed is mostly a dirt street that the City has no plans to improve, as it is too narrow and is disconnected on the South, by a previous street closure, and existing railroad tracks. Both Utah Code and local ordinances regulate review and approval of street closure applications. Utah Code, Title 10-9-305, discusses the process for determining the public's interest in the street and Salt Lake City Code Section 2.58 regulates the disposition of surplus property. State law requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider the potential impact of losing the public benefit of the street. The City's internal policy regarding street and alley closures states in part: "The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property." The section of March Street requested for closure is no longer be needed for public use and it is staffs opinion that the stub portion to be closed should be absorbed into the William's property. Once the Planning Commission declares the property surplus, it must then be disposed of according to the Salt Lake City's Disposition of Surplus Property Ordinance, City Code Section 2.58. This ordinance states that the City shall retain title of the surplus property until the land is sold and purchased at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. Staff Report,Case No.#400-01-04 Planning Commission Date 6/7/01 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -1 - BACKGROUND Property Owner Name: Salt Lake City Corp., And Applicant: Joan and Ryan Williams. Purpose of proposal or To declare subject property as surplus,preparatory to proposed site changes: transferring the ownership to the Williams. Affected Parcel Number(s): NA (City street). Lot Size/ Lot Area of subject property: .378 of an acre. 16,485 square feet (35'wide x 471' long). Existing Land Use on subject property: City street;partial asphalt, mostly un-improved. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts on subject property: The surrounding property is zoned M-2, so if the closure was approved the M-2 zoning would extend to include the former City street property. Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: Heavy Industrial. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES All necessary City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of declaring the subject property as surplus. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of the various department/divisions prior to acquiring the property. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Recommended conditions: 1. Within the existing March Street right—of-way section, Salt Lake City Public Utilities owns and operates a 6-inch and a 12-inch water main, and a twelve-inch sewer main. In order to insure reliable service to the existing customers that are served by these lines, unrestricted access to these facilities must be maintained at all times. 2. This means that no structures, buildings, fences, trees, islands, large landscaping features, etc. may be built within 15 feet of these existing facilities. Staff Report,Case No.#400-01-04 Planning Commission Date 6/7/01 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -2- 3. No storage of materials can occur on top of these facilities. 4. The existing right-of-way must remain as an easement dedicated to Salt lake City Corporation for the maintenance, repair, operation, and inspection of these water and sewer facilities. 5. An easement agreement must be entered into between the applicant and Public Utilities. 6. A minimum 15-foot drivable paved or gravel surface, must be provided and located in an appropriate location for access to these facilities. 7. Stamped engineered construction plans must be provided for review and approval to Public Utilities and Salt Lake Engineering for any proposed grading, landscaping or improvement work prior to the land being deeded to the applicant. Findings of Fact A) The street closure and the proposed development are consistent with the applicable City Master Plans. B) All abutting property owners to the proposed street closure property have consented to the street closure petition. C) Currently this section of March Street is not needed for access to or as street frontage for any properties. D) This street closure will not have a negative affect on traffic circulation in the immediate area as proposed. E) As proposed, the street closure will not have a negative affect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services. F) The portion of March Street to be closed can be declared surplus to the City's need as a public street, and therefore can be purchased at fair market value by the abutting property owner consistent with City policy (City-Owned Real Property Chapter 2.58). Recommendation: • Based on the findings Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deteiiiiine that the former street property is surplus to the City's needs and therefore can be sold to the abutting, petitioning property owner (the Williams.) • Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive a recommendation to the City Council, to schedule the required public hearing before its body for Petition # 400-01-04, and close the street, subject to the following conditions: 1) The signing of an easement agreement between the applicant and Public Utilities. 2) Payment to the City at fair market value of the street property, consistent with City Code 2.58. Staff Report,Case No.#400-01-04 Planning Commission Date 6/7/01 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -3- 3) Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install the required improvements. Jackie O. Gasparik Principal Planner Staff Report,Case No.#400-01-04 Planning Commission Date 6/7/01 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -4- Exhibit 2 Site Photographs. Staff Report,Case No.#400-00-59 Planning Commission Date 1/4/01 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -6- S AL TG ILsA LAKE pCITY iication CORPORATION Printed on: 05/14/2001 14 • -''' fok::;',C•1:,", - .,."-Wi', ' ,,-,t,'..-4. -1,,. „, 570--- ,' .• ,;1 l'',<{, 4';',,,^0+,44^ .,, L 2 ,.,.-, _ ,..1,.,, ,, ..• -.. .,---,,,,,,1,- ,,,,"., 4..,,,,„!,,,,,,,,r,411,„0,-1/4,, ,,,,,,,,.4„'-'"'-,,,,''„,,,A„,,,.."1",-,. '-Vr,."-frAt,77,Xt., 17-4,. -,,,,,,,,..--,7" , - .--. 'I.',4,''',"'"-<'' ' ,,'," ,-.-- ,:-'44...- -7,„. IT -..., .4., •,. fi,..,p..‘" .„,.'A - .'.4 -v.".'".711`-7-,z.--.,.-,-- - ' '.- ..":"r4.-74.74:M..-4:';e4VI,Itres44:;', ....,* ''''''''Arl.IF:C.'41.1**)..,.1..-4-", ',•,:` ,-',,v; '''•'. ''.', ..'Y.,f 7- -'T. xi' :,,Y-4',.'4, 17:',..1.4 'L '-'t,' '• '` . '•,,g - - „ - .-zm4, :- -,-,•'4f''-:'`--- - 7 Th'...;,-....), .-.,-,j't''..4',4' -..+4,0.1%.11-4---,,, . ..,-..:, ...-...;„ .....„4, ..,,1. ,...--, -. - ----.;. „,--., -----,--....4,' --- - , --2.- -,.x. ..4.1-Aitrth, ,-,,,...„._. . --..„,,,,, •,,_ - .„.......„ - -.,... , . ,... - ..tzavoto.3.2,r, ..,..,,...,, *--"1.-''''''-- '''.. 1*-%4Z,'""* 4'"."""Itr,... .„4".1, ,,..m.- ,'... ..-..--- r'' • ' A **A".Th.• :•::Th':.•' '1•A'''''',., 4, :" ,A.,'••• '7,..,•'':7^":a.'•n-',.0'i...'5:7:,••*:•.,...7;1,':',,,,,,-,,,•:, 4,;,..?,,,N., I I i V --- ' ..... . -,, - •IiiprA1111 ...,:.ifix',;--,;;Ij - -=: .." '.°A.',P,4.-7; <:t ,i3V't-.3t'..1?;:-..:•, .:2-i ."4,....--:"‘„ -*;',.",:, ,,,'.."-,itklf. ;.X.,..-.0;.,...g *,10itr.7.'•t•A," IrAW - ---Z.• ......40." 41P'' '-. 1:***V.11,t -E-;'',' .,re.'- ' .!. i '-',..':`;':‘',;'''F:P"\il7,:....,,-.)' -,,,, ,,,,,z,,74....„..-,.,7°. -......-.-*,,,, iy 77'11' "'" , - '. '''..„,'';'''''''r .14777 7, ,.• ' ' --q,,.1 AV 1! ',, -.1' , -,,, .- ,r--„.,.:4-,,.t:'-- .,„..-.',,,,,,',,,t- :- t w-': •,‘, bniMilligr?'' r,:-.::',.:: ..,-.. ,,,:..--s,..,4., -....; -,...t. .,,..4.A.-„,: - -,, E.: fr,,:.„!. ....4t:'-' •q• 4-..1".:-^" 4".1A'''' phiumor -... ..,„-..,,-..:'' :' -':•;.:*;.'.A.W."4:41:$.1-50,414".11/0. . ,..7,....-,-.,,.., ...0,,(41.1 of.im :....), .- ...,-:-...04:4,0,0 -, -0 a.';'a.;„'''d'''- ,''S..;•.... 4'''.'''''''''''''`;'1 "''''ZiW''''',:"!*. ',,,,,, `:?' ;'511' -'ef.:4 -s:C.. .,% -, - ~4,:. ,,,,:i, ` V,..:?..~:,,- .7,,k.','.."% ...,--1--••-1.-•!„,........-- ,;S .iy;.,:,''' •,-- . ..r ,, -4:',-.:441-4./. .t..,.„,. ,?'"4,.'2. ,.„ . :.,,,,.., ''''..'"4:7' c‘o.. .,'• V: ,....,,t„... ',-,..-,„ , '.. ' .,,, ,,, ....' . -.;...:t2.ithIvi,......t...44A A I.' -irr,r.,„`,'0,..•. . 5 „-,,10., 1[ ,_`, -,,,,,„r. , ,,,(1,,...44...... : ,;"., -. , ^ ,s , ,$'i,. .' .-.,..t.- f.1 ''',.:-.4:14t x*.c?,..., ,, ,, ,'K ,. 1;:r."-'"...., .0 ,.1K, ' r.,..,..,-,,, -, .t,,,.,..!„,T,,,i...,-„:„_.,,..,„..z...41-.,,,.,,,,yx;,i- -4:14) -","..Z42.7',',„.,..:•",,:f!4-:-"-•-•"=:.?..,.;'.I .t.:'''''-' P -l'it'r '''.' ''.--- ' - ' , ? '''.;-----,,-,,,.- 's'f.. 1 ww...u,„•::,..1c, ,,,, ,, ,,,. , -, K.: ;1 " . .,''',-.=''',-.--e• .-,,44 ,--., .. --,.. .-0,7,.. .,. ., ,...,i_.,„..-,. .-,,,-- -p--- ........., , ,., .,.- - ...„,..: , ,, „ -:: :-^1,-,, <,..„;. ' - ,"i ::,.."0`4 i..--• ',1,-.,v, `,, .,.-1?..1,,'''''..k.-',:i.-- ----.,., "V,,,,,..:----••-:,1,,' ,. -, 44:5,r,:-;,.,.,,,,•",-.Z,..3,!:.,,,,..„.•":%::-V,..41.*a:4= ".k.,,tzf_1.4V...,:ie,,,_;,,,, pfig 1,, i.. .,„..z.,..., ..7.1-2.-,, r•.:,•;.;“- ' %7•",. °;..,..',:,AZ, , , ,:. ..,,,,„ ...,,,A.41: ,,,,,,, -- ','.::W.:i„;`,,-tgv„:,-.*-a.,,;,;;4.,'-fi .,.. ..z.?;:,_:. . ..,-, ,.. .:t..„,.., ..., „rs,:ro, . ,.› : -':' ^-.. - ):. '4•V;ii;i''..''''' .-;:t- t.i.,4;,*-4,-:-:,..o<- . . ... ,..r -..a. .4.,,,. :, .,..,,,,,, , ---..." -A ,,,,,,,4•,--- 1, ......,i.4,1,?'`,..e<,--4. ,,,.4..., ,t. s,,,,,, '_---• .„,,..---' -'• -_,-.4A• . „..,,,.. ..1.,'....., .4 4. * 4%.,,.' "-.T., ...r,-,*„.1,1,- tl.' .4.f...:Ir .1..;**, iii. 48... ..'1,..,.,AAQtx1"',. ..:,;..--4,"'"- -;^...,,= ,4- •'-."'`,"AM-Ve4.i'i'r%1, :3,4NWY).*,-4.v4 • '1''''..0W2'.:`•:'''''' '...'''-' , -: Nni.J.fem,4 v7,,tt''; 3*-n4.,.4.'F,' • .,a1.1%i', ,XSZefr'e.,.V%r 4 "'"'"- 4.,44t4.'ffIk. i 44,:fk,74.6`4141"444"-'2" '';.'..t,',V,04:'t,4.;.Ty .4;,16.... 4.,W1 ' ' -. '.'-'-t:.-.7...7,'-'''e' '''' ,te'...'...4"''''''.:1.0';'``.4,k*-`,.....,_....t.V7-;(,...;'•:,,,;'` . 'iY0,7e..41*•1. 4'47'' .X.4't-4141.4f*..V.,.%^41.7'. ..e..... -,4.:‹g"t' le- .,c:„., 1 t_ L-,4-..i -,....,.. r.,,,k ..ge.st...""' -—!,,?-1P,,.g.,..,....." ,,,,,,Nt.,,--„,,,It,,„-• ,,,,„„. , ,,,,f '''''''',,,' i.-- ,*-',.... ' . .,,,, ,,,.,:...,,, ,, .,,,-; ,,, ,. „...0,,c,,-- "'• o‘.., '''''..t.:N{,1.4:7'••-ttaAtZs° ,,V . ' -,,5W,,,..,..,,,J.:,f`c,„,".4;,±%)-'2,,tr--,,."1.,,,,V;c'' ,, ',"tragiO.tP.14;.-Wf' ' 1... •4 ",,Srvl'“e,.c. ^''''- '-,...7.ts.wit'ill NI ja..74174.11 .,:" '' ,;.., ,r'..--,-,-,,,,--;--3.124,,,—,-,.-?..., ...„„+„; ,,.., .- .,:z. :,..4,1..P. 1 ,..? -.-" _,, ,,.. '`,. _„,,,,-, ":_„,..., , , ,,...,,.. ,...4,.. r..,,,,,J0...,,f.a .k.,...,za•...:-.:'""::,,;,.05,,i,.''',..,-e,i",.,",..',..^ ' " °•;4;e0..,.,.,',•,;. .4:i4.4 ,40,:f:: ----....- -1,3',-,,,,..e. ..„,---- ..,,, -.'-:',,, - - ., . -, 'e, '1'0'44 ,;:,- '7, •:,•,1.,,,,,.4*,,A,..-,- ,,,,),,7g41.-,,,,,,,,, -",tr,„,..,:r • -„,, - 7,... , , 'Q. :,-;.0.,;..-,, -..1710,r,„-4P,..„. ..'..... ,,, .,• ,,...". ,,- , - 4.”..4i,!!"-n ,..' " ..."•1/4? ''4}1:,,,„b,, .1 : ..,,,7r.r.z,--,-.01*„..,:4...4,,,:-.,..,,,-.$:,,,.4. ' -' ....' ' ,, . .0'':`'. :44 ' -,'1,*?;;Y:, 7'74141 ''. I '' Z12.1.::',57...7 "-,1';, , 5.,, ,„,•:. 4,, ..., m?„,-y...,,,tv..,.1._e,p,r-p„--;,.,,,,,,I,-t4&: , ,,-, .-4`c"--g1,74,-,,,4,,,,,v,,,,:',.,:;„,,A; „,,,,-,L...,,,. ., .--,,,,, r ,.4.r ... , , . .1. - _ai,...,....,t, -,,,,,,-fp,- ",,.. ,.., ,..„,,,... ...,,,,,,,4* '''''..t**'}!"...,4•‘;..g.'ra '",",7».`„'gr".''''''' ttlftee;,,,,":;'-^':,^:.''''''24.,' ,,,,fA .t., ,,,,Ocr -WArtnt ''''' - if.".... ' ' . :-'44,.. „ *,4:-,, ,r.''''A'->. -1 "•. '' : -,;., ,,,,,,:*:-'111-"Mo: - o --F '.;0=4-titv.4,-fspv. v.k.4,....;,.-%.,,,,A,..-.. ' ...--11,-- ---,,,.:,';,,;,.-T.---T- ,,.0 zs.,,,,t„,ett.4. •:,-4,,, 4 4.,-,v.71-.0w-11,4?...4 , s.',' &'FA, )4Ar:l.n1 ' mt." .,',,:. ,41 :',75it<At, -,,,,/ ---`-_.1,. .--;-,..;--t r „L...,4t...,,,ates:„.„1-,.,,.,..„;„„1,(.4„.. .,..;.,,,,, _ ,.., ,,.....,:P'tu,'.::;;;' . ..,"1.7 l',F,' .-.'"." ....,4,,,, ,,,,,,,, .1,, .,4,.....v.:...A,, .._., ,,......17 ,..4..trts- ......--:......„,,,„:,..„ ,.„,,,,,,....., ;,,,..„,........,,,,,,,....14,...,7, ..,..„,.,,.,,.„-r•-,'.;,74. ,./.,„.. ::',.''Ittre..k, :,."-. 74{,A„..lr.,,,,,.. '''14.,.4k-o.t.,.7.." "•,,,....", , '. .,''' . .,er.- •',,:..',,- ": *,'''':e.' '' .-,- 1 `.._ ,.,4' 1-4. ..,"., - ."",.. ' t'-'....‘;,•,'414 ,,,i . ,,,,,V,,, • "lr,, • --0, V; -. - '-'1.../-'..1 - ....-:1-, ,' <sr.,I.‘,-.,., .°, ,,1 .-.... v`. " ..M.: ,T. ., ei..,',4V41;";: ::.';'7,.." d-'*z .;'.,. .^,t' ::": "7...,'..-...:f..;4'y 12,4 ° "'.4;4; „„s;\•..;.,'11 )..i* ' ',7r.,Aiiro,i',. „q:". ' , ;,,,.•^".•„ ,;'. ,,. , ,.-,,,,, :tiAt•f-,,e -,,c,,.474,A,,,,,..'„,:,,,,..r,..,/„,-1,-,r,„;,:::,?..,-_,;,. .;.,-.,;', ,r,',.;-.......,,V,L,..57--„\,•,,,--;fx-1,;;:t7 -,--„ -.%,,,i -, p44,,w,t, its ,..;, ..-t.=.tt15.:_j, ,:;-.:-`!, ,,.. ,k ,....:.1,, , "--,,,_ fr, "'" t•.A-,--letolirkr,44,?,,Ta;....zi.z,..-4.,1,-. .. ,-,,.--„--4...,... .r:.. - „- . -, r. .,, :114,,, -1 . , , , 1 1 3.; ;4-4*,' '' ._ b`-,,,,* ,, i.... 'S--f-r.. . '-'-'-- ,.,•;..1 : -., .'ets"1:t '''. "..s 3:: 1 ' '..F.,',:'-'4.- 7211t., ....,,,i,,. :,--,,,..7,7,,, ,g.r7-..,.1. ',. '- „ ..-Af„1%, '-',,.—144 ./. fr• .T,7,,?,. .".,'. ..:4•,,ji.ifIVIM:." '4.';.;' ' 76.,-Teat4 .5*.'-:WeIMV&'-i-':'..7.''''.. :V- ' ztar.iiiqt..4':'.‘,..!t'..i,:=.4iVF ' ,-•:r; •-,,0:7;li.,..44' .n..4.>":4':-Yj. I" 1-4li ;(-,, .. "'''''''-'if-4-1':,%k•'-:',11.:r '0,r,,,-,..t.",,,- .'t",4' ,t ....1.. :,,t; ,rf , -:p.,,,.',,e. zr,,,,..-,,,,,,,J•to.;`,.. •,',",.:....%,,--. :''' :': ...!.,4 ' 4,?„. t,r1x.,,„.,r;g„:dri-..,„, -A„,.-1 .;,:,-....!....!.1". 1 .,',2'.`.,, ,''','-•,:-."•••Ali,,T.t.,,f'C'1,41,:., •11.::.-,,,,.3-1 i"-- :' -7- 'I 1.-4;t4'.i.- I-F•yr;1,,.-s .:. ','-•.-'., .,--,t iti-„,11-4,-..,.,.4,..-.4-:..,),..-.L. .1--,-.2%i-,,&; :-.=_!-:'•' „tili')4 24 1", ':1 ' Atti',,,,- fti i., 3:-$.,....17.4..,..!",---3,It'..- *- `f,•;:-.,.; -,';-...0-, `.'w,,,r•''',T:i.VW,..-sig:W.•ii,‘ ..-..''' V-f''. :-:',:;' lfriq t, .' ,„;t2;tVi '"-Fre;'-il i `.-.0.,.,<44-'.3,'."N.,--1•:'4 a.,', i• p.:-;'.,..-;' ',C.7-4*..'. ' 'f:'4 ,.:,ig. . .415,•;.',.. .,Xii4k144.r.-'.-;:,F1 ;-"0.:1-1,.3. 444,701.,.1_;,i,-,,-...:1,-,C;;%:;:ti.. .7::-:-..\•, :ti.t.11,:, A ;.'-'.i,"f.w.',.,;.-..!.V.i.'-'.--2-‘ .g.,,..t.,'.- -- .-- "` ''"'1- „,1-,- , r,,--;z .lit.,11F-',,'Itk,7-Zg...",.'. .:".e-1. -K,i,ii7V4 .,..r 1,;7--'44 5: -! -',P4 1 i',..,.-7.01--,' .• '.,- ..-, , ---'.--i;..;Zt.,i •:, ,. . - „ '..t,-. -,,,,,,,, „...„...„.-„,...,.„,„, ._ .„. ,..- ,, ., _,, ..,......„. ..,.. , . ..,..._......, , .,....,. ...........,,...... .. _.....„. ... ,.... v....... ::,.. _,,..... ,.. _ _ , . ,,, ......„.„..„ r.;', !-'-- ' • Ili ''' . ---t`-' ; * ...2.• • ' -'i,;''' ,i-. ' • Igut, -,..1,- .-*4ii i;i rn-,,,,, '• • 1, Es% •i'• II % 4 AP, _,..1. 1. 0-1--,,-;ii r, ,,. firmv i, • 1 -,:-.-,-J..- „is,,-;,.1, ..s.4.:,,,,s, .,,k,.. 1ii"E. t, -r '.kc.,a, • . --j-li.. -,.;-,4? •i -• ..--''TiV*V. ligill4.J.L,,,t-0 a 3A,,,,,N, r . --1 V,t --•'''',- •,.,.i,'37-4--. .- 4:1 ,„..„_kre. fo 19 :,e,-,14v,..-----..;---,,,, ,,,-- ,i :tr Y'4-:e3.4,.%%;;44 4 114,,a,,,41..,,,,,. ,, r1 :i,i, -`7.--.•.-3:_i4,A.Z;,:°',`,,;.4.',.,',1':- 'wirtIfittiritRIAIY:: g•—"."'piels ..;,,fF41614 0 0414 0*, ,.ffi -.1.'*; ;Iiii:"'''r'llgriZA44-10,!:'.tilltlii4C4Citi WWI 4-,,*-• . P,,i,i14," ( t,.r - - t IRci :,. cn , 171 t-' It ,";41:,..114,2ir.x.6,:le•I K.,:.,',-,F)--..!'.4.e .::_41..•-3,17y;pe4t4.,,t;, 'i',At'', -1 ..-.,;. ..„-:,-.-,,,,i, -. .1,-, 1-'• 1..y1 t.-', tfpli'-'-',"': t , -;,1,,:. ..,:, 14::41 ,, 11-1?""f • -'1-- :,',,4 i-'-:;:_;2.; z, ..,'.',4‘. - --f"-% '"' -.,-.- .,:- .,.,:; ',-,-- 0,z7:,,,,?:',:- -': ,q, .,-. ._,,g, - '' . ., . Art-,A1,:,V%,-."Ati‘.. ., k 4a,4.,:t' u.,.,..,'4"....1-.,47,;:i .:.,,I„,lig a pi til ,,. 1 .... A-7 ,.iik,„4,::;_...-Ifi.‘..rt,..n.IV?:'V---4,-,':,' .41.4%-`,-':"-- ."' '''' ,g,r • ' -• -''''''''' '1`1'''''' '. ' -:-: - .1.-3"`-j• Ice'''''''''''ll'A":3""'""Ir k."1 1 '''..%X.SttAllk .''.,1;,' :•,.'-=, --,_,-- 4. 0 " 0 HI 1, '''''Y ,,,,"A-ft,ti-ilt - I.,: • ---- ---'-''''-- , _..-..,.', 1/4, , .., .4tt -,;.--, ...,, e.',,. .. 'T:i F.< ,--,-,,,.---'.. ..,': .-1-:.s,-.....;". ,..'-f,, :!.-.--.-..„,4''-,' '1,-- ;:,.... ' '''''''''.Zi-Z.-1 ''''i,L' .'`.', CD i-I ., ' 4,-4, ''' 2,,.'4',...4' 1'1''',''' ', .•..t, ',.,....,-;,.....,..,4,...tv-;:-...?,--.,-.41•..,o;, 1 Pg.„,_!:...,,;:,,i,..,,t,,71.-ol.'.'..-`..ii:,,-i,`'NI.1 x; \ H. 0 4',1 .''s-g‘"*,,aP-*,... `0.,al, -N.,- *---'`-'-i-frPt,'';',-.4-''';'-`-;%.-,:tr" .. -.'f-t--t,., '-3.: ,%.4.1.bt.:3-.,,,, -t",.;,..,f47,1f.:;•;,11"' ',,,•i. ,ivvv'i4.t...,q-''•'-iV''"*".1 '-=Voc i' ;,: -`qi.'"i-'--'-:, '‘--'-ft-.,,-..-4---Lif,...-.......--..y.'.-tv'..tvi....4.1k,s,-,.-.4,.i,r.',,-.11',:,,,V,;"!^.±:'-li-,;'''.1 44',7= I--' o .k.Ti4,4k,', , -.-...-&'''S.:'..,,, '''.VI''''',- ,..;'4.=:,..,::-i-:,4,-,- • , -..0,,,,,,,,:..5.-...... ,,.„.:.,, 0,.4,. ;:olt..,-,,,-:-,-:.4.;• ......41i,..1,.7..*:k!..,..?:::ix'1.t,,., a. Fd .1-..,"4:e-- -t---4 .:4,',,- S:',.4e.....ogl. g ,•,::',';',..-;,.I'tit'...:"'":/,',":3.,*..Y.t.41.-A,:i4;:'..t,,=4:1..:.',..-.-',','=:,:;r*n;9.%,,,'-;Xt-...t.t = rt 0 • t;-.0-,-.4‘ii. ''''. 4$Z1'..'i Y,..-gr-;,-,..„-v,,,,,,:,:4,-..--:-?,.,-;..,..,4,,-.4,,;-. ,......yls.„,:i.„,,-1. -,-.7-.,,,,,i,-:„.-‘,'„-°-;,,,,.4-vil. t.) P- . --, --0..6,...,,...:.,-'wv,-,.ti,,,..i„,,0„,,,,....,,kli,,,,,....,--i.,..0,-,->4 AA,-,,,,:•:..:-*,.,.....,,,,,,,,,-,..;,..1,4,-;4t,i-o,-,..;-r--.c.`0:', o 1 fA,:t.‘1•-,„,:x.,..; NiV•- '.x.- ...-,:-ki3"..0,44.AAA, ,-)". -,1%......';,,......•,-..i.•..;...-,.. ..„Nci.A.71..,tv., .!,.4-,.'e,•-...',i'.:::'-.-'''‘,!;...,::::::.,,, v.: -.,%' o }-3 -elCt.-34. ./q11:;,44-4C5'4,sf.044.1.' 'A.;.i--t.';'---;-::--',-;, ,-.,-.-.: ,-,-;,.'- l-,..:% 71 -.',.1.-4=,- ;'.. I— i j.....- •-.1-1.-',!..,‘A'40'',..'.,' -.4(PN:4-N-TIt.)Aqk,4,--7.-,'.:,•:,...-.,:<,-.'' ,!...-:.1.:.•, -4.,k ,,,A.'t.:,,,...,,.. ..-- ,..4.•, ,.:,; [., 0 ilk?':') ;'"'+4:4'''ACI.S.'.`''44'41.4,:: :',10'4..'-'Q',---I'....., -,.- ....c-ii.-4..,,,...w.A.--!:.:,=1-...,,,,jalqo,,,,,-. 3, .%-,'--4..,,i:..,-'4.-11-40....,1ii, .f,, ".: ,/,:,-..---,.-',7',;',-._7i*,--,:.-'i,,:,!I.?1:14,,-,-\s„ t .......-it ---..-,,,- ,,,, 0.:.LiAV.. .=;,1- :-.-' ,,.;..,•'-`-,:"Y.- i:.."-2 ';";tq.:.... %,-:s•,,,,,,,,',11%; ; ,. -'.".. 4N-1.18-i70*-Z i:,'1'c4,-4 ,'",i,,'.,`'..;. .',:::'..,..A'" .:'.. . ),fP1`71:ii%:;. ' \ rii..10,-,y. vi:,,, -ii'citz -.*-,sqfz,'.-.44.. ,,, -.:-.v.., kiiii.41.$:,:,g40, s ,-,:!-.4 ""4:;,•-ktc,4,r :t I'l V.Og ::'.',...t1t::.. 3.14.4Agki..41i'',1 e'i7'.4.4.,47Y''''. \ fr, :.t.Y,1,',.i;?:-Ii4:14,.„.;4kW-WAO'..,,, ,,,,:N•.%-;"::'::"(tV4z-:,':::: ''''-'-t!,1..„7-1`; ;;L'ill.",1"'-`3;'ir'.-ti p 4.4 ....!;.„.,...;:,. :674...1.3-:!...,,.....,-....-::....,‘. --, .:-..4,..-.i.::=',..- -7...,,.4...ikAN"71-- •---.',:.,',`.: .t 14i4, 0 7;'.. 'i---"Vc;::., , , ,,. . -. -.' ,..,i' . 0 ''.;.- ''``-i*,,./•'.:--,i G \ * rs,';N1'. '15=41 =1. .,;.:;;.,.-:.' ''''ft'111,4 l'''.:: '..,,,i'''' t : , 16:.,.,'',,,,'4. ':, .:',.;i‘r,, ,,,11,... , '' ,, 3'2 kat, . ,::.,7. n,..,,....75.,, •y,..--,'/:-ti -1. ..t.4.-.1,..:it4" -7----tt .I . ....a ; - -' '`I:-': -.1%tl.'-';'''q 4:'1-..--_. - . .-. ItokA It:, ,0-t;,---4 *,,I-OZI:::(7.%''''" ,-/,--e':', v,t.:.44,4&,, i.-;-,,-..,,,,-% '..0,':ir: '. It:'''''''S' l'‘' ....:' '''O'''\ .' '.'. 4;:.'\''':'t';''‘''''-!'±' '''Vi'NrIZ:'A''' ..te:7k71.: ''' 1' . '; . ''.:Allk'1, Y,A1-, 1:0'15.,-e- let (..:;: !4"...-1.-. t'4:17;2 . ''; , ..,;i:4'.,--' -'41:1k::;:;:j.:7 41! -V,ItAi ,- .'' A1W:" 4..g . ;--.• .1.041il%N. Alit‘i01-i'•:-:•:01;','11' ,,,„,_ , .-: ,, ,„; .. .:fr - ,.,:r,-1-..74.., ,x.. ,,.- '.,. '. ' . P',' a4,$,:.% .t..., IV,'- ,,-',.' '4 V'','•• t,i1:tik:t,i',- --'.'.•,.,''$,--<''„' : „.,7.:.-,--,.-i--•.1.-3i to-,T.,--..- ',-.4-,:,;•ff%,;-. :5 , 0JkNV - , f 4 ' iAvs 0AiAw . :9i .4 - c t - ;. --.', --.•-'.::: : -.I,. --4',,-;.':!:::e,,f4tit,:-;-.0i',t5,...'1•4;f:'''!141 7,°, -pt =,:,.'-,,,y1 v;.,:iwt.kra-:,..-.:,,,,, '7.-,,-..,,,,,,, T.:-..•.I -4::',,,g:'.:-.,../7."figti- L.::,.*.t,2,ii%. "i ir;''',i'',1,1•.?- -it.-.:i.-'-c-. Vtrk1,21,cli:. -4-,i15. ,.'11.:.Jr4-?...,,110-2,4fr',, .- 1''`ikv7::N.ict:C-4 -4 i'',.;..;;,:;:•:./-411k:,, ,,;--1-t,-:-.4.71.71;:`,Vi--,,',IT::;.,,I,1-1.:,;1•--:,-,A1:? .._-'.%-!,kx,i ,, ax..,q,?•-,.,1ik .,4. ,5,4:-4.,* ,, :1.,*4 , ,..,..A.,,:,.-,`-,':;s--.1:1;„:',,f•'1 1. 1 i Z 1.110111 11,1-1.' VI; .s...1."a tAt's:N..,,`.1.-,,rF,...1,-; .4iTIZAtfiti,1.i.:r..,:-• '..,;"-::, i:#4'''' •,,:'':it, AV- \ii,, ‘,",,,!-':::.:i\t,.?•,f,,edaVArfkor4Z-1:,ttir,i IA -9:::•`,..•,•.`.41-, i.•.';.4‘t:',A"N,N.,;;WW•t'_',M4Ec•i'''-a9-7-. ,4 /-,..:-3;,,',• 0,'-.'‘.',--- 1 Viiv•':} ' -..‘.-;AV- 4-'41.1c..-TA..i-,A tc-V;.$1:17ig':,.:,...,::,?T\4 ', 14iF ',-;:p . :6-'',..---.4-',,--n- .s-, ' .,...1- ,;,q,tv:-. , ',t'l".• . i:.';i.4,4. CCIVO'!.''';'''0,*41.A.,':.4-4'*-t:.:i!/-•-,1 ,.f'14 . %--,..-:. It'-j.:: c-''.',..fi' ':i- i ,.1z.',V4-, .-y,,_•-•'- tz'.;.li-'1;.'i--.1 2%---1.- -.;•>**;;-:-.''4',, s'....:---- " ';'-z-.-,' l'-'1,44,'i.. = ''•' .•.' . '.=,9c..,A, -- ,,,.-. .,-F-:'-..'n-- ,`-k.,..'-,..ttz t.-.1'I: .1... ..,.. -- - -- ••- v .' ';.-1,,-.‘;-' ', - . - •;' ' -1. ' • III 4 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 5:45 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Stephen Boyden, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, Kent Nelson, Andrea Barrows and Judi Short. Craig Mariger was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Wayne Mills, Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, Craig Hinckley and Margaret Pahl. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith and Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde were excused. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jonas moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 17, 2001, subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-30, by Salt Lake City Corporation, requesting the adoption of an ordinance enacting Chapter 21 A.43 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intended to allow temporary uses, such as festivals, bazaars, outdoor sale events, carnivals, and other special events to exist on private property within the boundaries of North Temple, 200 East, 900 South, and Interstate 15 from October 15, 2001 to March 31, 2002. The current ordinance limits the duration of most of these temporary uses to 14 days. Wayne Mills presented the staff report. The proposed ordinance would amend sections of Chapter 21A.42 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for a temporary duration of time. Therefore, according to Section 21A.06.030(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission has the duty of reviewing, evaluating, and making a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance. On Thursday, May 24, 2001 a draft copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to all Community Council Chairs throughout the City. No comments were received. On February 23, 2001 the Planning Commission heard Petition 400-01-01, an ordinance enacting Chapter 3.52 of the Salt Lake City Code, which relates to large-scale special events of national or international significance. The ordinance was proposed to create a one-stop regulatory document to permit large-scale special events. Within the ordinance a section was included that would permit temporary uses associated with a large-scale special event to occur on private property for a maximum of thirty days. Since the time Chapter 3.52 was heard by the Planning Commission, Planning Commission Meeting 1 June 7,2001 7. Qwest maintain the flag, flagpole and the lighting. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of March Street (located approximately 2955 West between 500 South and the railroad tracks (approx 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property. Ms. Gasparik presented the staff report. Joan and Ryan Williams are requesting that Salt Lake City close a portion of March Street (located approximately 2955 West between 5th South and the railroad at approximately 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property, to facilitate the long-term maintenance of the property. The applicant has stated in their petition letter that as a result of the previous closure of March Street, the property they own has become a dumping ground for trash and debris as well as a place for transients and homeless to live. The City has cited them for trash and debris and their attempts to stop the dumping have failed. They contend that closure of the street would help prevent the dumping and vandalism on the adjacent properties and prevent further costs for clean up and repair of buildings. The section of March Street to be closed is mostly a dirt street that the City has no plans to improve, as it is too narrow and is disconnected on the South, by a previous street closure, and existing railroad tracks. Both Utah Code and local ordinances regulate review and approval of street closure applications. Utah Code, Title 10-9-305, discusses the process for determining the public's interest in the street and Salt Lake City Code Section 2.58 regulates the disposition of surplus property. State law requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider the potential impact of losing the public benefit of the street. The City's internal policy regarding street and alley closures states in part: "The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property." The section of March Street requested for closure is no longer needed for public use and it is staffs opinion that the stub portion to be closed should be absorbed into the William's property. Once the Planning Commission declares the property surplus, it must then be disposed of according to the Salt Lake City's Disposition of Surplus Property Ordinance, City Code Section 2.58. This ordinance states that the City shall retain title to the surplus property until the land is sold and purchased at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. All necessary City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of declaring the subject property as surplus. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of the various department/divisions prior to acquiring the property. Findings of Fact A) The street closure and the proposed development are consistent with the applicable City Master Plans. B) All abutting property owners to the proposed street closure property have consented to the street closure petition. C) Currently this section of March Street is not needed for access to or as street frontage for any properties. D) This street closure will not have a negative affect on traffic circulation in the immediate area as proposed. E) As proposed, the street closure will not have a negative affect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services. Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 7,2001 F) The portion of March Street to be closed can be declared surplus to the City's need as a public street, and therefore can be purchased at fair market value by the abutting property owner consistent with City policy (City-Owned Real Property Chapter 2.58). Mr. Smith invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. Ryan Williams, petitioner, stated there is a lot of crime on the properties adjacent to this street. He believes the street is in such bad repair that the police won't access it. He believes the only way to stop the crime is to put a gate across the street to block off access to these properties. Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Steve Evans, property owner, is concerned that closing this street will stop his tenant's business access to their property. He showed photos of the current street access. There is a State Impound lot and 5 towing businesses that need access to this street. He would like to buy the street. He does not want a gate across the road as he is afraid he and his tenants will lose 24 hour, 7 day a week access to their businesses. Mr. Wheelwright explained that if the street does get closed, the right of third parties will be retained. The only change that happens in a street closure is that ownership is taken away from the City and given to someone who has an interest, proximity and ability to control the street. Mark Harris, representing Turner Gas Company, adjacent property owner, stated he is in favor of closing the street. Mr. Smith closed the public hearing. Motion for Case #400-01-04: Ms. Funk made a motion based on the findings of fact to approve Petition No. 400-01-04 to close the portion of March Street located approximately 2955 West between 500 South and the railroad tracks (approximately 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property. Conditions for Approval: 1. The signing of an easement agreement between the applicant and Public Utilities. 2. Payment to the City at fair market value of the street property, consistent with City Code 2.58. 3. Certification and inspection by the Public Utilities Department that the applicant has obtained all necessary City approvals to install the required improvements. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-532 by Ed McDonald requesting that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission consider an Industrial Planned Development consisting of six lots and utilizing a private street for frontage of four of the proposed lots. The proposed Margaret Street Business Park is located at approximately 1809 South 900 West in a M-1 zoning district. Planning Commission Meeting 8 June 7,2001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan,'-,Commission of Salt Lake City,Utah will hold a regular public meeting on Thursday,June 7, 2001,at 5:45 p.m.at 451 South State Street,Room 126. The AL is as follows: AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,June 7, 2001,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m, in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, May 17, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-30,by Salt Lake City Corporation, requesting the adoption of an ordinance enacting Chapter 21 A.43 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intended to allow temporary uses,such as festivals, bazaars, outdoor sale events,carnivals, and other special events to exist on private property within the boundaries of North Temple,200 East, 900 South, and Interstate 15 from October 15, 2001 to March 31,2002. The current ordinance limits the duration of most of these temporary uses to 14 days. (Staff:Wayne Mills at 535-6173) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m.-Petition No.400-00-44,Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan. Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. (Staff: Joel Paterson at 535-6141) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.—Petition#410-539,by Qwest Wireless,requesting a conditional use to install a wireless telecommunication antenna disguised as a 60 foot high flag pole at approximately 877 West 400 South in a Neighborhood Commercial"CN" zoning district. (Staff: Ray McCandless at 535-7282) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of March Street(located approximately 2955 West between 500 South and the railroad tracks(approx 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property. (Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-532 by Ed McDonald requesting that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission consider an Industrial Planned Development consisting of six lots and utilizing a private street for frontage of four of the proposed lots. The proposed Margaret Street Business Park is located at approximately 1809 South 900 West in a M-1 zoning district. (Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535- 6354) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:05 p.m.-Petition#410-534 by Utah Repair and Service Corporation requesting planned development approval for property located at 1075 South Redwood Road and 1040 South Dalton Avenue in a Commercial Corridor(CC)Zone. The proposal includes widening Dalton Avenue to 25 feet(of which 20 feet would be travel way), Dalton would remain a private street, and a total of two lots would be created from four existing lots. No specific uses are proposed at this time. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) g. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:15 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-29 Indian Hills Plat G Subdivision Amendment,by Bill Bang requesting preliminary subdivision approval for an amendment to the Indian Hills Plat G Subdivision to create a new building lot located at 2735 East Comanche Drive, in a residential R-1-12,000 zoning district. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) h. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m.-Petition No.400-00-29 and Case 410-507 Carrigan View Phase 2 Annexation and Planned Development, by Scott Turville requesting annexation,zoning and planned development and foothill subdivision approval of a six lot development proposal served by a private street, located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Of the 35 acres owned by Mr. Turville,the proposal includes housing on 5 acres and open space preservation of the other 30 acres. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. Tenant mailing notice discussion b. Snow cone/Taco vending regulation discussion Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. if you are planning to attend the public meeting and, due to a disability, need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. On Tuesday, June 5, 2001, I personally posted copies of the foregoing notice within the City and County Building at 451 S. State Street at the following locations: Planning Division, Room 406; City Council Bulletin Board, Room 315; Community Affairs, Room 345— py of the agenda has also been faxed to all Salt Lake City Public Libraries.-- �' Signed: I . STATE OF UTAH ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me on Tuesday,June 5,2001 : :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE NOTARY PUBLIC CC:" ;' STATE OF UTAH Mk! I ,L451 NOT RY PUBLIC residing in Salt Lake County, Ut SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION RELEVANT LETTERS FROM CITIZENS, SPECIAL REPORTS, MAPS, ETC. ..�,..� L.�aw�0 r�Vi iDlivu rHUC Gl WILLIAMS PLUMBING&HEATING, INC. 2680 Commerce Way P.O.Box 3227 Ogden,Utah 84409 J Phone:(801)621-5932 Fax:(801)621-0525 , FAX TRANSMITTAL Date: May 31,2002 To:Salt Lake City Planning Attn:Jackie Gasparik Project:March Street Closure No,of Pages Being Transmitted: I As a follow up of our conversation we have had no further conversation with Mr.Evans that would indicate that he intends to contest the closure of March street. At the time of the last planning commission meeting we clearly stated that if the street was closed and purchased by us we would make access available to him and all he need to get access was to contact us or our tenants in the building. i spoke with our tenants and they indicated that we have not had any conversation with Mr.Evans and that there has been no traffic across March street since the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any farther questions please contact me. R n D.Williams WILLIAMS PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. 2680 Commerce Way P. O. Box 3227 OGDEN 621-5932 Ogden, Utah 84409 SLC 359-0333 September 6, 2001 Salt I.a.ICc City Piatmt ng 451 Ski State Street Roosa 406 Salt Lake t.`-ityf, 1Jtah 84111 Attrc Jackie Gawarik Re:March Stmitaovare 11-K.foaming items are an atioeMpt to.aswvear and dilink my and all is :that Wt.37t brought up by Mr. Evans in his objections to the closure. 1- Mr. Evans stated that he woukt haw to change femaes and other bameri to acco.tnruodate the track routing_ in the aerialphotos:that lb=obtained of the area time are no Ins 4town to be€ht uu. 2- kit. Eva%slated that iuz wo MM not have a ce..zsg to his propaty when in fazt all of his access is off of Eaton Street. The Aerial photos show two entrances and 1taffic flow that is existing at this time. 3- Mr. Evans:stated that there would not he access to the conic > nication tower that he has s out space on his prowny when in fact that access shoukt be> m Mr. Evans and not from March ,Street_ 4- Mr. Evans stated that he needs 24 let access on March Shred-Mien in fact we haw kept track of ail traffic last March and there has l no whicks ear in or out of Evans property. A letter from the manager for the tenant in our building is enclosed fix.verification, in short no not Mr.Evan.5 claims are valid. The only reason fir him to object to the closure is an attvArrpt.o gain iTkoney from the city. When the street was closed for Mr. Evans the easement was to re_7223112 and nothing nas to be stored or built on that portion of the:fie.wt worm in fact the s thow items beikg steed and stack on the exiemt. We stilt contend that the closure is nocessary in order to prewnt vandalitm, theft and property destruction in the area awl would request that the street be declared Guipkts and so to us at a fair markt value so we can properly ferice otd Rate the area. If you - 1 f nth r info tl. lease cimktu.t me. 7.2 an D. t�4�ti arm . resident TUNER , GAS CO. P.O.Box 26554 o Salt Lake City,Utah 84126.0554 ® (801)9'73-6886 m Fax(801)973-6882 August 29,2001 Salt Lake City Corp. Attn:Ms.Jackie Gasparik By Facsimile 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Dear Ms.Gasparik, In re to March Street at approximately 2830 West 500 South,Turner Gas Company is still very interested in resolving the question if said street will be closed and sold to Williams. At the city council meeting on June 7,2001,Evans was there to publically state that his impound lot needed March Street for access to his yard. At the meeting he showed pictures of trucks driving on March Street to pull into his yard. My office window has been facing this street for the last 5 years and I watched him stage his truck in there for the photos. Never before or after the photos were taken have I seen Evans access his yard by March Street. Again this covers a 5 year period. Also,looking out my window now I can see junk stacked high over the fence on the end of March Street where Evans bought it from the city and agreed to keep it clear for easement purposes. We need to take action on this street. It is a staging area for crime. We have been vandalized 3 times in the last 6 months plus we store hazmat materials that need better security. Please close March Street. Sincerely, ' kLt1..; "\G Mark A.Hans General Manager Serving Western States Since 1939 TURNER 4 GAS CO. P.O. Box 26554 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84126-0554 • (801) 973-6886 • Fax (801) 973-6882 May 23, 2001 Salt Lake City Corp. Attn: Ms. Jackie Gasparik 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 By Facsimile Dear Jackie, Following up on our phone conversation of today, Turner Gas Company(2825 West 500South) desires to go ahead and build a fence on its West property line. Because of the pending issue of March Street,we realize that there could be a situation of the March street sale not going through and Turner Gas having to comply with the correct fence line distance off the public street as well as the required landscaping. We agree to move our fence and fulfill required landscaping in the event March Street remains public. Turner Gas Company is a wholesale supplier and distributor of propane gas. We have 60,000 gallons of on site propane storage as well as 12,000 gallons of on site diesel storage. In addition, we park 15 propane transports on our property. We are required to keep this haiardous material fenced and secured. In the last 6 months, we have been vandalized and robbed multiple times. We feel its very important to get our property fenced as soon as possible. We are requesting the city to provide us with a waiver or exception and allow us to go ahead and build our fence on the March Street property line. In the event,this street is not closed to the public we will move our fence and comply with all requirements of a public street. 14tr Si cerely, Mark A. Harris General Manager Serving Western States Since 1939 Midget Budget Rent a Car of Salt Lake City 641 North 3800 west,AMF-:Box 22112 Sell Lake City,Utah 84122 -- (801)575-2222 Fax(801)575-2246 KaTr,c/ob Dear Ryan, This is a written note pertaining to our phone conversation of 9-06-0i that 1 have not seen for several months any trucks erne March Road An ACC71,,til, to Evans Auto rear gate during our, business hours. Damage--Aaims Hanauer Budget Ren( A Car MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30,2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Library Block Master Plan CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt,Nancy Tessman, DJ Baxter,Stephen Goldsmith,Gary Mumford,Joel Paterson,Janice Jardine This memorandum addresses issues involved in the proposed master plan for the Library Block that the City Council will consider after a public hearing September 3. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance enacting the Library Square Block Plan for Block 37,pursuant to Petition No.400-00-44. • I move that the City Council not adopt the ordinance enacting the Library Square Block Plan for Block 37,pursuant to Petition No.400-00-44. POTENTIAL OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed ordinance. • Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. • Amend the proposed block plan before adopting the proposed ordinance.(Please see Discussion/Background section of this memorandum. MATTERS AT ISSUE/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The major policy points of the proposed master plan include: • Developing the eastern four acres of Block 37 as open space. • Integrating the block as part of a three-block"civic center"with the City&County Building flanked by the Library Block and the Scott M.Matheson Courthouse. • Developing mid-block connections between the Library Block and the blocks surrounding it,including a mid-block pedestrian corridor east of the Library Block to 700 East Street. • Supporting the new Main Library as the primary focus of the block. • Programming the plaza between the new and old Main Libraries to make the block a public destination. • Using the Library Block as a public amenity to spur housing construction around the block. 1 ti • Having the City take an active role in promoting development of residential mixed-use projects around the block. Major action items include: • Adopting amendments to the public lands zoning district to clarify building height regulations. • Potentially adopting amendments to the public lands zoning district to allow the Salt Lake City Library System to lease space in the new Main Library for accessory retail use to benefit library patrons and other visitors. • Constructing a pedestrian friendly connection between the Library Block and Washington Square. • Potentially obtaining property on the block east of the Library Block to extend a pedestrian corridor east toward 700 East Street. DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a motion August 15 to schedule a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance enacting the Library Square Block Plan for Block 37.As the Administration's transmittal letter indicates,the proposed block plan has gone through several variations since the original concept was presented in March 2000. The latest version is subtitled City Council Draft.The version was the result of a meeting among City Council staff Russell Weeks and Janice Jardine,mayoral Senior Advisor DJ Baxter and Joel Paterson and Everett Joyce from the Planning Division.The City Council Draft is very close to the version subtitled Planning Commission Recommended Draft that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council on June 21,2001. As a document,the Planning Commission Recommended Draft has held up well in the interim between June 21,2001,and the transmittal of the City Council Draft.The latter version contains almost the whole of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft.However,some items have been deleted or changed,in Council staffs opinion,to reflect changes in City Council consideration of the Library Block in the last year,including the Library Block Open Space Plan by Civitas Inc.,and the progress of the Central City Master Plan that the City Council will consider soon. Although Council staff has attached a copy of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft and underlined deletions or changes,here is a synopsis of the major changes that resulted in the City Council Draft: • A historical reference to the 1999 Library Block Transit Oriented Development Study was deleted.The reference no longer seemed germane to the Library Block Plan given City Council action toward developing the eastern four acres of Block 37 as open space. • References to fund-raising as a means to help pay the cost of design and construction of open space on the Library Block have been deleted. Again,the references no longer seemed germane given the Administration's proposal to use one-time Olympics-related revenue to design and construct the eastern four acres and to focus its private fund-raising efforts on the addition of art and other amenities to the block. 2 • A reference about the potential addition of about 350 underground parking spaces underneath the eastern four acres of the block has been deleted. Given decisions earlier this year to configure the eastern four acres into open space,the potential to build additional underground parking appears to have been eliminated. • A sentence on Page 15 of the City Council Draft was revised to indicate that a zoning amendment has been requested to allow the Salt Lake City Library System to lease space inside and outside the new Main Library for accessory retail outlets to benefit library patrons and other visitors. It should be noted that the proposed ordinance containing the amendment pertaining to leasing space in the new Main Library also would address height restrictions currently in place on the block. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the proposed ordinance amendments at its September 5 meeting.It also should be noted that the Library System Board of Directors earlier in August authorized negotiations with five businesses or organizations to operate in the new library.The five businesses or organizations are the Salt Lake Roasting Company;Q Street Fine Crafts; 10,000 Villages;Night Flight Comics;and Crismon's News& Views.The five are part of 18 businesses or organizations that responded to the Library System's request for proposals issued earlier this year.The Library System still is considering adding other retailers to fill space in the wall outside the new library. Clearly,the City Council could amend the City Council Draft to add deleted items or change the draft if it chooses to do so. The other revisions in the City Council Draft are minor changes for clarity and verb tense. Perhaps two other things should be noted. Like the Planning Commission Recommended Draft, the City Council Draft appears to make it a long-term policy to encourage mixed-use housing development around the Library Block and to support the creation of a pedestrian corridor at 450 South between 300 East and 700 East streets, including the acquisition of property for the corridor. It is Council staff's understanding that both policies are part of the Central City Master Plan that the City Council will consider later this year. 3 LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN Planning Commission Recommended Draft .fir ,;y.i .. ♦.yr M'.3"z ''i.11 r rr *4 P F c'"-'°, . _Iv •;t . � ' "`r. � 7'` z� ? } a t -` J•s� , .. ws 1 s. » - o- 4 a R }p l 9 r ;•y a.,..;A-.,.R3 L - w , ' s• "5 ._ 4-.., ....3 �s1*-l-: • a eB-i '" ; '' Y-"— "q_u \. 3 r.}3-yam t>.. Yi',+"x-le a •�' - s f✓ `S �•v. 4 'r '' ri - 3'k401101a - -.:,--f[.�•, s ,,.off i-mc ld- rF 4 s t . � ?`£t, t t § Va % S ,,-14 c:CZTP,•'--.5, .'''•1-,4-.--.4-'.i•-- -• ••••..t._ ",,iti••,54....c?4 E..::•,-1_;.. t,.•.-,'''••''-.-•,•=7•1',7_4,---filti; .74-251-.7: ,-,,,,•,---*I.7._, '7_,`,044 it 14- a r v).4., ` { i `} * 14. ,4 , ; ts 4 •ti 1-F41A---44'ntVint-ittiirAlf, ."_if-"7_'•,-4,**4--.V.... ifitelgiA i'i,i51-1Z-,44,74,44. - -:'-,Ni:i1.-. ii Y" + y 1,y ' a ram.. 3. s r a -• t 9 e i F .rt 7, 6 t_'..,� i` i` _ .: -A.is �� t il • a y7..: i .-. 1 _�+# T, i.�' P c to"-t- Y .f ta,-: . 45-p:...•,-•.,:gAt:-.•-i.-,,,,,••!-:-.,:_q•-,,_NAT- •-•.: E r•••,•1_,35,,:•••••1-,-,-,k•-_.--.-7, - '-•1!;'----'5.-.71' '''''- `,,f•-•-k.,!=•er:•1-';-'''';'-'44.2,t-.•?.--1/--,--•,•‘ R : 3 4s 27 �3, •i k 7. tt ' Yom 2S 3 1'7 ., # .r # . iz a�° .'t _'$ Y r.r1.4 Y - a" ' K k. 1 Y? eYa tf 9747 . t _ June 21, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 VISION 2 SITE CONTEXT 3 PLANNING BACKGROUND 7 LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN 10 SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT OF LIBRARY SQUARE 17 IMPLEMENTATION 19 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 WASHINGTON SQUARE AND LIBRARY SQUARE 2 FIGURE 2 LIBRARY-- MAIN ENTRANCE 4 FIGURE 3 PARKS AND OPENS SPACE NEEDS EVALUATION 5 FIGURE 4 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING OPEN SPACE 6 FIGURE 5 ZONING MAP 8 FIGURE 5 LIBRARY SQUARE LOOKING WEST 11 FIGURE 7 LIBRARY SQUARE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 12 FIGURE 8 POTENTIAL REUSE SITES 16 FIGURE 9 LIBRARY SQUARE LOOKING NORTHWEST 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN INTRODUCTION Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East, has been the home of the main branch of the Salt Lake City Library since the early 1960s. The Library shared the block with the Metropolitan Hall of Justice, the Circuit and District courts buildings and the Salt Lake County Jail until 2000. In the fall of 2002 the new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library will open to the public and mark the beginning of a new era for this block now referred to as Library Square. The City began to formalize thoughts of redeveloping Library Square in mid-1997 when a planning effort was launched. The plan, entitled MHJ Block 37:Space Study and Design for City Offices and a Master Plan for the Metropolitan Hall of Justice (MHJ Plan) served as a point of departure for discussions leading to the current block plan. The MHJ Plan was not formally adopted but offered some base data for creating a vision of Library Square redevelopment. The Plan confirmed the appropriateness of developing the new library, recommended redevelopment of the existing library, and suggested development of a public plaza, cultural uses such as a museum,public and private office space,housing and additional open space. In 1998, voters of Salt Lake City passed an $84 million bond to fund design and construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library,to be built on the northwest corner of Library Square(400 South and 200 East) and the construction of a public plaza between the new and old libraries. Siting of the new library and construction of a public plaza are consistent with recommendations of the MHJ Plan. Internationally renowned architect and urban designer Moshe Safdie was hired to design the new library. During the design phase, the City and the Redevelopment Agency directed Mr. Safdie to explore variations of the MHJ Plan. During this process, a planning workshop was facilitated by Peter Calthorpe and hosted by the State's Quality Growth Commission. Mr. Safdie developed a series of conceptual drawings and models that explored mixed-use development on Library Square with options for housing, open space, office and retail space. During these explorations the City Administration suggested increasing the amount of open space by extending into the eastern portion of Library Square. (NOTE: ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE I NLY Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft - 1 - j'1 , . •.1'‘.I I ( f I\1\iIP,Ht 1\ R1 ( 'O\1\11 NI ll 1 J 1 )i \I 1 Is . ,. ,,I III,'nr,, nl,ull;'I.rl,if III OW silt 1 .Ike t its it. lit 1 Iuc( its ha,.r.t Ilppintuntty to de,clop a ,)hi.lnl pruhl Ic space Mat „III I crinu ,I lasting 1,,,,,,I li,r the citizens of Salt Lake( its. The s ision Ini Libras Square reflects an integrated plan for the block that includes the new library.rc-use oldie existing phi is building and development of a formal plaza framed Ps the see hbrirs A nes,. building may also be built not of the existing librirs t he formal library plaza„ill transition to less formal open space on the eastern half of the block. This transition also creates view corridors from Library Square to the City and County Building through grand openings in the library's crescent wall t� ,4r.--"'`j g ,t A } to ..4+,, '+,:i tzgri r;.t r �2r- °yg �./ r rc" I a r w �(,rgxc1 ,l 4 ,r f °kFts £f • A L j�r0r'�i .441 9 ''' 4. r..;•-g?..,:gf,tjr--..Y1110-4V;6'i:0-.,,,,P,Willk, -' ; �. `J'e' -ate n i* : t};tii fjj> �_lt*:$ . 2 3 4 fiai,11?.Z47.. am' 'a 7't �1. I+.,'-iy I S}3 c�'' t. la Figure 1 Washington Square and Library Square • The library auditorium extends to the east of the crescent wall of the Main Library. This facility will be accessed from the plaza or from the interior of the crescent wall. Consistently programmed activities in the library and on the plaza will invite public participation.The goal is to enliven the plaza and make it a public destination. Civic life in the public realm,with multiple cultural opportunities available on the block every clay,will ensure safe and accessible public access to Library Square. Public investment in these amenities will ultimately stimulate private investment in adjacent areas. This plan supports development of three blockcivic center.focused on the(its ('Musty Building at Washington Square and flamed by Library Square III the east and Me S(Ir,•, xl 11;,:hrs':n( I,ulthouse to the o.est Planned Intplo,emeriti.w connections bet Teen each of these blocks,will visually enhance the civic center concept and improve the pedestrian experience. Street improvements to be I a Iv Syu IIIck I]' --- I,'I wIlt 1'I IIIIIIIIt'1 ,l._..,.IIIII t'.._I..IIII.I;li iI 1 11:111 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT 500 South on 200 East and further development of a safe,functional and aesthetically pleasing mid-block connection between Washington Square and Library Square. It is suggested this connection extend eastward as a mid-block corridor,terminating at 700 East or Gilgal Park. S l E CONTEXT Regional Setting: Downtown Salt Lake City is the cultural,economic and government center of the Wasatch Front and the State of Utah. It is a growing vibrant urban center and the focus of the world during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Regional access to the central business district(CBD)is available by an extensive bus transit system,the TRAX light rail system and main transportation arteries including Interstate freeways 1-15 and 1-80. Site: Library Square is located in Salt Lake City's urban core at the eastern edge of the CBD. Directly east of the Scott M.Matheson Courthouse and the City&County Building,Library Square is the third component(block)of the CBD's southern civic anchor. With the CBD generally located to the west and less intense commercial and residential neighborhoods to the east,Library Square acts not only as a civic amenity but also as a visual and psychological bridge between the diverse land uses that surround it. The form,scale and activities programmed in Library Square will help integrate the high-density commercial/residential uses of the CBD and East Downtown and the smaller scale,predominantly residential character of adjacent neighborhoods. Physical Environment: The topography of Library Square is relatively flat with an overall change in grade of eight feet from north to south. The site is located in a seismically active area although not directly impacted by any known faults. The climate is classified as a high desert where temperatures range from below freezing in the winter to the 100s in the summer. Because of this wide variation,physical improvement planning efforts must take into account seasonal extremes to provide visitors shelter from the elements. Library Square presents an educational opportunity for the City to exhibit a beautiful native,water-conserving landscape within the formal setting of the Civic Center. Using native landscaping on Library Square will complement the formal,traditional landscaping found on Washington Square and at the Scott M.Matheson Courthouse. Landmarks: The City&County Building,located immediately west of Library Square,is on the National Register of Historic Places and the Local Register of Cultural Resources. The City&County Building is an important historic landmark in the City,and its height and distinct form are visible throughout the City. It is a point of reference that orients pedestrians and drivers as to their locale within the CBD. The City&County Building serves as the symbol of this important Civic Center. Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft _3_ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT The redevelopment plan for Library Square maintains the most significant structure representing the 1960s public facilities that occupied the block. The existing library will function as an integral component of the future of Library Square. The intent of tins plan is to encourage the structure's renovation and its reuse for cultural and educational purposes. Existing Buildings: The current library is the only existing building on Library Square. The Court complex,the Metropolitan Hall of Justice and the Salt Lake County Jail that previously occupied the block have been demolished.The previous buildings and their uses,their architecture and the austere,hardscaped design of the old plaza discouraged consistent public use of the open spaces on the block. Views: The Wasatch Mountains dominate the views to the east and southeast. The new library is designed to take advantage of this tremendous amenity. The historic City&County Building is located directly to the west. The mid-block connection between the City&County Building and Library Square defines an important view corridor that must be respected by Library Square development. The CBD skyline and the State Capitol can be seen to the northwest. A mid-block connection to east will one day terminate at Gilgal Park,formalizing a spectacular promenade that will further establish the area as one of Utah's most grand,mixed-use residential districts. Mobility: Library Square will attract pedestrians from all directions and care must be taken to ensure a quality pedestrian experience. The vehicular nature of the City is evident from the wide streets that define the boundaries of the blocks in the downtown core. Because of right-of-way widths,pedestrians may not feel safe when crossing streets. The City has recently initiated programs to improve pedestrian safety. Clearly defined pedestrian crossings at intersections and certain mid-block locations are needed to allow safe pedestrian access to Library Square. Mid-block pedestrian pathways through Library Square will be created. These pathways will provide important visual clues and physical connections,attracting pedestrians to the block's interior. Mid-block pathways reduce distances pedestrians must travel to navigate Salt Lake City's large blocks. A well-developed bus transit system and the University light rail line will provide easy access to Library • Square. The main entrance to the new library will be located at the intersection of 200 East and 400 ;{ South,adjacent to a light rail stop Automobiles will be accommodated `1" in a subterranean public parking structure Figure 2 Library--Main Entrance accessed from 400 South and 500 South;both classified as arterial streets with connections to I-15. North and South access to Library Square is provided from 200 Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT East and 300 East,which carry significantly less traffic than the intersecting arterial streets. Zoning: Library Square,Washington Square and the Matheson Courthouse are located within the PL Public Lands zoning district and create a civic anchor in the southern portion of the CBD(see Zoning Map on the next page). The purpose of the Public Lands District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control potential redevelopment of public uses lands and facilities. A broad range of land uses are allowed by the different zoning districts surrounding Library Square. Downtown zoning districts are generally located to the north(D-1)and the south(D-2 and D-3). Residential host mixed-use zoning districts are generally located to the south(RO)and to the east(R-MU). The zoning along 400 South is CC Corridor Commercial,designed to accommodate auto-intensive strip mall development,and will be replaced with a transit-oriented zoning district to support the new University light rail line by allowing greater residential density and pedestrian oriented commercial uses. Open Space: The residential area near Library Square includes several parks and open spaces such as Liberty Park,Washington Square and Richmond Park(see Figure 4 on next page). However,when total acreage of parks and open space is compared with population figures from the 2000 Census,City and national standards indicate a significant deficit of available open space. The area bounded by South Temple and 1300 South between State Street and 1300 East has a population of 30,150. Figure 3 illustrates that this area has a deficit of almost 170 acres of open space. Figure 3 PARKS AND OPENS SPACE NEEDS EVALUATION Park Category Recommended Recommended Existing Deficit Standard (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) SLC Parks Master Plan (Acres/1,000 population) Lar c Urban 5/1,000 151 105 46 Communit 3/1,000 90 0 90 Nei hborhood _ 1.25/1,000 38 6 32 Total 279 111 168 Area bounded by State Street;South Temple;1300 East;and 1300 South Population: 30,150(2000 US Census) Library Square Block Plan lune 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -5- PLANNING COMMISSION RI-':COMMENDED DRA1'"I' ' 1 _c l ii— 9 { ; --- t _ Li 1 11 I .— --t 1 L_� t .' _ I y `T''Q''jj�i I I) 11 .1 —r- t� r ..4 r iR L i 1 R "r`3 ll • .-3,[ _ 1 r �.! L I L 'ma---.-------7---'-= - - --;..7-.------1 -.F F. y^ r� # t . JR --i ,!. .__J ', '.'"'' i''','Ly'" f :,Li '1_4. —7 t 3 !,r,Th-- t- 1 oil - , •, . -•••• ,— _ — !lei T di 1{_-__Tivi,iiif_ri,_,. ,, . .., tiritit_-___--- : \:, : :iti-1 ,, : er1' ! g. F- F ,Tim —-:] i r11 r r' ---T] ,—.1 l°! . 1 r p , 1 i l 17IC , ,- - -2.T, 4 . . -4.... _: i.:_.:.:1_,-11'n[tinrjr. — 1_, ,f,,,,,...pl.., �.�:_�1: , .1 1 _hf E.f g 0.1_ ll • --- -- -:.t I =$ _L� 'i 1 tq ,Jii rII i_ t -. - l-i-' Relationship to Existing Open Space A ——— LBRARY BLOCK MI PARKS AND OPEN SPACE June 2001 Figure 4 Relationship to Existing Open Space Library Square Block Plan � hmc 2 t,2001 Planning Commission Recorrunended Draft PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT PLANNING BACKGROIJ D This section provides background information regarding planning efforts undertaken in the area around Library Square. COMMUNITY Library Square is located in the Central Community of Salt Lake City,which encompasses a large area that extends from I-15 to approximately 1300 East and front South Temple to a southern boundary that transitions from 1700 South to 2100 South. A community plan for this area was adopted in 1974 and anticipated the future of Library Square would remain institutional. NEIGHBORHOOD The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1990, and addresses an area within the Central Community between South Temple and 600 South from 200 East to 700 East. The purposes of the Plan were to stop commercial encroachment into the area,to preserve and expand the residential character of the neighborhood and to encourage development of a mixed-use urban neighborhood. Library Square is located in an area designated as a mixed-use neighborhood; institutional land uses are anticipated to remain on the block. The East Downtown Neighborhood plan recommends establishing view corridors to protect scenic vistas of landmarks such as the City&County Building and the Wasatch Mountains. BLOCK Library Square was the focus of two planning processes during the 1990s,the MHJ Plan and the Block 37 Transit-Oriented Development Study. MHJ Plan: In 1997,Salt Lake City initiated a planning process to explore programmatic opportunities and development options on Library Square. The end result of this planning effort was development of MIIJ:Space Study and Design for City Offices and a Master Plan for the Metropolitan Hall of Justice. The Plan envisioned mixed-use development that included institutional,civic,commercial, housing and open space land uses. The City used this planning process to identify development needed to achieve the City's goals of consolidated and efficient facilities for City governmental operations. The design intent of the Plan was to provide the final link in a three block Civic Core including Washington Square and the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. This plan was not adopted by the City Council. Library Square Block Plan lune 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -7 PI..ANNING COMMISSION RF( 0MMFNI)1=ID DRAI'"I STATE ST _l ' T ��-{-1 'ti - W 0 ;t1M z L + ,C1',4.;'`:;..,.q. ,V,..:4,1,..‘,...i.4 .',7:,N-'.,,,, . 300 Eii0j - ' 1- r-11 - - t . i ___ - m0 jo0j1E -I- 400E Ti 1 I r - HIT' I J 1 I I 1 ITT-I i i 1 f fillii tri llii ,ils o iI 141. i x el Figure S Zoning Map Library Square Mock flan Ionc 21,2001 I'lannmc(onunission Itcc onuncncicd Drell y PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT Library Block Transit-Oriented Development Study: In October 1999,Peter Calthorpe and Moshe Safdie hosted a one-day workshop to identify opportunities and constraints for transit-oriented development(TOD)on the eastern portion of Library Square. The workshop focused on existing site conditions;design of the new library; reuse of the existing library building;transportation and transit issues;and opportunities and constraints of developing a mixed-use project on the block's east side. The illustrative plan envisioned development of two buildings along the 300 East frontage that would incorporate a vertical integration of mixed land uses. The northern building was proposed to include four levels;the southern building three levels. These buildings may have included office and retail uses on the lower floors with two levels of residential units above. The buildings incorporated a"pedestal" parking system that wraps the commercial and residential uses around an above grade parking structure. Subsurface parking was also contemplated below these mixed-use buildings to integrate the subsurface parking developed for the new library. Above the pedestal parking structures,open plazas were suggested for the use of residents. The study identified the ability to locate approximately 220 residential dwelling units on the east side of Library Square,a density of 40+dwelling units per acre. The study also described development of a mid-block pedestrian way traversing the block from 200 East to 300 East,centered on the City&County Building. The Library Block TOD Study identified a development option utilizing the east portion of the block for intense physical development,but not necessarily to support the three-block Civic Center concept. SITE On November 3,1998,voters of Salt Lake City approved an$84 million general obligation bond to fund construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library,a civic plaza and a subterranean parking structure on Library Square. Following the election,the City recognized the opportunity to implement the Civic Center concept and began the process of developing a plan reinforcing an emphasis on the public realm on Library Square. Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -9- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMFNDFD DRAFT LIBRARY SQL/Ass BLOCK PLAN The following sections discuss aspects of urban design as they relate to Library Square and its physical and visual connections with the Civic Center and surrounding community. Through discussion of various urban design elements,this plan proposes policy directing the future development of Library Square and its surrounding environment,and suggests a course of action to implement the vision developed for Library Square. URBAN DESIGN Scale of the Civic Center: The Civic Center is located on the edge of the CBD, where taller building heights are appropriate. The commercial and residential development to the east exhibits a much lower building height. The Civic Center and Library Square act as a bridge between these blocks and the residential mixed-use zoning districts of the surrounding neighborhood. The City&County Building will remain as the Civic Center's tallest structure within the. Both the new library and the Scott M.Matheson Courthouse respect the grand history of the City&County Building as the historic center of Salt Lake City government. Building height and land use intensity should taper to the east and south of the new library to respect the East Downtown Neighborhood's lower density commercial and residential development. The new library will be the prominent land use on Library Square and will be limited to a maximum building height of 90 feet to avoid competing with the prominence of the City&County Building,which is approximately 120 feet high at the ridgeline. To reinforce the hierarchy of uses on the block,other buildings on the block must be subordinate to the new library in scale,bulk and building height. Policy: • Support the new library as the primary focus of Library Square. Maximum building heights should step-down to the east and south of the new library. Action Item: • Adopt text amendments to the PL Public Lands zoning district to clarify building height regulations. View Corridors: The Last Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommends that height limitations throughout East Downtown should protect scenic vistas of landmarks such as the City&County Building and views of the Wasatch Mountains. Development of Library Square will create an east/west mid-block corridor that will preserve the view of the City&County Building from the east. Retaining the existing library building and developing open space on the eastern portion of the block will maintain the view of the Wasatch Mountains from the new library. Library Square Block Plan June 21.2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -10 pi I'tilic, • r ir„ nflhr( il,',A lunnls ltrirldriu horn the c,i>I,in,1 probe! Al,nintam;thi uu c i di,irLli Ctln,Idrra(IUn of new der c Iopnicni on I_ibrar, Square_ • Building heights on Library Square should be subordinate in height in the City &County Building. • The building heights on Library Square should transition in from the greater heights of the Centrtl Business District to the lower intensity commercial and residential neighborhoods. piss sr•�r y� sr ysj s r ¢« t 's'r t 4 b� _. ✓-o.� r : �- r marl '"e r P„k, t,,...-»....." _ ` ! •5 tts , r krd s;! +ref h Figure 5 Library Square Looking West Public Open Space: The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommends an urban open space system be developed to enhance visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of unity for the community. Currently,there is a general lack of walkable open space available to the residents of the community. Comparing the existing acreage of public open space in the East Downtown Neighborhood with nationally recognized standards,it is apparent that there is a deficit of over 120 acres of open space. Furthermore,within the East Downtown neighborhood and the Central Community in general,few opportunities exist to develop additional public open space. Developing open space on Library Square enhances the open and accessible environment surrounding the new library and provides open space within walkable distance of the Central Community's residential heart. In urban areas,there is often concern that open spaces and parks will attract undesirable users such as drug dealers and create an environment so intimidating that residents and other users avoid the area. There are,however,many examples around the country where such parks and open spaces have been reclaimed and new urban harks des eloped that become assets to the community,that arc safe,well used and attract new development to the area. I t n Squ.irc Mock Plan lune 21.2001 .rl„ , nm l'c. .nnucm.ir. lh��li .1,I .7,I11.11 inlluenrr the aj,pll,prr.at Iui 01 ILO 1,..1/41 Op,II.h;iie in,'I.uJr II',:J.:.I .•I Ili :,l„•n,I,arr:ln;l II1 aL'r>_the I`.l'C.in,! II, „f.ullal C n1 lan,l II,rs_ .,,,�,,;luluv. „iauun anti a nsldcnual population In pruv Idc a ill cnly-Ii,III h..ui ple>rne,-SOS CII iLsS,I week. There arc many positive aspects to developing open space on Library Square. Library Square is an integral part of the City's developing civic center and home to the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. The old library will house the Center for Community and Culture. Both of these facilities will be programming activities Con the open space on Library Square. The block is adjacent to a stop on the University light rail line that links the CBll with the University of Utah,both major destinations. The area identified in the parks and open space needs assessment(see Page 6 of the Plan)is predominately residential and lacks adequate open space. gglint 4 .>* iL 4 x I ) ' a ;-.¢ ac.- ttiF� t _ a, t ,A'k" Y-. t „,,$. i � f �i+_� t _� :1 4,yi{aS" ; -c 1 F :-fir , ,Jo . Ja J 3 F J 4 fr -C ,JyY F ii '. „,t,i i''--t-'::,1.,...,4,.1%k.--,:.4..„..',si,.'-.'-,. -s,'i.'F.-4-,-:1..t-.../-,t',.•.$,-e•„•-;4.•--,-••4;-;,--4_,.tv.,;7,.1•...:4-,7.4-,,-'0,,,:'-,-'54,.p_.P,,'.-;.'-','„-.:,-... 4 e 70, L y i r� J r•+y r" J, ,_- r i Y s ap t yi, a `g,<,i . ,r a •, 1 i{, 3 a '4- 4 Fix 4.:'. -,1-,,.....i::-:::,,-,:t:r, =.-..-.-7,---,,.--t,.,.--,-,•,„ ...,T.:,-1.2,-,,Nq.„,to t,14,4W.;,--,-.1-4 ,:'..,-,7,;,+-'-q-:A. Iffs,•. ,i.;•-!.,:t.•,-,, ,,r,,,,,.„,,,,,,,Nlif WI:if,>iv,.-',,,A4;-t,S--,..-v,-,-,;!.47,4--;_,..;,i-1,-,fi:-'.:-4dit,--:7:). i?..tiq,. ' s'r-f,p-V1-4.1' - ....-1.ac•- ---",-,--1-4:,;.t-i _, I;et •,q_ 4...,,,,,A.- _;...;.f.,,T i ir....S,-,I\i'v.4,1-aiv.. , ,,,,, ].41.-,7„1-4-,' zf i.W,_4-• r-*-:.. .� ..- xl? i a q,A., = r-:off t,e- • , I.icure 7 Library Square Illustrative Plan I Hai)Square Ii1 1,Ilan� �-- June21,2001 i'L I, 111'[•'1 .,.u.I(r�a li.niru J,'I iii PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT The pedestrian activity generated by the mix of uses in the vicinity will only increase with additional development. Furthermore, the existing land use pattern in the vicinity of Library Square will accommodate infill development and can provide additional density for a twenty-four hour population. The Library Square Block Plan does not include a detailed design of the proposed open space; it merely designates the preferred development concept for the block. A detailed design for the open space must be prepared through a process that involves all stakeholders, such as, residents, business and property owners, potential users and other community representatives. The City must identify and secure funding sources for the design, development and maintenance of the open space. The City anticipates the development of open space on Library Square will be a public/private partnership and will leverage public funds with private donations to implement the open space component of this plan. Policy: • Because of the general lack of open space within the East Downtown Neighborhood, Salt Lake City should identify open space opportunities and act to develop a variety of different types of open space to meet the diverse needs of the general public. • Coordinate open space programming efforts between the library and other uses on Library Square to promote a consistent activity level on the block that will attract a diverse range of visitors. Action Item: • Develop public/private partnerships to help fund the design and construction of the open space on Library Square. • Develop the eastern portion of Library Square as public open space that is complementary to the library plaza's design. • Develop programming and design assistance partnerships with organizations such as Red Butte Arboretum and the Utah Native Plant Society. Pedestrian Mobility: It is important to improve existing connections between the Civic Center and Library Square with the surrounding neighborhood. A mid-block pedestrian way that originates at the City & County Building will extend eastward through Library Square(to the west, although there is no mid-block crosswalk, the expression of the pedestrian way is carried through the Scott Matheson Courthouse). The City's long-term goal is to extend this pedestrian way to 900 East. Presently, the development of a continuous pedestrian way is not achievable because of the existing development pattern. However, as properties become available and the area redevelops, it is important for the City to seize the opportunity to extend the pedestrian way. Once developed, the pedestrian way will be an important pedestrian amenity that will provide links to, and build on, the success of the University LRT. Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft - 13 - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT The City must improve pedestrian connections between Library Square and the neighborhood on all sides of the library block. Mid-block connections should be developed where appropriate,including a mid-block connection to the Library light rail station on 400 South. At this time,the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)will not allow this connection to be built but once the University line is operational the City should encourage UDOT to reconsider this mid-block connection. Policy: • Incorporate pedestrian orientation and pedestrian amenities in the redevelopment plans for Library Square. • Develop convenient and attractive pedestrian linkages including mid-block connections between Library Square and adjacent blocks. • Provide convenient pedestrian and visual linkages to Washington Square. • Support the concept of developing a 450 South pedestrian corridor extending east from Washington Square through Library Square and beyond. Action Item: • Encourage the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority to allow development of a mid-block pedestrian connection between Library Square and the adjacent light rail station. • Construct the mid-block pedestrian pathway through Library Square from 200 East to 300 East and from 400 South to 500 South. • Construct a pedestrian-friendly connection between Library Square and Washington Square. Civic CENTER RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD Encouraging a Mix of Uses: Library Square is zoned PL Public Lands. Several different zoning districts,most of which accommodate higher density residential mixed-use development,regulate surrounding blocks. The only exceptions arc Washington Square(zoned PL)and the CC Corridor Commercial zoning district along 400 South. A zoning amendment petition has been initiated by the City to create a new zoning district along the 400 South corridor to accommodate transit- oriented development that will support the University light rail line by encouraging higher density residential development and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses. According to Keith Bartholomew,Associate Director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land Resources and the Environment at the University of Utah College of Law, Salt Lake City's zoning ordinance is progressive compared to ordinances in many similarly sized cities that do not allow mixed-used development. The zoning districts surrounding Library Square allow,and even encourage,vertical integration of mixed- uses(retail,office,institutional uses combined with high density residential development)within a single building. Literary Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -14- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT Consistent with the goals of Envision Utah, there has been a recent trend of developing more housing downtown. People are seeking housing that provides easy access to jobs and cultural/recreational amenities found within the CBD. The development of the new library, the University light rail line and the existence of inefficient land uses such as surface parking lots in the vicinity provide an opportunity for mixed-use development around Library Square. Housing developed adjacent to Library Square will be within walking distance of retail sales and services that are needed by residents, such as grocery stores. Several non-residential uses exist in the area will continue to be economically viable and will likely persist into the future, such as the State Education Office at 250 E. 500 S. The map on the next page identifies sites that have redevelopment potential. Many of the sites shown are currently used for surface parking. Other sites, for example along 400 South, are properties that have low density development that will attract more appropriate higher density development after the University light rail line is well established. Urban neighborhoods include a broad mix of experiences, activities and uses. The most important element needed to maintain a healthy neighborhood is housing for people of all incomes, backgrounds, ages and interest. Opportunity exists for new housing development in the East Downtown neighborhood. Salt Lake City is committed to providing a wide range of housing opportunities, including affordable and market rate housing, in a mixed-use setting around Library Square. Although there are no guarantees on timing,the development of a new zoning district can guarantee that new development in the vicinity of Library Square will include a housing component. The redevelopment of Library Square, convenient access to transit,proximity to the Civic Center, CBD, and cultural amenities make this area attractive for mixed-use housing development. Policy: • Salt Lake City should take an active role in promoting development of residential mixed-use projects surrounding Library Square. • Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing that accommodates a wide spectrum of the population, including: families, singles, seniors, and people with special needs. • Utilize available City resources such as the Housing Trust Fund and other Redevelopment Agency and Housing and Neighborhood Development Division programs to assist developers interested in constructing mixed-use housing projects in the vicinity of Library Square. Action Item: • Adopt a new zoning district that requires all new development to include a housing component. Library Square Block Plan June 21, 2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft - 15 - 1'l.:ANNING (A )MMISSION i l..('OMMTNI)1:1) I)KAI I' -�-1; ',-1-11_'Lill _J 1 11-! 1 _,_i _ STATE STREET ..� , . t ____I 1 1 200 EAST )L. I1 1 O. , � � � iffNiA ,. >L r" yr 2 r5� ' t93�` ;� r* -- II! s tA, .r..... „.L. ...„.„- -,:,,...„,,,_:,-.:: _,......,..,,,...„.!......,..._,,,....„.„. . Sena RI - i W ..000 IL] 400:EAST h--11T-I 1T11 I 1 I -11[ITT1 Rtl 1-IITI 1 1 H F 1 I i= o U3 U3 4 l �-j- ct r I-iunn IS !',Irnlml I2�use Sur. Llhnry Square Rlnckflan� ������� `June'I.2001 P l:uwinl l nnnnlslnn Rrcunullrn ICJ I)Li11 16 Pf . 1\ `v N 1 ):\ 1HSIO R1 ( .( i\1N11":NI )1.- 1 ) DID.A1• 1 St'F(_I I t(' si t a: l)t_\ I:I.(w\iF_A I (tt_-Lttot:Attt S _Ater. New Library: Hie construction of Library Square's primary anchor, a new, state-of- the-art library is underway_ Designed by internation-ally renowned architect Moshe Safdie, the building will feature six levels and over 22.5,000 square feet of space. The new hblary ill include a large glass urban room, a roof garden, multiple reading rooms vy)th fireplaces and a sloping crescent-shaped wall that will give visitors a panoramic view of the City The building was designed to take advantage of the beautiful setting with views of the Wasatch Mountains. With proper attention paid to solar orientation, the F•� building creates a comfortable environment x r � -- year-round, both inside and outside of the ��� library. The library will accommodate acc�essnry retail outlets to benefit library , : }patrons and other visitors. The main level of the crescent wall will include leasable space �. for food vendors, gift shops and other .� L ., '�' compatible uses. Upper levels of the crescent wall will be essentially transparent b _ and provide patrons tremendous views of the mountains and the City & County Figure 9 Library Square Looking Northwest Building while reading in the carrels. Reuse of Current Library: Salt Lake City envisions the current library building will be renovated and reused by cultural and educational organizations, which can collaborate to bring performances, exhibits and cultural outreach programs to the building. Organizations envisioned to occupy the current library building may share office, meeting and exhibit space and coordinate activities and programming efforts with the main library. Public Spaces: A plaza framed by the new library and the crescent wall will provide a dynamic programmable public space that will become an independent destination of residents of, and visitors to, the City. "fhe plaza will include gardens, water features and other amenities making this active public space a lasting legacy of Salt Lake City's Civic Core. I ,pi'; 'I ill': . „ I, 1 .��i,�. ,1 , • I �lltlu ; ,;;!I')�II1I a1C1 ! h�' t 1 !lId a 1 Illitlale a �Charalc planning ptoce— cicsp4n I.Ihraly Square Itiou•k Plan _ -_- -- _------_—_-- ---_-_--- - June 1. ?001 ( , u . ',nun, ' 101 Ii:.,,. 1 % PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT the open space. this process must include all stakeholders,including residents, business and property owners and community representatives. Future uses: The library is investigating the feasibility of developing a small theater complex and a lecture hall on the east side of the crescent wall. The theaters will operate in conjunction with the library and will program its activities. A building pad is reserved north of the current library adjacent to 200 East for expanded cultural opportunities. Library Square is comprised of a single ten-acre parcel. With development of other related,but separate uses and to minimize potential development conflicts,it may be beneficial to subdivide Library Square to create a separate parcel for the new library. Library Block Parking: A new subterranean parking structure will provide 670 parking stalls beneath the new library. The parking structure will be accessible from both 400 South and 500 South. The structure is intended to provide parking for the new library,the current library building and employee parking for the City&County Building. Because various land uses on Library Square and the City&County Building often generate peak parking demands at different times of the day,shared parking arrangements may increase efficiency of available parking. The zoning ordinance provides a method to determine the number of parking stalls required for multiple uses that share the same off-street parking facilities. The total parking demand may be reduced due to differences in peak parking demand for each use during the course of the day. Based on this calculation,the number of parking stalls required for Library Square will be reduced significantly. Proximity of the new library to the University light rail line will further reduce parking demand on Library Square. It is possible to construct up to approximately 350 additional subterranean parking stalls on Library Square if the need arises,and discussions are currently underway to explore timing,progammatical and financial implications for constructing additional parking with the new library. Transportation Demand Management: It is the policy of this plan to encourage transportation demand management(TDM),which attempts to lessen congestion on City streets and roads,and reduce environmental pollution associated with vehicular transportation. Through established TDM standards and regulations,Salt Lake City's preference is to build the minimum number of off-street parking stalls and to encourage use of the existing transit system and enhance pedestrian mobility. Library Square Block Plan - —_ �_ _ ------_-- June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft -18- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES TIME INVOLVED PERIOD 1. Adopt text amendments to the PL Public Lands Planning 1-5 years zoning district to clarify building height regulations. 2. Identify and secure funding sources for the design Mayor, 1-5 years and development of the open space on the eastern Management portion of Library Square. Services, HAND 3. Initiate planning process to create a design for the Planning, 1-5 years open space on the eastern portion of Library Public Square that includes all stakeholders. Services 4. Develop programming and design assistance CED, Mayor 1-5 years partnerships with organizations such as Red Butte Arboretum and the Utah Native Plant Society. 5. Develop the eastern portion of Library Square as Public 1-5 years public open space. Services, Planning, Mayor 6. Encourage the Utah Department of Transportation Transportation 1-5 years and the Utah Transit Authority to allow development of a mid-block pedestrian connection between Library Square and the adjacent light rail station. 7. Design and construct a signal controlled mid- Transportation 1-5 years block pedestrian connection between Library Square and Washington Square. 8. Adopt a new zoning district that requires all new Planning 1-5 years development to include a housing component. Library Square Block Plan June 21,2001 Planning Commission Recommended Draft - 19- SALT' �` Y A�l�a 2 7 2_.002 MARGARET HUNT _ `=' T`5 �(�1�`='tl0 D •a10 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: RockyFluhart, Officer' Chief Administrative Date: August 26, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt RE: Petition 400-00-44: A request by the Salt Lake City Administration to adopt the Library Square Block Plan. STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141) e-mail: joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Library Square Block Plan DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: The Library Square Block Master Plan, if adopted and implemented will have a range of impacts on the City budget. This plan includes a schematic design for the open space that the architectural team estimated could cost$4.3 million to construct. The Public Services Department has estimated that the annual cost to maintain open space on the eastern portion of Library Square is approximately$80,000. It is important to note that Salt Lake City will be responsible only for the maintenance of the open space on the eastern portion of the Library Square. The Salt Lake City Public Library and the tenants of the old library building will be responsible for the maintenance of the grounds associated with these buildings. DISCUSSION: Block plans and other master plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for adoption. On June 21, 2001 the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Library Square Block Plan (see Exhibit 2). The Planning Commission minutes from June 7, and June 21, 2001 are attached as part of Exhibit 6C. ISSUE ORIGIN: Mayor Anderson initiated the Library Square Block Plan process in March 2000. Originally, the Administration worked with Moshe Safdie to develop a conceptual, illustrative plan that included open space on the eastern portion of Library Square. Over the past year, the Library and the Administration have worked with Civitas Inc. to develop design alternatives for the open space. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ��� accceo rnvca PUBLIC PROCESS: The Library staff and the architectural team held two well-attended open houses at the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library on April 27, and May 31, 2000. Additionally, the Library staff met with community councils and staffed booths at various community events to inform the public about Library Square redevelopment. See Exhibit 1 for a detailed chronology of the public process. On August 17, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the illustrative Library Square Block Plan. This plan consisted of a schematic site plan that included a public plaza located between the new and older library building and introduced the concept of developing approximately four acres of open space on the eastern portion of Library Square. The transmittal was delivered to the City Council on September 5, 2000 and briefings were held on September 12, and November 14, 2000. The Council held a hearing to gather public input on January 2, 2001 and continued consideration of the plan to a later date. During a subsequent briefing on March 6, 2001, the Council requested the Administration to prepare a narrative description of the plan. The narrative version of the Library Square Block Plan was presented to the Central Community Council on June 6, 2001. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following the June 21,2001 public hearing, the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Library Square Block Plan on June 21, 2001. MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: Adoption of the Library Square Block Plan will amend the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the Central Community Development Plan. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: The General Plan provisions found in Sections 10-9-301 through 10- 9-303, Utah Code Annotated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Library Square Block Plan. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 4. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 5. MAILING LABELS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Hearing Notice and Postmark B. Staff Reports C. Agendas and Minutes 7. RELEVANT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9. ORIGINAL PETITION Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan EXHIBIT 1 CHRONOLOGY Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan CHRONOLOGY LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN October 27, 1999 Block 37 Design Workshop was held. Peter Calthorpe and Moshe Safdie led a workshop to develop a plan for the eastern portion of the Library Block. December 14, 1999 Calthorpe Associates presented the findings of the Block 37 Design Workshop. April 27, 2000 Public Open House held in the auditorium of the Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. May 3, 2000 Presentation made to the Central Community Council. May 3, 2000 Presentation made to the Avenues Community Council. May 31, 2000 Public Open House held in the auditorium of the Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. July 7, 2000 Petition 400-00-44 by Mayor Anderson requesting to the City to adopt a block master plan for the Library block was delivered to the Planning Division. July 20, 2000 Meeting with the Library Board of Directors. August 17, 2000 Meeting with the Library Board of Directors. August 17, 2000 Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 19, 2000 Presentation made at the Farmer's Market. August 24, 2000 Presentation made to the State Fairpark Community Council. August 25, 2000 Presentation made at the Hispanic Festival. August 26, 2000 Presentation made at the Chapman Library Street Fair. August 30, 2000 A request for an ordinance to adopt the Library Block Plan was sent to the City Attorney's Office. September 5, 2000 The Library Block Plan was transmitted to the City Council. September 6, 2000 Presentation made to the Sugar House Community Council. September 9, 2000 9th and 9ch Street Fair. September 13, 2000 Presentation made to the Liberty Wells Community Council. September 13, 2000 Presentation made to the East Central Community Council. September 16, 2000 Presentation made at the Avenues Street Fair. September 20, 2000 Presentation made to the Rio Grande Community Council. September 20, 2000 Presentation made to the Indian Hills Community Council. September 23, 2000 Presentation made at the Great Salt Lake Book Festival. September 26, 2000 Presentation made to the Yalecrest Community Council. September 27, 2000 Presentation made to the Poplar Grove Community Council. October 4, 2000 Presentation made to the Rose Park Community Council. November 2, 2000 The Salt Lake City Public Library submitted applications for planned development approval and for a zoning text amendment. November 6, 2000 A supplemental transmittal was submitted to the City Council. December 12, 2000 Briefed the City Council on the Library Block Master Plan. December 14, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Petition 400- 00-61, requesting text amendments to the PL District regulations, and Petition 410-509, requesting planned development approval for the new library. The Planning Commission granted the planned development approval and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the text of the PL district requirements. December 19, 2000 A request to prepare an ordinance to amend the text of the PL district was sent to the City Attorney's Office. January 2, 2001 City Council held a public hearing on the Library Block Plan. The Council deferred the decision to a later date. March 6, 2001 Briefed the City Council on the Library Block Master Plan. June 6, 2001 Presentation made to the Central Community Council. June 7, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission continued consideration until June 21, 2001 to allow staff to respond to issues raised at the hearing. June 21, 2001 Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Library Square Block Plan. July 3, 2001 Transmittal sent from Alison Weyher to Rocky Fluhart. February 28, 2002 City Council briefing regarding the conceptual open space plans developed by Civitas March 27, 2002 City Council briefing to discuss open space on Library Square. April 2, 2002 City Council adopted Resolution 10 of 2002 expressing City Council support of the concept of open space for the eastern portion of Library Square. July 8, 9, 10, 11, 2002 Open Houses held to gather input on two alternative design schemes for the open space east of the new library. August 15, 2002 City Council set a public hearing for September 3, 2002 EXHIBIT 2 LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN CITY COUNCIL DRAFT r-> . - - •z ^.t.�Eg Scar-i�,x'"'�.,�i°''�i.,.-e .-.��;,%x._`t.�k` =;_ `ati`� k,:'-'`. _.it;.; '.tea ; . i s .#..'*=yz- ", X-",- ''" .. -ni: "-- � .' � -4em `'-=;: _.. , .A. : • :;- .aXr ' r _ .. =bi'` ` i- .e . �` <a1-4-x , r,z ��_ s ate— �"_- ._.t �;7S s -- Sd --,11r-,.214.4t.,,,, -' 72,:-:--2-',.,N, °_ - : f f ti ,...,•.,,,..;..,,,.......,„,,,,,:two,,.,47,,,,.:•,5 _,,,,,,...„0„„...,,..,.:1,..z. ,,..,,,,,,,, ,,,,,„..;,,..,...„. :;:,.„,....„,„*.,\ :i . s..? X �" ,31:,_55: ,,,..4__-4,S--,4,--tew: r `• ,4 :.`--><a € z, _: ' . Y3 ... F, z�:.'. $ix-.. is. '' =:q i i ri'am � a 2, x z_ :"' ':= .c s ' '3 .F. r' d, - ' . d 444.'g'f .''4°'.z ' -`, rre -;u : '',4iz 7 , - ,Y. '- '- z `'= !?,;: g ; '14 s -te ti ;e ",2- 7 ec - ", ^ '= �~'+ R i �3` '"_ :,W. <cr<.% ter4 ;G .x`gm-Y '_nt_•-,. _ F �. --42 4h , , 5. ems a' 3 � _ 14 2- ..r,Z.. `s'''- ' is � 4 s - _e £"- +_..4' G; It - r Via : 3 _ SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 VISION 2 SITE CONTEXT 3 PLANNING BACKGROUND 7 LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN 9 SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT OF LIBRARY SQUARE 15 IMPLEMENTATION 17 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN INTRODUCTLON Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 Fast, has been the home of the main branch of the Salt Lake City Library since the early 1960s. The Library shared the block with the Metropolitan Hall of Justice,the Circuit and District courts buildings and the Salt Lake County Jail until 2000. In the fall of 2002 the new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library will open to the public and mark the beginning of a new era for this block now referred to as Library Square. The City began to formalize thoughts of redeveloping Library Square in mid-1997 when a planning effort was launched.The plan,entitled MHJ Block 37:Space Study and Design for City Offices and a Master Plan for the Metropolitan Hall of Justice (MH.I Plan)served as a point of departure for discussions leading to the current block plan. The MHJ Plan was not formally adopted but offered sonic base data for creating a vision of Library Square redevelopment. The Plan confirmed the appropriateness of developing the new library, recommended redevelopment of the existing library,and suggested development of a public plaza,cultural uses such as a museum,public and private office space,housing and additional open space. In 1998, voters of Salt Lake City passed an $84 million bond to fund design and construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library,to be built on the northwest corner of Library Square(400 South and 200 East)and the construction of a public plaza between the new and old libraries. Siting of the new library and construction of a public plaza are consistent with recommendations of the Ml1.I Plan. Internationally renowned architect and urban designer Moshe Safdie was hired to design the new library. During the design phase, the City and the Redevelopment Agency directed Mr. Saldie to explore variations of the MID Plan. During this process, a planning workshop was facilitated by Peter Calthorpe and hosted by the State's Quality G rowth Commission. M r. Safdie developed a series o f conceptual drawings and models that explored mixed-use development on Library Square with options for housing, open space,office and retail space. During these explorations the City Administration suggested increasing the amount of open space by extending into the eastern portion of Library Square. (NOTE;ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY) Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -1- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT VJS1 ON With the construction of the new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library, the City has an opportunity to develop a vibrant public space that will become a lasting legacy for the citizens of Salt Lake City. The vision for Library Square reflects an integrated plan for the block that includes the new library, re-use of the existing library building and development of a formal plaza framed by the new library. A new building may also be built north of the existing library. The formal library plaza will transition to less formal open space on the eastern half of the block. This transition also creates view corridors from Library Square to the City and County Building through grand openings in the library's crescent wall. cam- - .. -... ::, = ;4-, - -F :'"*.--- *-=',4 ,. .:=:-Z-:,::: ;:;;'.kW.!..-„,_„_ -,7.'-fa.,`'' .V,„1-, .'‘---W_.iir",-.1-1. r am# '-i.�_:',-.- _ znx":*:,-"� 7:- Y' r : C fi` "€ ` +a _ of s ';` 3.}t °& r' �.. -- ---•.-, .,;:" � 4:.< .� --- 'f" fix. z` �, ryTa�' .fit �'`.. '.:tea.•, rr"'",'""M.. 1 a i „ �&:, e - ,,jj :r! „p�-'€�, , f ,c .-„ " '*-;±;-,.a....- '�zre n,ti �'- �=E^Y s` Z; :=;a`-•'"`-' '- 'ti'e's. st � s y�-L'.'x'-'arc"�v' r pa`` "h. a .ca. .€'' ,gp ram' { '.'s a .. �:i ." �'.a' r `4 meµ , `v The library auditorium extends to the east of the crescent wall of the Main Library. This facility will be accessed from the plaza or from the interior of the crescent wall. Consistently programmed activities in the library and on the plaza will invite public participation. The goal is to enliven the plaza and make it a public destination. Civic life in the public realm, with multiple cultural opportunities available on the block every day, will ensure safe and accessible public access to Library Square. Public investment in these amenities will ultimately stimulate private investment in adjacent areas. This plan supports development of a three-block civic center, focused on the City & County Building at Washington Square and framed by Library Square to the east and the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse to the west. Planned improvements to connections between each of these blocks will visually enhance the civic center concept and improve the pedestrian experience. Street improvements to be considered include planting of mature trees on a street median between 400 South and 500 South on 200 East and further development of a safe, functional and aesthetically Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -2- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT pleasing mid-block connection between Washington Square and Library Square. It is suggested this connection extend eastward as a mid-block corridor, terminating at 700 East. SITE CONTEXT Regional Setting: Downtown Salt Lake City is the cultural, economic and government center of the Wasatch Front and the State of Utah. It is a growing vibrant urban center and was the focus of the world during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Regional access to the central business district (CBD) is available by an extensive bus transit system, the TRAX light rail system and main transportation arteries including Interstate freeways I-15 and I-80. Site: Library Square is located in Salt Lake City's urban core at the eastern edge of the CBD. Directly east of the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse and the City & County Building, Library Square is the third component (block) of the CBD's southern civic anchor. With the CBD generally located to the west and less intense commercial and residential neighborhoods to the east, Library Square acts not only as a civic amenity but also as a visual and psychological bridge between the diverse land uses that surround it. The form, scale and activities programmed in Library Square will help integrate the high-density commercial/residential uses of the CBD and East Downtown and the smaller scale, predominantly residential character of adjacent neighborhoods. Physical Environment: The topography of Library Square is relatively flat with an overall change in grade o f eight feet from north to south. The site is located in a seismically active area although not directly impacted by any known faults. The climate is classified as a high desert where temperatures range from below freezing in the winter to the 100s in the summer. Because of this wide variation, physical improvement p lanning efforts must t ake i nto a ccount seasonal extremes t o provide visitors shelter from the elements. Library Square presents an educational opportunity for the City to exhibit a beautiful native, water-conserving landscape within the formal setting of the Civic Center. Using native landscaping on Library Square will complement the formal, traditional landscaping found on Washington Square and at the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. Landmarks: The City & County Building, located immediately west of Library Square, is on the National Register of Historic Places and the Local Register of Cultural Resources. The City & County Building is an important historic landmark in the City, and its height and distinct form are visible throughout the City. It is a point of reference that orients pedestrians and drivers as to their locale within the CBD. The City & County Building serves as the symbol of this important Civic Center. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -3- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT The redevelopment plan for Library Square maintains the most significant structure representing the 1960s public facilities that occupied the block. The existing library will function as an integral component of the future of Library Square. The intent of this plan is to encourage the structure's renovation and its reuse for cultural and educational purposes. Existing Buildings: The current library is the only existing building on Library Square. The Court complex, the Metropolitan Hall of Justice and the Salt Lake County Jail that previously occupied the block have been demolished. The previous buildings and their uses, their architecture and the austere, hardscaped design of the old plaza discouraged consistent public.use of the open spaces on the bock. Views: The Wasatch Mountains domnate the views to the east and southeast. The new library is designed to take advantage of this tremendous amenity. The historic City & County Building is located directly to the west. The mid block connection between the City & County Building and Library Square defines an important view corridor that must be respected by Library Square development. The CBD skyline and the State Capitol can be seen to the northwest. A proposed mid bock pedestrian connection at 450 South will one day extend through Library Square to 700 East, creating a spectacular promenade that will further establish the area as one of Utah's most grand, mixed-use residential districts. .-_---s..-- , -• ... .,,..----' A _. - , _ . . __----- I;ir-„',':,',..-.,fa--_',;,'--.--.,''7,'.-,- &�-`` a.,r.r s t � 4;-.-:::-' fi'',",7kf"1E irI1... 3 stet '` € 'fir 'R` Ey ; , . � § - e 3 ,� 3 a �.- ' t .,r-n. n t. ,47-, . ;.74 ri -..-_, -...„67 Wig ' .�,13 ..„ - � # � - ,, ..,._-,-,-4- Mobility: Library Square will attract pedestrians from all directions and care must be taken to ensure he quality pedestrian experience. The vehicular nature of the City is evident from the wide streets that define the boundaries of the blocks in the downtown core. Because of right-of-way widths, pedestrians may not feel safe when crossing streets. The City has recently initiated programs to improve pedestrian Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -4- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT safety. Clearly d efined pedestrian crossings a t intersections and c ertain mid-block locations are needed to allow safe pedestrian access to Library Square. Mid-block pedestrian p athways through Library S quare w ill b e created. T hese pathways w ill provide important visual clues and physical connections, attracting pedestrians to the block's interior. Mid-block pathways reduce distances pedestrians must travel to navigate Salt Lake City's large blocks. A w ell-developed bus transit sy stem and the University light r ail I ine w ill provide easy access to Library Square. The main entrance to the new library will be located at the intersection of 200 East and 400 South, adjacent to a light rail stop. Automobiles will be accommodated in a subterranean public parking structure- accessed from 400 South and 500 South; both classified as arterial streets with connections to I-15. North and South access to Library Square is provided from 200 East and 300 East, which carry significantly less traffic than the intersecting arterial streets. Open Space: The residential area near Library S quare includes several parks and open spaces such as Liberty Park, Washington Square and Richmond Park (see map on next page). However, when total acreage of parks and open space is compared with population figures from the 2000 Census, City and national standards indicate a significant deficit of available open space. The area bounded by South Temple and 1300 South between State Street and 1300 East has a population of 30,150. The following table illustrates that this area has a deficit of almost 170 acres of open space. Parks and Opens Space Needs Evaluation Park Category Recommended Recommended Existing Deficit Standard (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) SLC Parks Master Plan (Acres/ 1,000 population) Large Urban 5 / 1,000 151 105 46 Community 3 / 1,000 90 0 90 Neighborhood 1.25 / 1,000 38 6 32 Total 279 111 168 Area bounded by State Street; South Temple; 1300 East;and 1300 South Population: 30,150(2000 US Census) Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -5- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT _ . • . al At., ie .,.......a.-E 'Oka, 1 5C,11. rsi,,,,..• SELLS EASi PARR f. . 'I. si re.,-n E f Rmer.s. VICTORY *Ann,. '..4"." .4 i Z3- PARR 2. ro , 1 :•''- I / H t a > ,......,al., ' •*- .'. if ' g 2 i A• ut 11,IF 5 K )10.454-RNGTEM T. SQUARE 1 1 i .. .,..,..t I r., fi L E; 0 ..,„c„ EILLOON 5 .. .PARK t• fi .. , _ RICIRASYJD PARK il• cc.,,,, ..,,,...A.-... ' - -.R.:,,-, if•-``.. ? :3 'TAUTER x R . i • . tf-.30 FARX f., '.. ..s,-• ,.. 2: I.MG 11. it 11 GALAGI-IER .1 i , 4 1 r.. '1. ... 17. i, ARUM/R.1 .., i •t. '•T.• -719,5 WELL PARK I tl, :. .i VAN NESS PARR R 2 Z , .,,..3--,.... '-'44 •• 1 •', 3, E i r— . .1 „ .P. .T VICHAIVa .: .• FL, . . . ',-,•,,,,LIBEREY' t , i. I ,.L£ ....:E'i : • LIS.W..... 3 ' ..:,-:..,,PARiti,,z4::-..,,.>_--• - --ti-I 7--Y..? 40,..v.4•0 tE.RW•,..A..‘ ..;;;;, RA.A:,..Ay 1 ' , ' ' i..-f-,..,-,g,k,:f-',Wit.,_14.1-':.,•,4-:--;,--- f-2. ,,,, • .i ' 1--- L_t--- yr--f..--:-.,-2.-!,-.- , _ , .._ : • ,.--;,-;•...... . i ,..f-,i-,-'q i'.'"--.:13,.:7; ;:-,.;.--...5 : .- .: -_ 5'5K VC,. RiGLEWOOR FALA ,Rno-R-Irm 1 5 . . . , 3'FJ:4..-',,',.e,,,,,E;..t'-','....,'t,_.."'• . : — • , „... '-- ..Y-111 Ea,. ,. 2- If''.::::<,..;-.. .tilf..-,,V,` 'n - . f i.' ir,-;-1:- ",..'-1.7):,,-,:-.,,,,, . - , 3 ':.--;- "-..',:,ii.:.::-:,,' f- •--I, t - 8 ,,,,,, ,.. ;„,,,..2.7-iz,,:01-1q r-:;:2' :,-.: . I , , Relationship to Existing Open Space N --- UBRARY BLOCK A al PARKS AND OPEN SPACE June 2001 Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -6- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT Zoning: Library Square, Washington Square and the Matheson Courthouse are located within the PL Public Lands zoning district and create a civic anchor in the southern portion of the CBD. The purpose of the Public Lands District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control potential redevelopment of public uses lands and facilities. A broad range of land uses are allowed by the different zoning districts surrounding Library Square. Downtown zoning districts are generally located to the north (D-1) and the south (D-2 and D-3). Residential host mixed-use zoning districts are generally located to the south (RO) and to the east (R- MU). The zoning along 400 South is CC Corridor Commercial, designed to accommodate auto-intensive strip mall development. L!LI__I L ' ! i ► L 300 S L i i 1 ,1 of ► [ LIBRARY r BLOCK ii GC_ !---- 400 S r' cc-CORRIDOR COMV8Th 8 DISTRICT D 1-CENTRAL SOSDYLSB DI81'RKT I { D9-DOWNTOWN SUPPORT (� D3-DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE [ /RESIDENTIAL -PUBLIC NDS to --, t 1 C ARY RE8IDEST ./I.DCED USE R11735-MODERATE DENSITY W PL C' E I/ULTIFAW1LT "'I - R4jj��jj�JER U�T _.-- RYF-15-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY j� RO-RP8IDERflAL/OFF1Ci E _ i I ` T- . HR3-BAECLtL DEVLLOPl1E11T to YJ ; i 0: PATTERN RESIDENTIAL 0 L 500 S RO � I RO I `t-�- t�� t - _ _ I RMF35 �' -D-2 D-3 �;�I� �a ���aL w N k-E 600 S Sob I.1e Cx,Rsua'v a Dh+wcn — - I I I r �hk IN ormsam a>.�a PLANNING BACKGROUND This section provides background information regarding planning efforts undertaken in the area around Library Square. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -7- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT COMMUNITY Library Square is located in the Central Community of Salt Lake City, which encompasses a large area that extends from I-15 to approximately 1300 East and from South Temple to a southern boundary that transitions from 1700 South to 2100 South. A community plan for this area was adopted in 1974 and anticipated the future of Library Square would remain institutional. NEIGHBORHOOD The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1990, and addresses an area within the Central Community between South Temple and 600 South from 200 East to 700 East. The purposes of the Plan were to stop commercial encroachment into the area, to preserve and expand the residential character of the neighborhood and to encourage development of a mixed-use urban neighborhood. Library Square is located in an area designated as a mixed-use neighborhood; institutional land uses are anticipated to remain on the block. The East Downtown Neighborhood plan recommends establishing view corridors to protect scenic vistas of landmarks such as the City& County Building and the Wasatch Mountains. BLOCK In 1997, Salt Lake City initiated a planning process to explore programmatic opportunities and development options on Library Square. The end result of this planning effort was development of MHJ: Space Study and Design for City Offices and a Master Plan for the Metropolitan Hall of Justice. The Plan envisioned mixed-use development that included institutional, civic, commercial, housing and open space land uses. The City used this planning process to identify development needed to achieve the City's goals of consolidated and efficient facilities for City governmental operations. The design intent of the Plan was to provide the final link in a three block Civic Core including Washington Square and the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. SITE On November 3, 1998, voters of Salt Lake City approved an $84 million general obligation bond to fund construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library, a civic plaza and a subterranean parking structure on Library Square. Following the election, the City recognized the opportunity to implement the Civic Center concept and began the process of developing a plan reinforcing an emphasis on the public realm on Library Square. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -8- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN The following sections discuss aspects of urban design as they relate to Library Square and its physical and visual connections with the Civic Center and surrounding community. Through discussion of various urban design elements, this plan proposes policy directing the future development of Library Square and its surrounding environment, and suggests a course of action to implement the vision developed for Library Square. URBAN DESIGN Scale of the Civic Center: The Civic Center is located on the edge oft he CBD, where taller building heights are appropriate. The commercial and residential development to the east exhibits a much lower building height. The Civic Center and Library Square act as a bridge between these blocks and the residential mixed-use zoning districts of the surrounding neighborhood. The City & County Building will remain as the Civic Center's tallest structure within the. ae sz.�,,.c a wp nn.Ar ,�ac s '_ `,"e °'b x# _ n"ptrc "i;a�' rfl t a s i' sirs + -:d` .. . • - :4 ire S- �&' R- a '"om' ^1e��65�,�Y. .is+'s4_',y-&^ "�'?C.titY' !`!'vn.,-}>V�: rt gay �•k - - _ = i';s• - kr+� .w;,:_`ta�'-.€=ra`-".>_-;c;„. ''"«?'£� � = .t.` sa. Both the new library and the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse respect the grand history of the City & County Building as the historic center of Salt Lake City government. Building height and land use intensity should taper to the east and south of the new library to respect the East Downtown Neighborhood's lower density commercial and residential development. The new library will be the prominent land use on Library Square and will be limited to a maximum building height of 90 feet to avoid competing with the prominence of the City & County Building, which is approximately 120 feet high at the ridgeline. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft -9- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT To reinforce the hierarchy of uses on the block, other buildings on the block must be subordinate to the new library in scale, bulk and building height. Policy: • Support the new library as the primary focus of Library Square. Maximum building heights should step-down to the east and south of the new library. Action Item: • Adopt text amendments to the PL Public Lands zoning district to clarify building height regulations. View Corridors: The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommends that height limitations throughout East Downtown should protect scenic vistas of landmarks such as the City & County Building and views of the Wasatch Mountains. Development of Library Square will create an east/west mid-block corridor that will preserve the view o f t he City & C ounty Building from the e ast. R etaining the existing 1 ibrary building and developing open space on the eastern portion of the block will maintain the view of the Wasatch Mountains from the new library. Policy: • Protect the view of the City & County Building from the east and protect views of the Wasatch Mountains through design consideration of new development on Library Square. • Building heights on Library Square should be subordinate in height to the City & County Building. • The building heights on Library Square should transition in from the greater heights of the Central Business District to the lower intensity commercial and residential neighborhoods. Public Open Space: The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommends an urban open space system be developed to enhance visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of unity for the community. Currently, there is a general lack of walkable open space available to the residents of the community. Comparing the existing acreage of public open space in the East Downtown Neighborhood with nationally recognized standards, it is apparent that there is a deficit of over 120 acres of open space. Furthermore, within the East Downtown neighborhood and the Central Community in general, few opportunities exist to develop additional public open space. Developing open space on Library Square enhances the open and accessible environment surrounding the new library and provides open space within walkable distance of the Central Community's residential heart. In urban areas, there is often concern that open spaces and parks will attract undesirable users such as drug dealers and create an environment so intimidating that residents and other users avoid the area. There are, however, many examples around the country where such parks and open spaces have been reclaimed and new urban Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 10- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT parks developed that become assets to the community, that are safe, well used and attract new development to the area. Factors that influence the appropriate use of parks and open space include: the design of the open space and its edges, the type and intensity of adjacent land uses, accessibility, location and a residential population to provide a twenty-four hour presence seven days a week. There are many positive aspects to developing open space on Library Square. Library Square is an integral part of the City's developing civic center and home to the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. The old library will house the Center for Community and Culture. Both of these facilities will be programming activities for the open space on Library Square. The block is adjacent to a stop on the University light rail line that links the CBD with the University of Utah, both major destinations. The area identified in the parks and open space needs assessment (see Page 5 of the Plan) is predominately residential and lacks adequate open space. Crescent wail -- - - sunken Garden-, - n Mid block Entry _ ,- Y Lro y Ent b- ' .-,.n. - !. ' •' - Pla4 �""�� :t - e ``_ k The Corner Gardens Library Rooftop Garden % P ' - y . � ?+1 ny s ,4 , '.- - •. ,e TT'`'''..- ' Crescent Tree Promenade LibraryCmidren s Garden _ -' i-F.'t ;s` _' ;'t;x+' t ;11 b jjt_< L_- - sz..:�...;-`mot._ �T'>,;' - >: =u ` `fix-- ,h =+` `, _, library%ara Garden :�` �- .q.-tray.i M11rd-0lock Entry .Ts eater Piara 1"ip -f� I / >s' <_' '. Crescent Tree Promenade Mid''lock Cro walk'.. _`i: z, .1< ,,: ,,r_=.r �`.-.1,- . -..:-_ Imptovemenis A 1-`-___.::.s::... C��,,-,„i .1i 4 � ' _ .uaw-1y• / r fix;,.-'�:�-,.,�s-- xxr yx.;,_ � ..-��� �jC`.>'`' --� Mid block Entry x':� � --n:� r.. '-� •-•�-/f�H -+�:s� ,•� $ xs -The Cotner Gartlem a Ceniei for xrerKe:T ,-t{ '- ma's _ �'� t Art antl Cupirte� �z a"'��`-` - -y _ ,s�... may. �g �:� y, :.- � i 'sue- ': q,:��`Ki4�- V'•�-�c .�, - -'-�ems_ '. If `--'S�', i .- ' <�st ?3`'- .s.r=AY4s"g ` - ,•-'"` sfre Mid block Entry The pedestrian activity generated by the mix of uses in the vicinity will only increase with additional development. Furthermore, the existing land use pattern in the vicinity of Library Square will accommodate infill development and can provide additional density for a twenty-four hour population. The Library Square Block Plan does not include a detailed design of the proposed open space; it merely designates the preferred development concept for the block. A Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - ll - CITY COUNCIL DRAFT detailed design for the open space must be prepared through a process that involves all stakeholders, such as, residents, business and property owners, potential users and other community representatives. Policy: • Because of the general lack of open space within the East Downtown Neighborhood, Salt Lake City should identify open space opportunities and act to develop a variety of different types of open space to meet the diverse needs of the general public. • Coordinate open space programming efforts between the library and other uses on Library Square to promote a consistent activity level on the block that will attract a diverse range of visitors. Action Item: • Develop the eastern portion of Library Square as public open space that is complementary to the library plaza's design. • Develop programming and design assistance partnerships with organizations such as Red Butte Arboretum and the Utah Native Plant Society. Pedestrian Mobility: It is important to improve existing connections between the Civic Center and Library Square with the surrounding neighborhood. A mid-block pedestrian way that originates at the City & County Building will extend eastward through Library Square. The City's long-term goal is to extend this pedestrian way to 700 East. Presently, the development of a continuous pedestrian way is not achievable because of the existing development pattern. However, as properties become available and the area redevelops, it is important for the City t o seize the opportunity to extend the pedestrian way. Once developed, the pedestrian way will be an important pedestrian amenity that will provide links to, and build on, the success of the University LRT. The City must improve pedestrian connections between Library Square and the neighborhood on all sides of the library block. Mid-block connections should be developed where appropriate, including a mid-block connection to the Library light rail station on 400 South. At this time, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will not allow this connection to be built but once the University line is operational the City should encourage UDOT to reconsider this mid-block connection. Policy: • Incorporate pedestrian orientation and pedestrian amenities in the redevelopment plans for Library Square. • Develop convenient and attractive pedestrian linkages including mid-block connections between Library Square and adjacent blocks. • Provide convenient pedestrian and visual linkages to Washington Square. • Support the concept of developing a 450 South pedestrian corridor extending east from Washington Square through Library Square and beyond. Library Square BIock Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 12- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT Action Item: • Encourage the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority to allow development of a mid-block pedestrian connection between Library Square and the adjacent light rail station. • Construct the mid-block pedestrian pathway through Library Square from 200 East to 300 East and from 400 South to 500 South. • Construct a pedestrian-friendly connection between Library Square and Washington Square. CIVIC CENTER RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD Encouraging a Mix of Uses: Library Square is zoned PL Public L ands. Several different zoning districts, most of which accommodate higher density residential mixed-use development, regulate surrounding blocks. The only exceptions are Washington Square (zoned PL) and the CC Corridor Commercial zoning district along 400 South. According to Keith Bartholomew, Associate Director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land Resources and the Environment at the University of Utah College of Law, Salt Lake City's zoning ordinance is progressive compared to ordinances in many similarly sized cities that do not allow mixed-used development. The zoning districts surrounding Library Square allow, and even encourage, vertical integration of mixed- uses (retail, office, institutional uses combined with high density residential development)within a single building. Consistent with the goals of Envision Utah, there has been a recent trend of developing more housing downtown. People are seeking housing that provides easy access to jobs and cultural/recreational amenities found within the CBD. The development of the new library, the University light rail line and the existence of inefficient land uses such as surface parking lots in the vicinity provide an opportunity for mixed-use development around Library Square. Housing developed adjacent to Library Square will be within walking distance of retail sales and services that are needed by residents, such as grocery stores. Several non-residential uses exist in the area will continue to be economically viable and will likely persist into the future, such as the State Education Office at 250 E. 500 S. The map on the next page identifies sites that have redevelopment potential. Many of the sites shown are currently used for surface parking. Other sites, for example along 400 South, are properties that have low density development that will attract more appropriate higher density development after the University light rail line is well established. Urban neighborhoods include a broad mix of experiences, activities and uses. The most i mportant element needed t o m aintain a h ealthy n eighborhood i s h ousing for Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 13- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT people of all incomes, backgrounds, ages and interest. Opportunity exists for new housing development in the East Downtown neighborhood. Salt Lake City is committed to providing a wide range of housing opportunities, including affordable and market rate housing, in a mixed-use setting around Library Square. Although there are no guarantees on timing, the development of a new zoning district can guarantee that new development in the vicinity of Library Square will include a housing component. The redevelopment of Library Square, convenient access to transit, proximity t o the Civic C enter, C BD, and cultural a menities m ake t his a rea attractive for mixed-use housing development L_-_ I I---. J. ' L !- i I III ' 1-` 1 Li Vie` LIDRARY frp. , :.y. . �: LOCK _ f otential Keuse -- - = = Sites '� LIBRARY ��- 111 BLOCK LiLgla - € ' st Fog — oeo Nib- FA 'maw . I a, 600 SOUTH S.IC L k,Oty P7unrvny°"eo" G htfam.t n sue., rTh fTTL —1 t�—�—� ?n rr �ryZ° Policy: • Salt Lake City should take an active role in promoting development of residential mixed-use projects surrounding Library Square. • Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing that accommodates a wide spectrum of the population, including: families, singles, seniors, and people with special needs. • Utilize available City resources such as the Housing Trust Fund and other Redevelopment Agency and Housing and Neighborhood Development Division programs t o a ssist d evelopers i nterested i n c onstructing m ixed-use housing projects in the vicinity of Library Square. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 14- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT Action Item: • Adopt a new zoning district that requires all new development to include a housing component. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT OF LIBRARY SQUARE New Library: The construction of Library Square's primary anchor, a new, state-of- the-art library is underway. Designed by internation-ally renowned architect Moshe Safdie, the building will feature six levels and over 225,000 square feet of space. The new l ibrary w ill include a 1 arge glass urban room, a r oof g arden, multiple reading rooms with fireplaces and a sloping crescent-shaped wall that will give visitors a panoramic view of the City. The building was designed to take advantage of the beautiful setting with views of the Wasatch Mountains. With proper attention paid to solar orientation, the building creates a comfortable environment year-round, both inside and outside of the library. A zoning amendment has been requested to allow the 1 ibrary t o 1 ease space for accessory retail outlets t o benefit 1 ibrary patrons and other visitors. The main level of the crescent wall will include leasable space for food vendors, gift shops and other compatible uses. Upper levels of the crescent wall will be essentially transparent and provide patrons tremendous views of the mountains and the City and County Building while reading in the carrels. Reuse of Current Library: Salt Lake City envisions the current 1 ibrary building will b e renovated and reused b y cultural and educational organizations, which c an collaborate to bring performances, exhibits and cultural outreach programs to the building. Organizations envisioned to occupy the current library building may share office, meeting and exhibit space and coordinate activities and programming efforts with the main library. Public Spaces: A plaza framed by the new library and the crescent wall will provide a dynamic programmable public space that will become an independent destination of residents of, and visitors to, the City. The plaza will include gardens, water features and other amenities making this active public space a lasting legacy of Salt Lake City's Civic Core. This plan envisions development of public open space on the eastern portion of Library Square that may include public gardens, picnic tables, shade trees and landscape features that create small informal spaces that could be used to stage performances or other social gatherings. The City must initiate a separate planning process to design the open space. This process must include all stakeholders, including residents,business and property owners and community representatives. Future uses: The library is investigating the feasibility of developing a small theater complex and a lecture hall on the east side of the crescent wall. The theaters will operate in conjunction with the library and will program its activities. A building pad Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 15- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT is reserved north of the current library adjacent to 200 East for expanded cultural opportunities. Library Square is comprised of a single ten-acre parcel. With development of other related, but separate uses and to minimize potential development conflicts, it may be beneficial to subdivide Library Square to create a separate parcel for the new library. " am . . T " - i_• . Ilab �x .$ 3 -r>'.= ,r, 11,a - ra„-` ^:,-z. _: , "f - _; ^.f>..-� _ .§ 'x:'`�'_,. = �-" =.` r ,fir1. .: �uy .w - _ . : +se`TK '.£-�•,��'>:, :a�". _ x S.-'yjt J�*t'Zv•.,r�' :i..,, a ,- _ - t��`�s._. �t� y1 - r. -~f a�v. = c Yam,,� _ - -=- h�`�, ; iY '�c-c -'a �'k'i {�=. -' _y "`i�zR, _�"0 '. ' Y.,- =. 4Cj.-t =. _ -'`y"^r3 'ioY y ` - < ��,r-"'; .. .ti �g�:?ffry�.,_;,�-.•; •?=g 2:,r y - s. •is sa. ?.;`�" .'`:;s;'4-_-`,�._'`N''� .. 44 -''"s`; .r .2 �'0," -.•„-:.z:'"4.- .> _ •- :, 'q � --T"-sT .>, - t� -1-4?-- a:,za_ ,Asa' `•4=s < -`" J � 1, ��: �`y . '.q f "' it �i:'' A :�.f.. 9 4• ''.ilk---' ¢ .�', - - f p Jam, -. Wirt.. ,f '�* 1 4-„$ N .,- ::r- ' s`� = c -ice.... .,•• '.y::ryc-. Y'. • ,i. ,.... , „ ' 16,c.:!„-.--4,-,-.. --,4--vi, -—. .,..4.4. *m..''' 7.: 4, ,,,,t,..; ,..,,-- 1,,zat.., zi ; ,. _ - 1..L. _ ;_ ^-> �. :..�- I ny. 1' `:IN -tip - I :12,I, ` ;a•,-.�, <;: „ki ..ate=a --*-,.. 5,71,,<,,,..<:wA _..,w`.... ..._-;.... w't,,,,�''t--- -_-::' ["X._4,- : tv r:..t`f=' ice"-�>n=x�'�` .`.ii'�p� . x_...� �'=kw^4- .--..'.`,..er .,:.,- . rT-�.i:.�..Y.,-.;'.2.y .: f Library Block Parking: A new subterranean parking structure will provide approximately 600 parking stalls beneath the new library. The parking structure will be accessible from both 400 South and 500 South. The structure is intended to provide parking for the new library, the current library building and employee parking for the City & County Building. Because various land uses on Library Square and the City & County Building often generate peak parking demands at different times of the day, shared parking arrangements may increase efficiency of available parking. The zoning ordinance provides a method to determine the number of parking stalls required for multiple uses that share the same off-street parking facilities. The total parking demand may be reduced due to differences in peak parking demand for each use during the course of the day. Based on this calculation, the number of parking stalls required for Library Square will be reduced significantly. Proximity of the new library to the University light rail line will further reduce parking demand on Library Square. Transportation Demand Management: It is the policy of this plan to encourage transportation demand management (TDM), which attempts to lessen congestion on City streets and roads, and reduce environmental pollution associated with vehicular transportation. Through established TDM standards and regulations, Salt Lake City's Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 16- CITY COUNCIL DRAFT preference is to build the minimum number of off-street parking stalls and to encourage use of the existing transit system and enhance pedestrian mobility. IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES TIME INVOLVED PERIOD 1. Adopt text amendments to the PL Public Lands Planning 1-5 years zoning district to clarify building height regulations. 2. Identify and secure funding sources for the design Mayor, 1-5 years and development of the open space on the eastern Management portion of Library Square. Services, HAND 3. Initiate planning process to create a design for the Planning, 1-5 years open space on the eastern portion of Library Public Square that includes all stakeholders. Services 4. Develop programming and design assistance CED, Mayor 1-5 years partnerships with organizations such as Red Butte Arboretum and the Utah Native Plant Society. 5. Develop the eastern portion of Library Square as Public 1-5 years public open space. Services, Planning, Mayor 6. Encourage the Utah Department of Transportation Transportation 1-5 years and the Utah Transit Authority to allow development of a mid-block pedestrian connection between Library Square and the adjacent light rail station. 7. Design and construct a signal controlled mid- Transportation 1-5 years block pedestrian connection between Library Square and Washington Square. Library Square Block Plan September 3,2002 City Council Draft - 17- EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Enacting the Library Square Block Plan) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING THE LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN, AFFECTING BLOCK 37,SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY PLAT"A",AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE EAST DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN,PURSUANT TO PETITION NO.400-00-44 AND SECTION 10-9-303,UTAH CODE ANN. WHEREAS,the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,and the Planning Commission have held public hearings as required by Section 10-9-303,Utah Code Ann.;and WHEREAS,the City had previously adopted the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the Central Community Development Plan,both of which include Block 37,Salt Lake City Survey Plat"A";and WHEREAS,due to the relocation of the state courts and other government functions which were previously located on Block 37,the construction of a new library and the redevelopment of substantially all of Block 37,the City Council finds that it is appropriate under Section 10-9-301,et seq.,Utah Code Ann.,and in the best interest of the City,to enact a master plan for the redevelopment of Block 37; NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1.That the Library Square Block Plan,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A",shall be and hereby is enacted as an amendment to the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the Central Community Development Plan for Block 37,Salt Lake City Survey Plat"A"pursuant to Section 10-9-303,Utah Code Ann. The City Recorder is hereby directed to retain three certified copies of the Library Square Block Plan, as it pertains to this geographic area, for the public records. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon 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 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER $- Z� - oz Uy (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Enacting Library Square Block Plan - Aug 23, 2002.doc 2 EXHIBIT 4 CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan The City Council hearing notice was delivered to the City Recorder's Office on August 16, 2002 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LIBRARY BLOCK PLAN The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting the Library Square Block Plan. The plan describes the City's vision for future development of Block 37, located between 200 East and 300 East, from 400 South to 500 South. The City Council will hold a public hearing: Date: Time: Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City,UT *Please enter the building from the east side* You are invited to attend this hearing, ask questions or provide input concerning the topic listed above. If you have any questions, contact Joel Paterson at 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 am. and 5:00 p.m., or send e-mail to joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assitive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24 hour advanced request. EXHIBIT 5 MAILING LABELS Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan The mailing labels were delivered to the City Recorder's Office on August 16, 2002 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 6A Hearing Notice and Postmark 6B Staff Reports: June 7, 2001 June 21, 2001 6C Agendas and Minutes Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan EXHIBIT 6A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan The original postmarked notice was presented in an earlier transmittal. A photocopy is attached Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan KE` STEPHEN A.GOLDSMITH SALT 1�`is EOM(V�i ION Rp55 C.ANDERSDN iquNuo DHELLov COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FHB,. BRENT B.W1LDE PLANNING DWISIBN NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING LIBRARY SQUARE MASTER PLAN The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan. Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 Fast. The public hearing will be held: Date: Thursday,June 7,2001 Time: 6:10 pm Location: Room 126,City and County Building 451 S.State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 The proposed plan is available for review at the Planning Division office located in Room 406 of the City and County Building. For more information call Joel Paterson at(801)535-6141 or sent e-mail to joeLpaterson@ci.slc.ut.us. We comply with ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon 24=hour notice. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH L1411 I TELEPHONE:BO)-535-7757 EA%:BO1-535-6174 NOTICE OF HEARING Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room 406 • Salt Lake City UT 84111 ("C.. 7 ! •‘, ! 1_43 if • '--- A 1_ c_41,-V•C • — ' _ _ _ .. vysi.ryg:%;};hap//w-,cw.slc-classifieds.corn/Mai .=OR&KW4=84CL=GEN&Results=25&image x=6&image.3 SL Tribune May 24, 2001 eaheArattalfrearibune eliveral Stet L*Ne Tribune-: Ctassatieus.-." Autunauaee& ...Jobs& '" `ioaes&.- turret Using 'p:Help Ctesk&' kunt Page Nee Meier Ttansnoatation 9nnioyment Real Estate information `Qaaestfan;:.-:; Classified General Print Basket Items `co ' Em• Print Basket New Search ®, PC`g TC REARING LIprary$piiaYB Master Plan-The Salt • Laketlk+y 4la;ning tornmission will hatd•a public hearing to COJISOer nt# ;lJv recommendations to the City Council on the Libl^ary$ aoe Rham, Library Square is located between 40,0 South m $,Q . yrnh P,rorn.200 East to$00 East The public hearing will tizs b ,04,1 4, Cbu.rsctay,lure.7 2001 Time 6.:10 pm Location; v w Ropp,1 1 044, N p gf,-Cou>igty Building 4 t S State Street Salt Lake � Ityyn V1' 1;1' The{tieoposed plan is eva�:lla,ole for review at the , c? k�w&'�a` . Pl n iii ,1Nl ion office located in Room 406 of the City and mx ctwoiy$ufldrrng •fir more information-calf-)oel Paterson at(801) 5 ;5-6414 gr,end e-mail to joel.patersom@ci sic,ut,us.We comply ,<<t y,,,0n=" ;; wlthe4,P4yil4allnes.'Ass 1stlu,8'listeningfde,,cl.ces.and Interpretive eetYilc ��` 4rp f:dsd upora'24-hour notice. I of2 ucserm.vews uass r eas j treneral Search Results wysiwyg.1124/http:Uwwwslc-clzssi;reds.corrsMa:...OR&KW4=&CL=GEN&Results=25&:mage.x=12&tmag Deseret News May 24, 2001 Deseret News Si``"'lrs�e ' OeseretNom Classifieds •Autamo:ue&: Jabs& Nantes& 'Advertising . HelpOesk&•' • Front Page 'Main Menu Ranspottauon Employment Neal Estate Information 'OuesSats Classified General Search Results Displaying 1-1 of 1 f t Print Basket I I New Search d: 4-Print Basket Items t ram° Np7t E©F F]UB L MBRfi,,q Lr, .rr4ry Agilare Master'Plan The t M1f K� $ � �a4 e414 R,l 47 tm9 � #!Il•il;1#14.putiito,bearing 10 Coktslder maklixg lecommendlonstb•the City Council on 4�'�y%M ;41i�t` • the ry 1,.lbs Squire Plan;L,lbreyy$quire is located between r � 400 Guth.and.$0,0 Sapi;ln froltn QQ east,to 300.East.The pUlgic hlearing Will be Field Date;.Thursday,June 7, 2001. .. Trale:.6: .10 pm Location Room 1;?&r,City and County B,uifdin,g 451 S.-state Street Selt lake City, UT 84111 The i4 ppgpoeed plan is available for review at the Planning Division glli ,;l.00et d in-Room 4406 oP,the CIt1y and Countj Building. f aexi P' t1,7?° rnf0-nr.'001,i Q III'•7D.el' Rl#3.iV at(BD1) 535-6141 or Q etnnau:to jiggt,wen plc rjt us,We comply with A .d.°,4j,0el nes,: sJatf e.11 tertls wiogs:and Interpretive �etstLe will b' 'trQNiktigi<CL p ZY«i tLtr'rtgtiCe. Print Basket II New Search I of EXHIBIT 6B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS JUNE 7, 2001 JUNE 21, 2001 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS JUNE 7, 2001 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Library Square Block Plan Petition 400-00-44 June 7, 2001 REQUEST Petition 400-00-44, a request by Mayor Anderson to develop and adopt a block plan for Library Square, the block located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. The Final Review Draft of the Library Square Block Plan is attached as Exhibit 1. COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW / PUBLIC PROCESS: The following list is a summary of the public process that preceded this public hearing. Exhibit 2 is a chronology that provides a detailed account of the public process undertaken for the Library Square Block Plan. • Community Council: The Library Square Plan was presented to the Central Community Council on June 6, 2001. • Open Houses: The development of Library Square, including the new library and the space concept for the eastern portion of the block have been discussed at two open houses, both held at the library. The first open house was held on April 27, 2000, and the second was held May 31, 2000. • Outreach Program: The Salt Lake City Public Library staff conducted an extensive outreach program last year and made presentations to community councils, and at various public activities such as street fairs and the Farmers Market. • Planning Commission: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the illustrative plan prepared by Moshe Safdie on August 17, 2000. Minutes of this hearing are attached as Exhibit 3. • City Council: The City Council was briefed on several occasions and held a public hearing to gather public input on the illustrative plan on January 2, 2001. Minutes of this hearing are attached as Exhibit 4. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 T June 7,2001 by Mayor Anderson GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Mayor Anderson on behalf of Salt Lake City Affected area: Block 37, located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: PL Public Lands Existing Master Plan Policies: Adoption of the Library Square Block Plan will set the direction for future development of this block. East Downtown Neighborhood Plan (adopted 1990) • Expected Land Use: Institutional • Central Community Plan (adopted 1974) • Expected Land Use: Government and other public uses Urban Design Plan (adopted 1990) • The Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan encourages the development of open space, pedestrian amenities and visually pleasing environments. Background: Salt Lake City has been considering the redevelopment of the Library Block for a number of years. • The Engineering Division initiated a study to determine the future space needs of the City and presented a block plan to the Planning Commission in 1995. • In 1998, a bond election passed to fund the design and construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library on this block. The new library, designed by an internationally renowned architect Moshe Safdie, will open in 2002. • In 1999, grants from the Quality Growth Commission and Envision Utah enabled the City to contract with Calthorpe Associates to prepared an illustrative conceptual plan for the development of the eastern portion of the Library Block. This plan envisioned a transit oriented mixed-use development with office space and residential uses in buildings ranging from two to four stories in height. • In 2000, Mayor Anderson initiated a process to develop the Library Square Block Plan. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 2 June 7,2001 by Mayor Anderson IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES • The Central Community Master Plan is being updated. The 1974 Central Community Master Plan designated Library Square for government and other public buildings. The 1990 East Downtown Neighborhood Plan presents a consistent recommendation for institutional land uses. The land uses proposed by the Library Square Block Plan and the present PL Public Lands zoning are consistent with both of the earlier plans. • An analysis of open space needs in the vicinity of Library Square indicates a deficit of over 140 acres of open space. Parks and Opens Space Needs Evaluation Park Category Recommended Recommended Existing Deficit Standard (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) SLC Parks Master Plan (Acres/ 1,000 population) Large Urban 5 / 1,000 137 105 32 Community 3 / 1,000 82 0 82 Neighborhood 1.25 / 1,000 34 6 28 Total 253 111 142 Note: Population 1990- 27,400 persons Area bounded by State Street; South Temple; 1300 East; and 1300 South • There is a need for additional housing in the Community. Similar to the East Downtown Plan and the Central Community Plan, The Library Square Block Plan identifies the need for mixed-use housing in this area. • The proposed development of the Library Block is consistent with the goals of the Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan that generally encourages the development of open space,pedestrian amenities and visually pleasing environments. DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT A. The proposed Library Square Block Plan is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan, the East Downtown Plan and the Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan. B. The proposed Library Square Block Plan will create needed open space in the Central Community. C. The proposed Library Square Block Plan encourages the development of housing in the area surrounding Library Square. D. The construction of the new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library will help solidify the development of a civic center at the south end of the central business district. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 3 June 7,2004 by Mayor Anderson RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Library Square Block Plan Respectfully submitted, Joel G. Paterson,AJCP Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Library Square Block Plan - Final Review Draft 2. Chronology 3. Planning Commission Minutes (August 17, 2000) 4. City Council Minutes (January 2, 2001) 5. Public Comments Staff Report,Petition Number 900-00--44 4 June 7 2001 by Mayor Anderson EXHIBIT 1 LibrarySquare Block Plan Final Review Draft, June 7, 2001 Available upon request Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 June 7,2001 by Mayor Anderson ExHIBIT 2 Chronology Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 June 7 2001 by Mayor Anderson CHRONOLOGY LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN October 27, 1999 Block 37 Design Workshop was held. Peter Calthorpe and Moshe Safdie led a workshop to develop a plan for the eastern portion of the Library Block. December 14, 1999 Calthorpe Associates presented the findings of the Block 37 Design Workshop. April 27, 2000 Public Open House held in the auditorium of the Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. May 3, 2000 Presentation made to the Central Community Council. May 3, 2000 Presentation made to the Avenues Community Council. May 31, 2000 Public Open House held in the auditorium of the Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. July 7, 2000 Petition 400-00-44 by Mayor Anderson requesting to the City to adopt a block master plan for the Library block was delivered to the Planning Division. July 20, 2000 Meeting with the Library Board of Directors. August 17, 2000 Meeting with the Library Board of Directors. August 17, 2000 Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 19, 2000 Presentation made at the Farmer's Market. August 24, 2000 Presentation made to the State Fairpark Community Council. August 25, 2000 Presentation made at the Hispanic Festival. August 26, 2000 Presentation made at the Chapman Library Street Fair. August 30, 2000 A request for an ordinance to adopt the Library Block Plan was sent to the City Attorney's Office. September 5, 2000 The Library Block Plan was transmitted to the City Council. September 6, 2000 Presentation made to the Sugar House Community Council. September 9,2000 9th and 9`h Street Fair. September 13, 2000 Presentation made to the Liberty Wells Community Council. September 13, 2000 Presentation made to the East Central Community Council. September 16, 2000 Presentation made at the Avenues Street Fair. September 20, 2000 Presentation made to the Rio Grande Community Council. September 20, 2000 Presentation made to the Indian Hills Community Council. September 23, 2000 Presentation made at the Great Salt Lake Book Festival. September 26,2000 Presentation made to the Yalecrest Community Council. September 27, 2000 Presentation made to the Poplar Grove Community Council. October 4,2000 Presentation made to the Rose Park Community Council. November 2, 2000 The Salt Lake City Public Library submitted applications for planned development approval and for a zoning text amendment. November 6, 2000 A supplemental transmittal was submitted to the City Council. December 12, 2000 Briefed the City Council on the Library Block Master Plan. December 14, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Petition 400-00-61, requesting text amendments to the PL District regulations, and Petition 410-509, requesting planned development approval for the new library. The Planning Commission granted the planned development approval and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the text of the PL district requirements. December 19, 2000 A request to prepare an ordinance to amend the text of the PL district was sent to the City Attorney's Office. January 2, 2001 City Council held a public hearing on the Library Block Plan. The Council deferred the decision to a later date. March 6, 2001 Briefed the City Council on the Library Block Master Plan. June 6, 2001 Presentation made to the Central Community Council. EXHIBIT 3 Planning Commission Minutes (August 17, 2000) Staff Report,Petition Number 400-30 44 June 7,2001 by Mayor Anderson . Goldsmith answered that he would like the Planning staff along with himself to . . thro..h various parts of the report to ensure it is consistent with other master . an docum- .ts. Also would like to address some of the broader issues such as •- open space cor '•or and how to deal with it long-term. Mr. Smith state. •e had two reactions. His thought as he went throu. • it, was that what we are already doin• we don't seem to be doing very well. For e . ple, he mentioned that when he walked ough Liberty Park a couple of week .go the beautiful water features were sitting there 'ry. He asked what kind of lun. • is this to have spent that kind of effort and then be not :- able to activate it at a ti •- of year when it should be. Mr. Smith stated that another thoug • is when h- ead the agenda and found this item listed, he expected to see huge numb- s of •-ople in attendance at the meeting, but was shocked to find such a few people in aN-ndance. Ms. Funk stated she really liked Ms. •cDonald's .ea that local groups are more aware of their needs, problems, and d- ires than anyon- else. She really=feels this issue should go back to the local gr..ps. Mr. Daniels added he -els the one thing everyone is trying o say is this document is just not ready. Ms. Funk re •mmended that the hearing on this Petition be continu-, to some later . date after e Planning Director and staff have had an opportunity to revie -t and make some -commendations. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms, Donald, Mr_ .onas and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye." Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The •.otion ssed. Public Hearing — Metropolitan Hall of Justice Block (a.k.a. Library Square) — The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council on a revised Metropolitan Hall of Justice/Library Block Plan (200 East to 300 East and 400 South to 500 South) presented by the Salt Lake City Library Staff and project architects. Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report. Salt Lake City has been considering redeveloping the library block for a number of years. in the mid-1990s a local architectural firm, EDA was hired to develop a block plan and in 1998 a successful bond election was held. The proceeds from that bond are being used to finance the construction of a new library. As a result Moshe Safdie & Associate Architects was hired to design the library and explore different variations of the EDA plan that was developed for the block. Since they have been brought on board, they have attended various public meetings, open houses, and workshops. Since that time there have been several variations for the development of the block. Mr. Paterson continued by stating that last fall some concepts were developed involving mixed-use development on the eastern portion of the block which included office space Planning Commission Meeting 26 August 17,2000 and residential uses. However, Mayor Anderson has brought in a new vision for the S eastern portion of this block, and Mr. Moshe Safdie and his team have developed an open-space concept to go along with the library. Mr. Paterson asked that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to hold public hearings and adopt the block plan for this block and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Paterson then turned the time to Mr. Safdie and his team to go through the details with the group. in addition to Mr. Safdie, Mr. Steve Crane of Valentiner Crane Architects was in attendance. Mr. Safdie displayed a model of the current plan for the library block. He began his presentation by explaining that the project started with the master plan that had been adopted. They then began working on the design combining housing, office space and possibly a hotel. A number of schemes were developed with the objective being that the area-would not only house the library but serve as a major public meeting place, both indoor and outdoor. Some months ago in brainstorming sessions with the Mayor and others, it-was:decided - to go back to first principles. How would one make this block the most effective .and - have a public gathering place which would become the focal point in terms of the full-life of the City? Certain elements needed to be considered. in addition to shops; an . auditorium, and library; it would be nice to have a small cinema complex. It's important, • to put the existing library to good use to complement the activities. As a result of these sessions, it was concluded that the entire block should be an actively programmed open space plus the facilities which are already programmed and to combine it with the City and County Building with its open space to make a two-block park. The scheme that is currently being proposed shows the entire block as a series of open spaces in addition to the library, the existing library, piazza, cinema, etc. The eastern side is designed as an active part of the picture. Mr. Safdie pointed out that in building the complex, different grades will be dealt with. The grades build up gently towards a level one floor above the street level so that as you walk up you are looking down through the open part of the wall into a public piazza lined with shops, cinema, theaters, etc. The other corner gently terraces upward with an area for playgrounds, picnic area, and reading garden. The curved wall is designed as a climbable wall that can be ascended to reach the roof of the library that will also be a public park. Part of it is open to the library where patrons can come out of the library and sit outside. it would also serve as a place for receptions and other functions. This plan provides for a very urban, active piazza with a reflecting pool, a fountain, cafes, shops and, hopefully, a major restaurant a various public groups seeking to utilize the existing library. - - --- Planning Commission Meeting 27 August 17,2000 Ms. Short asked for an explanation of the shops. Mr. Safdie explained that the initial ro ram included the accomm odation 9 of the kind of retail cafes that would be compatible with the library. He said he thinks this was partially inspired by the library at Vancouver where an urban room was created which housed a book shop, three or four levels of cafes and fast food, has a bank machine, and a post office. This provides services for not only library patrons but people planning on meetings at library square. Mr. Safdie explained that the shops are quite shallow, being only 15 feet deep. They have brought people in to share ideas concerning the kind of retail shops that would be appropriate for a complex of this kind. He added that the retail and entertainment are important to give the complex the kind of life it should have. Mr. Daniels asked about ADA issues with the project. Mr. Safdie responded that all ADA requirements have been addressed in spirit and by letter of the law. There is one element of the plan which is complex as far as ADA is concerned, and that is the climbable wall. Public access has been provided to the roof -- by elevators. However, the climbable wall itself will be restricted to Those who are able to climb the wall.. Throughout the remainder of the building and the plaza there are - - ramps and elevators provided for access_ -. . Ms. McDonald inquired if the amphitheater being where it is will there be reflections off that wall? Mr. Safdie explained that the angle of the sun in the summer is such that it will not present a problem. Also he explained that the wall is designed so that sound will travel through it. He further explained that there are details which still have to be worked out. Ms. Funk asked if the wall would obstruct the view of the City and County Building? Mr. Safdie explained that there is a large 30-foot high opening that would provide visual access to the City and County Building. Mr. Jonas asked what purpose the building to the north of the existing library, as shown on the model, would serve? Mr. Safdie said without knowing what will take place as to future users, from the point of view of spatial definition of the public piazza, it would be good to provide space for other entities such as additional shops or perhaps a small museum. Mr. Crane apologized for not having more drawings available for this meeting, but another meeting was scheduled for this night, and the other drawings were taken there. He did explain there is a scale model on display at the library. Planning Commission Meeting 28 August 17,2000 Mr. Smith told the group he is missing the housing that was included in the original plan, • but doesn't see any way to bring it back. However, he feels it is incumbent upon the City to deal with the loss of housing. He pointed out that now people would have to drive their cars to get this beautiful park. He pointed out that in Vancouver hotels and offices were developed in the areas surround the new library. So there is potential for building housing is great. Planning mechanisms need to be put in place to guide the development. Mr. Safdie said rather • than losing housing, the opportunity to develop housing around the perimeter is increased. Mr. Goldsmith added that there have been many conversations, not only with Mr. Safdie and his team, but with the Administration and many of the Planning staff who were dubious about getting rid of this mixed use on the eastern edge of the site. He said the Mayor is clearly committed to the opportunity for development of the surrounding blocks. Mr. Crane pointed out that rather than losing one street-of housing that looks to a piazza, three streets of housing that look to a piazza and park are being-gained-: = :c Mr. Smith stated he would really encourage a broader band of trees on.200 East. He . said he may even go so far as to suggest there be only one lane!of traffic in each - direction on 200 East. - Mr. Goldsmith suggested these ideas should be passed on directly to the City Council. Mr. Daniels inquired as to what the plan is for the existing library building. Mr. Safdie explained there is a proposal and several submissions have been received. Mr. Goldsmith said these are being handled by the RDA rather than the Planning Commission. Mr. Jonas asked how much parking will be available in the area. Mr. Safdie answered there will be parking beneath the building which will accommodate 700 cars. The parking area does not extend below the area where the trees are planted because the root system of the trees needs the area to expand. Mr. Daniels asked if there is parking provided for very large vehicles like buses. Mr. Safdie explained there is a small trucking dock. The parking is basically for cars. Mr. Daniels suggested this should be considered in order to accommodate the bus loads of children that come to the library. At a very minimum a drop-off place should be provided. • Planning Commission Meeting 29 August 17,2000 . Mr. Crane explained there is a book drop-off that would probably hold two buses which turns in off the back. The passengers could be dropped off there and the buses could exit from there. Mr. Smith asked that members of the public who would like to speak to please come forward. Cindy Cromer addressed the group and stated this is an exciting and interesting building. She asked how much of this block is going to be used in showcasing this building? What is the best use of this block to enhance this design? She stated there are some other things that should be looked at. Her concern focuses on spatial requirements of the City that need to be addressed. She pointed out that the City is currently paying rent in various buildings around town to house City Departments. Two that she mentioned are Transportation and Engineering. She pointed out that these two entities are in different buildings with miserable parking, and it deters people who are trying to participate in City government from obtaining . • • information. It also deters the City employees from communicating with each other,and -- she has abundant examples-of employees failing to communicate with each other. She- stated that within one week this summer, there were no less than five instances during .. which she told City employees and City representatives things that she thought they- already knew. These people learned them from her. • She feels the City is looking itself into leases to pay rent in other buildings indefinitely, and this is being done regardless of what the market conditions are. She continued by stating that in addition to the issues of rent and poor communications, there is the maintenance issue. Since there isn't money to maintain neighborhood parks,where is the money coming from to maintain this new park? Is this money coming the from the bond money which has been approved? Did she commit to maintain this park in perpetuity? She asked the Commission to think about these things. The last issue Ms. Cromer addressed is the number of open spaces we currently have downtown. She listed the LDS Church properties, Block 57, Washington Square, the Gateway, Pioneer Square, City Creek and Memory Grove. She said there also may be others, but these are the major ones she noted. It is her feeling that the City should look at how much open space we now have and how we are going to pay to maintain this new area. Can we afford this?She asked that the Commission think about these things. She continued by stating that the City really needs to look at the issue of departments being scattered all over the City. Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the Commission. Ms. Funk she has thought about some of the same concerns Ms. Cromer mentioned. She stated there is not question that this complex is a magnificent structure,but cost is Planning Commission Meeting 30 August 17,2000 a real concern for her. She wonders if this is the appropriate time to do this. Are we S better served to spend money at Pioneer Park rather than develop this area? The Mayor has been concerned about too much retail space in the City, and now we are adding more retail. Mr. Jonas asked if the bond is adequate to cover these costs? Mr. Smith asked Ms. Tessman to come forward and address these issues. Ms. Tessman stated the costs related to the east side of the block are not included in the bond and never were anticipated to be included. Originally, it was known that once the demolition occurred, a certain investment would have to be put into completing the area to the east. There is about $1.2 million in the actual proposed budget that was intended towards what was originally a very simple plan of doing this. Want to make sure that there is a very thorough discussion as to whether or not that $1.2 million is better invested in moving the project forward rather than spending it to replace the excavation on the east side of the block. She continued by saying that from the beginning the Library and those responsible for - - =_ the bond money wanted to make sure there was athoughtful approach as to what the.-- := -s- • . future development would be on the east side of the block. She said that when Mayor Anderson came into office, he felt the idea of a green space - • should be more fully explored as an alternative to the original mixed-use proposal. However, there was never any intention that the bond money would include that part of the project. Se continued by saying they feel very comfortable that the budget they have is going to able to accomplish not only what was originally planned. Won't know what the actual contract is on the contract until closer to January or February. It is possible that if some of the budget estimates have been conservative, we may actually have some latitude within the bond to invest in what the City Council chooses to do. Hopeful there could be some investment from the bond beyond the $1.2 million, but she wanted to be very careful about that because the first priority is completing what was originally committed to the public to do. She also pointed out that the RDA, in their last budget discussions, agreed that if the revenues associated with the RDA exceeded the anticipated revenues this year, the City Council, acting as the RDA, agreed they would devote at least $2 million of that additional revenue to support this project. Mr_ Crane explained that the shops proposed for this development wouldn't really be competing with other downtown retail. They are just small shops such a deli, a copy center. This is actually an opportunity for mom and pop shops to come back. Ms. Tessman added that this space is also being looked at for community purposes_ Actually, when these spaces are developed the Library will be asking for proposals from groups like literacy organizations_ She reported she has been working with the Center ilIV______ _ Planning Commission Meeting 31 August 17,2000 for Peace and Justice. They have thought that some of the space in the wall might be comfortable for Community Councils. The Councils have asked at the Library to provide them with space in the current facility. So the space is not being looked at solely as shops but as what can be done to enhance the idea of community and community services here. Ms. Tessman pointed out that the building on the west side, as a function of the library project, has office space comprising about 8,000 sf of space that will be available for lease. This space was intended for future growth of the library, but it has already been mentioned to Salt Lake City Corporation that there might be office spaces in that facility that could create some of the proximities and relationships that would prove helpful. Ms. Short added she felt the amphitheater might lend itself to some donor who would like to put their name on it depending upon what kind of dollars we are talking about. Ms. Tessman answered that right now for what we are seeing, in very conceptual form, has been costed out at somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million. She stated that $1.2 is potentially there because of the bond budget, if the City Council, acting- as the RDA, is realistic about potential revenues, there is-potentially another $2 million.- it-is-her feeling: the as a construction project, the money is not too far away, but maintenance is a very . - : important factor. This is not property the library would feel a responsibility to maintain: Mr. Goldsmith reported there have been conversations with the Mayor and Ms. 10 Tessman regarding this being a joint venture opportunity with such groups as Red Butte Arboretum. This could become an ancillary facility for them. In addition there are other opportunities that can be explored. Ms_ McDonald stated this a very attractive block and has the potential for a dynamic number of people to utilize this facility. However, how does this new center relate to Pioneer Park, Gateway, Gallivan Plaza and all of those areas fit into the overall vision of the City. What is the policy? Mr. Goldsmith replied that that is a very important question, and the Planning Department is going before the City Council on September 12, 2000, to ask that same question. He stated he has been asked about the Pioneer Park problem. The RDA Board has approved the acceptance of proposals for the park, yet the City Council has not approved the development. So the question remains, can we develop something on Pioneer Park and what are the design parameters, how much of the park can be used? Do you get rid of the entire green space? Where is public domain going to be? These are questions that have to be answered by the City Council. Mr. Jonas moved that in the matter of the Metropolitan Hall of Justice block, aka Library Square, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, based on the findings of fact, a positive recommendation on the Plan that has been presented. Planning Commission Meeting 32 August 17,2000 Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald and 1111 Ms. Short voted "Aye." Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. Ma Mas ro, ecretary • ip_________ _ _____ Planning Commission Meeting 33 August 17,2000 EXHIBIT 4 City Council Minutes January Z, 2001 ) Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00—4 June 7 2001 by Mayor Anderson PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH JANUARY 2. 2031 42. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting ar ordinance enacting the Library Block 37 Master Plan,as an amendment to the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the Central Community Development Plan,pursuant to Petition No.400-00-44. ACTION: Councilmember Rogan moved and Counc;lmem'ber 3uh'.er seconded to close the public hearing and refer the issue to a future date,which motion carried,all members present voted aye. DISCUSSION: Jim Webster,Salt Lake City,said he was concerned about funding more open space and park maintenance. He said he questioned park expansion when current open space problems had not been resoived. He said he had a number of questions concerning Block 37 which he would present to the Council in written form, (T 00-4) The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. EXHIBIT 5 Public Comments See Exhibit 8 of Library Square Block Plan Transmittal Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-44 June 7,2001 by Mayor Anderson PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS JUNE 21, 2001 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT` .f & aA ITT GORPOR WDN ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: ANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FRO OEL PATERSON,AICP SUBJECT: LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN DATE: JUNE 21, 2001 On June 7, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Library Square Block Plan. After closing the hearing, the Commission moved to continue consideration of the plan to a later date to allow staff to respond to various issues. This memorandum responds to the issues listed below. RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING 1. Ability to provide bousing around Library Square: The Administration is concerned about the lack of open space and the need for additional housing in the East Downtown neighborhood. The need for additional housing and open space are not mutually exclusive. The City is capitalizing on an opportunity to develop new open space in the Central Community. Instead of loosing an opportunity to develop housing,the proposed redevelopment of Library Square, the Administration believes, will be a catalyst for new mixed-use housing development. As seen in other areas of the country, the development of quality open space attracts new development. With the location of Library Square between the CBD and the University of Utah,redevelopment of Library Square, availability of underutilized property and the close proximity of cultural amenities and transit, this area is prime for redevelopment. The City has been approach by interested parties seeking to develop housing on the block to the east of Library Square. To help assure that new development in the area will include housing,the Administration is proposing to develop a new zoning district to be applied in appropriate locations that will require housing as a part of any new development. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 134111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-61 74 Timing is always a critical element and cannot be controlled by the City. Whether housing was proposed on Library Square or on surrounding blocks, the timing of housing development is market dependant. 2. Need to provide a mix of housing types and costs: Page 15 of the Plan includes policy statements that encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing that accommodates a wide spectrum of the population including families, singles, seniors, and people with special needs. 3_ Minimum residential density required to successfully support open space: In urban areas, there is often concern that open spaces and parks will attract undesirable users, such as drug dealers, and create an environment so intimidating that residents and other potential users avoid the area. There are, however, many examples around the country where such parks and open spaces have been successfully reclaimed and new urban parks developed that become assets to the community that are safe, well used and attract new development. There is no recognized standard for the minimum residential density required to create safe parks and open space. A residential population to provide a twenty-four hour presence seven days a week certainly is important but this is only one of the variables that interact to create successful parks and open spaces. Some of the variables include: the design of open space and its edges, type and intensity of adjacent land uses, accessibility, visibility, and location. There are many positive aspects to developing open space on Library Square. Library Square is an integral part of the City's developing civic center and home to the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. The old library will house the Center for Community and Culture. Both of these facilities will be programming activities for the open space on Library Square. The block is adjacent to a stop on the University light rail line that links the CBD with the University of Utah, both major destinations. The area identified in the parks and open space needs assessment (see Page 6 of the Plan)is predominately residential and lacks adequate open space. The pedestrian activity generated by the mix of uses in the vicinity will only increase with additional development. Furthermore, the existing land use pattern in the vicinity of Library Square will accommodate infill development and can provide additional density for a twenty-four hour population. 4. Utilization of nearby parks if the Library Square open space is developed: The City does not expect a significant change in the utilization rates of other nearby parks because there is an existing lack of open space in the surrounding community. 5. Concern about developing an amphitheater on the east side of Library Square: The Library Square Block Plan presents only the concept of developing open space on the eastern portion of the block,not a final design. The amphitheater is a potential use but no decision has been made to construct one on the northeast corner of the block. The City must initiate a separate planning process to develop detailed plans 2 for the open space. This process will include all stakeholders, including residents, business and property owners and community representatives. 6. Was there a commitment by the City to transfer the housing potential lost by the development of a senior center on 700 South to the Library Block? The Corradini Administration had a vision of developing residential mixed-use on the library block. However, Staff is not aware of a formal agreement to develop housing on Library Square in exchange for a zoning amendment to accommodate the senior center on 700 South. 7. Pedestrian improvements around Library Square: A concern was raised that the Library Square Block Plan does not go far enough to encourage pedestrian mobility. The plan includes policy statements (see Pages 15 and 16) identifying the need to provide connections between Library Square and the surrounding blocks. Mid-block connections should be developed where appropriate, including a mid-block connection to the Library light rail station on 400 South. At this time, the Utah Department of Transportation will not allow this connection to be built but once the University line is operational the City should encourage UDOT to reconsider this mid-block connection. The Plan also discusses the need to support the development of a 450 South pedestrian corridor extending from Library Square to 900 East and to incorporate pedestrian amenities on Library Square. The issues raised at the hearing resulted in revisions to the Library Square Block Plan (attached)_ The revision are identified by underlining additions and deletions. The attached table indicates the sections and pages of the plan that where revised. Recommendation: The City Administration recommends that the Planning Commission accept the proposed revisions and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Library Square Block Plan. 3 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN SECTION PAGE(S) Open Space 5, 6 Public Open Space 11, 12 and 13 Pedestrian Mobility 13, 14 Encouraging a Mix of Uses 15, 17 Public Spaces 18 Implementation 19 4 EXHIBIT 1 LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN FINAL REVIEW DRAFT, JUNE 21 , 2001 AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST EXHIBIT 6C PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS / MINUTES JUNE 7, 2001 JUNE 21, 2001 Transmittal for Petition 400-00--44 Library Square Block Plan PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS/MINUTES DUNE 7, 200,1 Transmittal for Petition 4OO-00-44 Library Square Block Plan I NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,June 7,2001,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, May 17,2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-30,by Salt Lake City Corporation,requesting the adoption of an ordinance enacting Chapter 21 A.43 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intended to allow temporary uses,such as festivals, bazaars,outdoor sale events,carnivals,and other special events to exist on private property within the boundaries of North Temple,200 East,900 South,and Interstate 15 from October 15,2001 to March 31,2002. The current ordinance limits the duration of most of these temporary uses to 14 days. (Staff:Wayne Mills at 535-6173) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m.-Petition No.400-00-44,Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing 11+ to consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan, Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. (Staff: Joel Paterson at 535-6141) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.-Petition#410-539,by Owest Wireless,requesting a conditional use to install a wireless telecommunication antenna disguised as a 60 foot high flag pole at approximately 877 West 400 South in a Neighborhood Commercial"CN"zoning district. (Staff: Ray McCandless at 535-7282) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-04 by Joan and Ryan Williams requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of March Street(located approximately 2955 West between 500 South and the railroad tracks(approx 570 South), and to declare the street as surplus property. (Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-532 by Ed McDonald requesting that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission consider an Industrial Planned Development consisting of six lots and utilizing a private street for frontage of four of the proposed lots. The proposed Margaret Street Business Park is located at approximately 1809 South 900 West in a M-1 zoning district. (Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:05 p.m.-Petition#410-534 by Utah Repair and Service Corporation requesting planned development approval for property located at 1075 South Redwood Road and 1040 South Dalton Avenue in a Commercial Corridor(CC)Zone. The proposal includes widening Dalton Avenue to 25 feet(of which 20 feet would be travel way), Dalton would remain a private street,and a total of two lots would be created from four existing lots. No specific uses are proposed at this time.(Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) g. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:15 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-29 Indian Hills Plat G Subdivision Amendment,by Bill Bang requesting preliminary subdivision approval for an amendment to the Indian Hills Plat G Subdivision to create a new building lot located at 2735 East Comanche Drive,in a residential R-1-12,000 zoning district. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) h. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m.-Petition No.400-00-29 and Case 410-507 Carrigan View Phase 2 Annexation and Planned Development,by Scott Turville requesting annexation,zoning and planned development and foothill subdivision approval of a six lot development proposal served by a private street,located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Of the 35 acres owned by Mr.Turville,the proposal includes housing on 5 acres and open space preservation of the other 30 acres.(Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. Tenant mailing notice discussion b. Snow cone/Taco vending regulation discussion Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE S i Fat I,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 5:45 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (Berger)Arnold, Stephen Boyden, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Aria Funk, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, Kent Nelson, Andrea Barrows and Judi Short. Craig Manger was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Wayne Mills, Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, Craig Hinckley and Margaret Pahl. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith and Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde were excused. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as - cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the - Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jonas moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 17, 2001, subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested. Ms. Short seconded the motion_ Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms_ Short and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No_ 400-00-44, Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a "+ public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan_ Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. Mr. Paterson presented the staff report. Adoption of the Library Square Block Plan will set the direction for future development of this block. East Downtown Neighborhood Plan (adopted 1990) • Expected Land Use: Institutional Central Community Plan (adopted 1974 • Expected Land Use: Government and other public uses Urban Design Plan (adopted 1990) • The Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan encourages the development of open space, pedestrian amenities and visually pleasing environments. BACKGROUND Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 7,2001 Salt Lake City has been considering the redevelopment of the Library Block for a number of years. • The Engineering Division initiated a study to determine the future space needs of the City and presented a block plan to the Planning Commission in 1995. • In 1998, a bond election passed to fund the design and construction of a new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library on this block. The new library, designed by an internationally renowned architect Moshe Safdie, will open in 2002. • In 1999, grants from the Quality Growth Commission and Envision Utah enabled the City to contract with Calthorpe Associates to prepared an illustrative conceptual plan for the development of the eastern portion of the Library Block. This plan envisioned a transit oriented mixed-use development with office space and residential uses in buildings ranging from two to four stories in height. • In 2000, Mayor Anderson initiated a process to develop the Library Square Block Plan. • The Central Community Master Plan is being updated. The 1974 Central Community Master Plan designated Library Square for government and other public buildings. The 1990 East Downtown Neighborhood Plan presents a consistent recommendation for institutional land uses. The land uses proposed by the Library Square Block Plan and the present PL Public Lands zoning are consistent with both of the earlier plans. • An analysis of open space needs in the vicinity of Library Square indicates a deficit of over 140 acres of open space. Parks and Opens Space Needs Evaluation Park Category Recommended Recommended Existing Deficit Standard (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) SLC Parks Master Plan (Acres / 1,000 population) Large Urban 5 / 1,000 , 137 105 32 Community 3 / 1,000 82 0 82 Neighborhood 1.25 I 1,000 34 6 28 Total 253 111 142 Note: Population 1990 - 27,400 persons Area bounded by State Street; South Temple; 1300 East; and 1300 South • There is a need for additional housing in the Community. Similar to the East Downtown Plan and the Central Community Plan, The Library Square Block Plan identifies the need for mixed-use housing in this area. • The proposed development of the Library Block is consistent with the goals of the Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan that generally encourages the development of open space, pedestrian amenities and visually pleasing environments. FINDINGS OF FACT A. The proposed Library Square Block Plan is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan, the East Downtown Plan and the Salt Lake City Urban Design Plan. B. The proposed Library Square Block Plan will create needed open space in the Central Community. Panning Commission Meeting 4 June 7,2001 C. The proposed Library Square Block Plan encourages the development of housing in the area surrounding Library Square. D. The construction of the new main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library will help solidify the development of a civic center at the south end of the central business district. There was a general discussion about the various parks in the area and the housing density surrounding them compared to this site. There was a stated concern expressed by the Planning Commissionersthat the existing housing density isn't great enough to make this a viable block that has the vibrancy that is envisioned for this project. Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Matt Wolverton, concerned citizen, stated he would like to move the public input process to RMS and delay a decision until August. The original plan was to include a senior citizen center on the eastern side of the library block. Then on further consideration it was decided to put the senior citizen center on 700 South and 300 East and develop a residential mixed use project on the eastern side of the library block. He would like this proposal to be included in the final plan. He would like the City to acquire land east of the Library block and begin to implement the Grand Corridor Scheme. Cindy Cromer, concerned citizen, reminded the Planning Commissioners about what she said when this proposal first came before them. She believes the City cannot afford the proposal because of the tax-exempt status of the project. She believes affordable housing should be included within the project. Peter Corroon, concern citizen, stated he is a proponent of affordable housing and would like it included in this project. Mr. Smith closed the public hearing. There was a general discussion about the necessity of including affordable housing in this project and the prior "commitment" by the City to develop housing in Library Square in return for the development of a senior center on 700 South. There is a concern about the potential noise when including an amphitheater on this site and the effect it would have on the residents. The Commissioners would like to be able to ensure that affordable and high-end housing is included in the surrounding land use to attract a 24-hour population to this (The Library) block. Motion for Petition #400-00-44: Ms. Funk made a motion to continue consideration of Petition No. 400-00-44 requesting adoption of the Library Square Block Plan, and that the draft plan be returned to the Planning Staff to review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission for a scaleable mix of housing. To allow Planning Staff to respond to the following issues: 1. Ability to provide housing around Library Square. 2. Required residential density to ensure a development of a successful open space. 3. Prior "commitment" by the City to develop housing in Library Square in return for the development of a senior center on 700 South. Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 7,2001 Ms.Short seconded the motion. Ms.Arnold,Ms. Barrows,Mr. Boyden,Mr. Daniels,Ms. Funk, Mr.Jonas,Ms.McDonald, Ms.Short and Mr. Nelson voted"Aye". Mr.Smith,as Chairperson,did not vote. The motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS / MINUTES JUNE 21, 2001 Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square BIock Plan I u a�neuureu to leave at 4:00 p.m. I REVISED AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City &County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,June 21,2001,at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday,June 7, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:30 p.m. -Petition No.400-01-22, by Dean Clark Used Cars, requesting that Salt Lake City declare a 4,214 square foot parcel of City-owned land as surplus. The subject parcel abuts the north property line of 1101 South Main Street. (Staff: Wayne Mills at 535-6173) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:45 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-26, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting revisions to Table 21A.36 020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain encroachments within required side yard setbacks. The potential action may include increasing the minimum side yard setback from 4 feet to 5 feet in some residential districts. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) GG c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:05 p.m.—Petition No.410-540, from Mcb eil' gil�eriRg, representing the LDS Church, requesting conditional use approval for expansion of a c ctt�iarPng II and a related housing loss mitigation plan,for a property located at 934 West Fremont Avenue ira sjl mily residential R-1-5000 zone. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535- 6409) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m. -Petition No.400-01-31,from"The Island Connection"requesting that the zoning of property located at 680 South 900 West be changed from RMF-35(medium density residential)to CB (community business). (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 410-534,by Utah Repair and Service Corporation requesting planned development approval for property located at 1075 South Redwood Road and 1040 South Dalton Avenue in a Commercial Corridor(CC)Zone. The proposal includes widening Dalton Avenue to 25 feet (of which 20 feet would be travel way), Dalton would remain a private street, and a total of two lots would be created from four existing lots. No specific uses are proposed at this time. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) b. Petition No.400-00-44,Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan. Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. (Staff: Joel Paterson at 535-6141) 4_ OTHER BUSINESS a. Planning Commission Chair Elections b. Discussion of Zoning Issues Relating to Transitional Housing. (Staff:Cheri Coffey at 535-6188) c. Briefing on the Central Community Master Plan. (Staff: Everett Joyce at 535-7930) d. Tenant mailing notice discussion e. Amendment to the CN zone to provide for Vet Clinics as a Conditional Use Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines_ If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required- Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING- THANK YOU_ COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-5357757•FAX:801-535-6174 - Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels opposed the motion. Ms. Short abstained from voting. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Petition No. 400-00-44, Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan. Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. Mr. Maringer recused himself from this Petition as he has a conflict of interests. Mr. Goldsmith apologized for not being able to attend the meeting of June 7, 2001, when this petition was last discussed. He thanked the Planning Commission for their comments concerning the residential and open space aspects of this project. The business community perceives requiring residential housing on the east side of 300 East as "anti-business" on the part of the City. There is no evidence of a binding commitment from the previous administration to provide housing on Library Square. It is recommending zoning similar to the G-MU that would require a housing component on the east side of 300 East and the south side of 500 South. The City can require new housing as a part of any new development. Creating residential density is not required to achieve success on the block. The amphitheater is only an idea. There does not seem to be any documentation from the previous administration of development for this site. Mr. Smith stated the issue raised was that housing was being lost to build the senior citizen center on 700 South. When the Planning Commission considered the zoning change for the senior center, the City was considering mixed-use development on the eastern side of Library Square. Mr. Goldsmith stated the City shares the Planning Commission's concerns about pedestrian movement on the site. Mr. Paterson presented the staff report, which summarized the issues raised during the public hearing on June 7, 2001. Mr. Smith believes that housing and parks make happy citizens. He would like to have housing around parks. Mr. Jonas believes the evolution of this plan is appropriate to the needs of today. He believes the City is involved in zoning issues that facilitate housing. He doesn't feel the City should develop the property as it is a conflict and causes problems. The City is not good at developing and should not undertake it. Ms. Arnold agreed. Mr. Nelson believes the City should enhance, but not develop projects. Ms. McDonald believes the City should encourage downtown housing. Mr. Goldsmith agreed. He stated the City has funds to use as an incentive for developers to build housing. He stated that finding a developer to couple with the funds has been difficult because of the market. Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 7,2001 Mr. Jonas would like 200 East, between Washington Square and the Library Square to have less traffic and be more pedestrian friendly. The Planning Commission agreed. Mr. Jonas stated he does not want a signal controlled mid-block connection as stated on page 14 on the Library Square Block plan, Action Item 2. The Planning Commission agreed. Ms. Funk has concerns about property on 500 South zoned D-2. She discussed her feelings of zoning in the area with the use of a map. Mr. Goldsmith asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to create a new zoning district that requires a housing component. Mr. Daniels stated he would like Action Item 2 and 3 on page 14 of the Final Review Draft revised to ensure that pedestrian friendly connections will be built through Library Square and to Washington Square. Ms. McDonald stated the City prepared a walkable downtown plan, but Library Square block is not in the plan. How can a walkable zone that would go beyond the Master Plan be incorporated in the Library Square? Mr. Goldsmith stated that issues relating to the "walkable communities" concept are being addressed in the Central Community Plan. Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Library Square Block Plan as discussed with the revision to page 14, Action Items 2 and 3: Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Manger and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Ms. McDonald abstained from voting. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Jonas made a motion to initiate a petition for staff to create a new zoning district to be made around Library Square and Washington Square that would require a housing component in all new development. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Manger, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold opposed the motion. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Planning Commission Chair Elections Mr. Smith explained there are two options before the Planning Commission. 1. Wait until October to have the elections, during which time, Ms. Funk, as Vice Chair, will Chair the Planning Commission meetings. The option of electing a Vice-Vice Chair to take over in the event that Ms. Funk was unable to Chair a Planning Commission Meeting was discussed. Planning Commission Meeting 10 June 7,2001 EXHIBIT 7 RELEVANT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan f \ yr' ` '+ e 51'_ •+++}•••••Y •• `-.{ 4 4.8 • . LIBRARY COMMONS OPEN HOUSE July 8: Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center: 4:0o p.m.-6 p.m. 855 West California Avenue July 9: Sweet Library 3:3o p.m.-5:3o p.m. 455 North "F"Street July 10: Day-Riverside Library 3:3o p.m.-5:3o p.m. 1575 West moo North July 11: Sprague Library 4:oo p.m.-6:oo p.m. 2131 South iioo East Please come and discuss two alternatives for the open p space east of the new library. We need your input! You may view the designs at: www.slcgov.com/events/lib_open.htm Submit comments by: Sending a fax to 535-6331 Leaving a voice mail message at 535-7654 Sending an e-mail to mayor@slcgov.com For more information,call the Mayor's Office at 535-7704. For TTY dial 535-6032,at least 24 hours prior to the meeting for any special accommodation requests. L f R 02-1 R 02-5 RESOLUTION NO. 10 OF 2002 EXPRESSING CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF OPEN SPACE FOR THE FOUR EASTERN ACRES OF THE `LIBRARY BLOCK' BORDERED BY 400 SOUTH, 300 EAST, 500 SOUTH, AND 200 EAST STREETS WHEREAS, Salt Lake City residents in 1998 voted to authorize the issuance of up to$84 million in general obligation bonds to build a new Main Library and to construct and improve library facilities, parking facilities, and related improvements to the City block bordered by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East streets; and WHEREAS, the new Main Library is under construction and scheduled to open in January 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that open space on the remaining eastern four acres of the block would serve the public interest in the block, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: 1.) The City Council supports the concept of open space for the remaining eastern four acres. The $1.1 million contained in the general obligation bonds previously issued for the Library is approved and authorized to move earth in a manner consistent with an eventual open space use. 2.) The City Council will consider future appropriations with the expectation that the Administration of Salt Lake City will come back during the regular budget process or at some later time with a specific funding proposal including proposed revenue sources for: A.)Design B.)Development C.)Operations and Maintenance D.)Programming E.)Long-term maintenance plans for any significant or specialized features 3.) That the Administration will provide additional information on revenue sources of a proposed $500,000 identified as necessary to proceed with a more detailed schematic plan of phased designs in the study titled,Library Square, by Civitas Inc. and specific information about how the$500,000 would be spent. 4.) That the Administration will provide two options for public and City Council consideration—one based on the final phase of design in the Library Square study and the other based on a more modest, less formal design than the final design phase in the Library Square study. 5 .) That the Administration will provide information on the inclusion of an element commemorating the 2002 Winter Olympics within the open space. 6.) That the Administration outline a public process by which the public can evaluate the two options and provide comment about the options to the Administration and the City Council. 7.) That the City Council will not consider issuing more bonds beyond the $84 million in general obligation bonds authorized by Salt Lake City voters for the Main Library project. 8.) That the Administration provide specific information on: • Proposed revenue sources for all four phases of open-space development depicted in the Library Square study • Long-term maintenance and operating costs of minimally developed open space and fully developed open space. • Proposed revenue sources for operating and maintenance costs. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 2nd Day of April, 2002. BY (4----17 Chairperson Attes 1n 'r , > Chie Deputy Re order • it.;.- ` a T-- ' tea/' wuncu.genaa June b,2001 http.t/ccnc.sc.org/cenrai'agendau/une2001 CCNC June Agenda June 6,2001,6:00 p.m. Central City Community Center 615 South 300 East,Room 126 6:00 pm Welcome I --._.--------...----.. Matt Wolverton and Valerie Price 6:10 pm Salt Lake City Reports Scot Barraclough,Mayor's Office 535-6338 scot.barraclouehEci.slc.ut.us Nancy Saxton,City Council 535-7600 nancy.saxton(Eci.slc.ut.us 6:20 pm f Police Report J.R.Smith 799-3484 ir.smith(Eci.slc.ut.us 6:35 pm .Block 18/Block e0 ghboWest hoodLibert p rts ,Central City Neighborhood Block Reports __..._I 6:45 pm Neighborhood Identity Chad Johnson,Valerie Price,and Matt Wolverton will lead an open discussion regarding 1 Central City neighborhood identity through murals,banners,signs,stone markers,etc. 7:15 pm Library Block Discussion Joel Patterson,Salt Lake City Planner,will lead a discussion about the future plans for the I Library Block located on 400 South in Central City 7:30 pm Resignation and Community Involvement Matt Wolverton is officially resigning as Chair and the Central City Neighborhood Council will discuss its future direction and leadership. City Wide Youth .Art, Sport, & Music Festival I of 8 NOTICE POSTED ON SALT LAKE CITY HOME PAGE K fi ? _� �t r i, " ✓..h^" .: ... ". . .a center of learning, arts and culture. . ." (Mayor Anderson) The Center for Community and Culture is a group of organizations - including Centro de la Familia, Salt Lake Symphony, Circle of Wellness and Public Access Television - that will give new vitality to the old Main Library building when the new library is completed in late 2002. Other organizations to be housed in the building include Salt Lake City's Global Artways program, which coordinates the mayor's mural projects and after-school art programs for youth. The Center for Documentary Arts (CDA) is the new name for Utah's 18-year-old Oral History Institute, a collection of photographs, film, radio recordings and writings about Utahns. The Utah Science Center is an outgrowth of the Utah Science Center Authority, which received a $225,000 grant from the Legislature to establish an interactive science center. All these groups will keep the main function of the building intact - as a center of learning, community, celebration and diversity. We can all look forward to revisiting the building that will continue to enrich our city and our lives. COMPARISON: Library Square Block Plan and Proposed Central Community Plan General policy issues grouped by categories PROPOSED CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN LIBRARY SQUARE BLOCK PLAN Housing • Encourage a variety of higher density multi-family • Encourage the development of residential host mixed-use projects housing near mass transit stops in East Downtown. surrounding Library Square. • Ensure that new development is compatible with • Utilize available City resources assist developers constructing existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, character, mixed-use housing projects in the vicinity of Library Square. and density. • Consider purchasing property in the vicinity of Library Square that is suitable for housing development and take an active role in promoting the development of residential mixed-use projects. • Adopt a new zoning district that will require the development of residential uses in buildings greater than one story in height. Institutional • Institutional land uses provide diversity in cultural, • Support the new library as the primary focus of Library Square. Uses educational and recreational services that stabilize Maximum building heights should step-down to the east and south of neighborhoods. Locate near mass transit stops. the new library. • Provide recreation centers where higher density • Supports development of a three-block civic center, focused on the populations and minimal open space exist. City & County Building at Washington Square and framed by • Institutional land uses should be compatible with Library Square and the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. neighboring properties and establish a higher quality of urban design. Open Space There is a dire need for additional open space in the • Compared to the National Recreation and Parks Association(NRPA) urban areas of the community, standards, the East Downtown Neighborhood has a deficit of more • Develop open space on Library Square. than 130 acres of open space. • Parks should serve children's recreation needs. • Develop the eastern portion of Library Square as public open space • Bring nature into the urban environment. that is complementary to the design of the library plaza. • Increase demonstration projects with Utah Heritage • Develop partnerships with organizations such as Red Butte Garden and Utah Native Plant Society Arboretum and the Utah Native Plant Society for programming and design assistance. Urban Design • Opportunities exist to create a new interior • Support the Central Community Master Plan concept of developing a promenade, mall, or pedestrian corridor along 450 450 South pedestrian corridor South between 200 and 700 East. • Protect the view of the City & County Building from the east and • Develop transit-oriented development zoning protect views of the Wasatch Mountains through design districts for the 400 South Corridor. consideration of new development on Library Square. • Building heights on Library Square should be subordinate in height to the City& County Building. • The building heights on Library Square should transition in from the greater heights of the Central Business District to the lower intensity commercial and residential neighborhoods. • Provide pedestrian and visual linkages to Washington Square and adjacent blocks. • Design and construct a signal controlled mid-block pedestrian connection between Library Square and Washington Square. EXHIBIT 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan Paterson, Joel From: Peter Corroon [petercorroon@hotmail.com} Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:30 AM To: joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: mattes@softcom_com Subject: Library Block Joel- I am the President of a non-profit named Green Street Partners, Inc. We are an affordable housing developer. Our board members have strong backgrounds in architecture, construction, real estate, and law. If the City is serious about using a part of the Library Block to develop housing,we would be interested in creating a mixed-income housing project. If the City does not set aside a portion of the Library Block for housing, I seriously doubt that developers will target that area for housing. If you would like to discuss further, my number is 381-2814. Sincerely, Peter Corroon President, Green Street Partners Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Paterson, Joel From: mw [mattw@softcom.net] Sent: Friday,June 08, 2001 1:44 PM To: Paterson,Joel Subject: Library Square Community Garden Joel - FYI mw Original Message ---- From: Michael Mozdy To: mw Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 11:36 AM Nice message to Stephen, Matt. I couldn't have put it any better when advocating for community gardens using city property! By the way,we'll have a preliminary"how to"packet ready for you on Monday. Have a good weekend! -Michael Original Message From: mw To: Goldsmith,Stephen Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:27 AM Stephen - Early on Monday morning,I contacted: Jorge Fierro (Rico Market),Michael Mozdy(Wasatch Community Gardens), Ian Brandt (Sage's Cafe), and woke John Bolton (SL Roasting)up at 11:00 AM... We discussed the possibility of utilizing one to two acres of open space on the Library Block for garden use. The idea is this... Wasatch Community Gardens can do all the preliminary work of preparing the space for gardening. Wasatch cannot manage this additional garden...which means the management can fall under the guise of the cdc. Jorge Fierro has already discussed with Michael Mozdy the possibility of teaching kids how to plant and grow vegetables, as well as sell the produce raised at the Farmer's Market. Jorge and Michael initially considered this opportunity on the 800 South garden location...but this could be applied to the Library Block instead...because...I also spoke with Mary McDonald (University Science and Research)...they too are interested in the programming side of gardening and raising flowers. 6/8/2001 Ian Brandt would utilize the space for his own organic garden and use the produce raised at his own vegetarian business. Local florists (Art Floral for example) could raise their flowers here...these are the quasi-commercial possibilities for the space. As Ian Brandt pointed out...if we can get more urban gardens, we can attract people willing to live downtown in nearby apartment buildings and condominiums.._places where they might not otherwise be able to plant a garden or have open space available for this type of public use. Robert Glessner gave me the pamphlet called, "Creating a Utah Heritage Garden", put together by the Utah Native Plant Society. This is the group interested in the vacant property near 10th east and 400 south. They too can join the Library Block space. "The purpose of the Heritage Garden Program is to introduce Utahns to our native plants,particularly those that would look good in home gardens." I have spoken with D.J. Baxter, Robert Glessner, Joel Paterson, and Scot Barraclough (Community Affairs) about this idea...as an FY1. Because of the educational programming approach, this community garden project would fall under the mission of the Central City cdc. If we can get an agreement from the City to lease the space each year for $1, it will help us with the set-up costs for fencing, drip system, tool shed, etc. I anticipate the space will not be ready until the spring of 2002,which provides us with ample time to generate the funds necessary to take this project on. In addition, this project could serve as a direct quid pro quo to the City of Salt Lake...the City can lease the space for$1 and we do the property maintenance...saving the City $$$ for what would be open space/lawn maintenance costs. What do you think? I can pull this off rather easily...I just need a commitment from the City to move forward...before I get anyone's hopes up. The funding sources are readily available. mw 220-0066 6/8/2001 Paterson, JOeI From: mw [mattw@softcom.net] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:53 PM To: Paterson,Joel Subject: Re: Library The plan is flawed... (1) breaks a deal with the community...the community supposedly the Library Plan is supposed to benefit, (2) budget problems for maintenance, (3) no implementation or management plan...who-would manage the amphitheater, and who has the $to do it? (4) No measurability or hard evidence that open space alone, especially in a community such as SLC, actually attracts private developers to build housing. (5)The Economic Development Department, HAND, Planning, the Administration, and the City Council have some serious communication and policy problems on what to do downtown. (The soon to be built automobile dependent drive-thru bank on the corner of 300 East and 400 South is a perfect example of property ownership and a weak planning policy and Administration that curtails to big bucks...why expect anything else?) The Gallivan Center was a nice place...until someone sold out and walled it in with a hotel...there is no commitment to prevent the same thing from happening with the Library...RMU, D-1, or D-2 zoning does not guarantee any housing. DYSFUNCTION Honestly,unless I get paid consulting fees, I am holding on to my ideas. Hi Joel! mw : ) Original Message From: "Paterson,Joel" <joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us> To: "Matt Wolverton (E-mail)" <mattw@softcom.net> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:55 AM Subject: Library Thanks for the info., Matt. What are your thoughts about last night's hearing? I am serious about receiving any additional input; specific comments on the plan or any other ideas. Joel 535-6141 Page 1 of 3 Paterson,Joel Frorn: rnw]mattw@softcom.net] Sent: Monday,June 04,2001 424 PM To: Baxter,DJ Cc: Corroon,Peter;Bailey,Glenn;Gust-Jenson,Cindy;Saxton,Nancy;Rogan,Tom;Denton,Karen; Goldsmith,Stephen;Shmohamed,Ahdoul;Arnold,Sarah;Barbanel!,Ed;Berg,David;Clark,Scott; Johnson,Chad;Jones,Curley;Myron,Lisa;Price,Valerie;Rowan,Robed M.;Rupper,Debra; Wolverton,Matt;Paterson,Joel;Knight,Nelson;Giraud,Elizabeth;Nimkin,David;Nimkin,David Subject:Fw:Neighborhood Resource Center-Bill and Nada's DI- I want housing on the library block-or adjacent to the library block-a commitment by the Administration to incorporate housing on the adjoining block to the Fast in a contractual and binding mariner(Housing Mitigation)with the Central City Neighborhood Council and HAND... In 1998,an agreement was made amongst the Central City Neighborhood Council,Block 18(Lois Brown),Kathy Ricci,Deedee Corradini,and Stewart Reid That the housing/residential zoning on 700 South between 200 Fast and 300 Fast was traded(by location)to the County for the new Liberty Senior Center._and that same housing was dedicated to he built on the Fast Side of the Library Block_ (I was not the Chair back then...Deeda was the City Council person) Creating Open Space on the bast Side of the Library Block is a great re-election/political tool to say that Mayor Anderson created more open space in Central City and is meeting the National Standards for Open Space in Salt Lake City__but if we don't have people living there to use it,watch over it,and care for it 24 hours a day/7 days a week__.it is just space that is open. There are many challenges lacing the residents in Central C'ity_.access to quality,affordable,housing is one of them_..open space to the people who live here may be applauded by sonic residents,but in my opinion and experience in These neighborhoods,open space is considered by many of those same people to be secondary to personal safety,convenient access to work,and a roof over their head. I question,would building the open space attract new residents who can afford to live in Market-Rate or condominium housing?...if so,then we are pushing the people who already live here out of the downtown...including people like myself...people who are low income,dedicated to neighborhoods,and dedicated to the people living in those neighborhoods. I love living downtown_.but cannot afford to do so...if you seriously want to attract people to live here...give them the opportunity to afford it. Otherwise,we have successfully put in place a policy to gentrify downtown...and have lost more people like myself What I want is a commitment._.it is the Administration's Choice... 111-Commit to building housing(affordable if at the very least possible)on the West side of the block to the Fast of the Library Block__be it: a Mixed-Use Housing b. Affordable-Mixed-Use Housing c. Residential Zoning and not permitting a future drive-through bank,a Hermes Office building,fast- food restaurant,or other type of automobile dependent commercial business only 6/7/2001 Or #2 - The City purchase or help purchase the Bill and Nada properties_._including the Cafe and existing McHenry home across the street and dedicate it as a historic, neighborhood resource center. If we lose the Cafe', then we lose the house and have lost a whole piece of the historic district to commercial sprawl. Or #3 - Do not build a park,but allow for a Community Garden, Farmer's Market, or some other type of leased space for that area the community can actually use and utilize...attract sustainable neighborhood folk to want to live close by, live downtown, and be committed to the vitality of this immediate community... Peace - mw - o Paterson, Joel From: mw[mattw@sottcom.netj Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:43 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Library Block Farmer's Market Joel - What are the possibilities for utilizing a portion of the Library Block for a permanent Farmer's Market...or area for local food vendors? mw 5/31/2001 co(y1critti-f " ,li(N W f curl r! ^,Tx 2 (7 l - � (Cr/`' �arl r1�� COU II G{I 1 .ic1 fl i.e Block 37 Master Plan 1.The basic issue seems to be one of anempting,after the fact,to fit a"square peg in a round hole". Why did the architects disregard existing zoning and master planning parameters when submitting their proposal? 2. Why did the Library Board disregard these guidelines? 3. Did all other architects assume existing planting guidelines could be similarly disregarded;is better to beg forgiveness than abide by known standards? Was the playing field level? 4. In his November 8th letter,SLC's Planning Director is critical of the county's proposed re- zoning of Saltair,citing an existing C-V zone which excludes billboards as a proper guideline that ought to be respected. Why are not similar guidelines for building setbacks and building heights appropriate in SLC? 5. While open space surrounding the Vancouver,B.C.library facility may stimulate public use in a moderate climate,one should not have assumed that arm dissimilar climate is a non-issue. 6.Is it honest or ethical to represent to UTA that a critical mass of housing and commercial will be established on this parcel,and then change the land use to open space? 7.At the same time this open space proposal became public knowledge in May,SLC neglected to properly manage a storm detention facility at Sunnyside Park.Due to extreme runoff in Red Butte Creek,a significant section of retention wall and pathway in Miller Park was obliterated. Despite numerous calls to the mayor's office and the Parks Department,and after many park users sustained injuries that could have caused costly lawsuits for the city,Councilman Buhler visited the site in October and the situation has been remedied by Salt Lake County. During that same time period,the city's maintenance person for the park retired and has not been replaced. Failure to maintain existing parks is endemic throughout the city,yet we can somehow afford to construct yet another park? 8.All available memorandums and minutes of public meetings fail to address park maintenance. 9.The administration's proposed zoning ordinance revision"could be made specific only to the library",that it is"uniquely singular enough"according to the November 9th memorandum. By any standard other than spin doctoring,this is spot zoning. 10. The administration is considering a zone for"transit-oriented housing development". Isn't this the specific intent of the EDA master plan for multiple use that is to be abolished? 1 I.The city proposes to"transfer"housing by means of the open space,as if it were a fail-safe incentive. For over a decade,the comparable failure of open space in stimulating housing,even with substantial RDA subsidies at 300 West indicates that this premise is seriously flawed. 12.Have taxpayers whose support for the proposal is claimed by the proponents been properly informed of risks to be assumed by prospective housing developers and that the redevelopment by private sector interests is tenuous? Have they been informed that the city:as no funds for park development,and nothing for long-term maintenance? 13, On September 26th,I registered many concerns at the Yalecrest meeting. After finding that the proponent could rot respond to these concerns,I registered disapproval,yet community support is characterized as"overwhelming" 14.The administration also wishes to condemn a mid-block corridor of private land between the library and Fred Meyer's;that this somehow justifies the open space proposal as well. Isn't one of the primary advantages of light-rail the"free fare zone"along 400 South?Who will be walking through someone's back yard?Who will maintain this corridor? 15.The four premises(open space is the best use,housing can be encouraged,some day we may have some money,and spot zoning is justified)merit further public disclosure,and discussion. 16. The"existing character"of the East Downtown neighborhood is described as amenable. Given all this optimism and stimulation due to proposed open space development,why then did La Parisian close it's doors on the eve of this proposed revitalization? 17. What precedents indicate that an undersized outdoor amphitheater and uncertain schedule fo: phased open space will stimulate investment? IS. Gallivan Center's amphitheater indicates the opposite;it has been a short-term success but desperately under-sized. Is there any market or business plan for the amphitheater? What sort of demand is envisioned that could possibly justify the development expense and opportunity cost of down-time non-usage? 19. In terms of permitted and conditional uses,there are incentives for commercial and housing development established by the EDA master plan and current zoning. What advantage is there in replacing these with the elusive concept of a"stimulated use"? 20. What impact will the abolishment of the 30'setback have on the opportunity to install street trees? 21. The historical precedence of Washington Square as well as the Matheson Courthouse clearly indicate a need for a more significant landscaped set-back. 22. Is the only evidence that the private sector is comfortable with the library's intent to compete for retail tenants the reference to JP Reality? How widespread might this concern be? 23. When the taxpayers voted in favor of the bond,were they aware of the library's desire to use this money to speculate in retail commercial ventures? 24. The terminology"lasting legacy"is used a lot. How is this feasible if no mainterarce funding can be ensured?The lasting legacy of city parks is already a serious question,regardless of the administration's spin. 25. According to the November 6th memorandum,he administration contends that the"viability of open spaces is determined,in part,by the design of the space and the surrounding edges". The city cannot design`edges"it does not own.Such design is market driven,not a matter of spin or euphimistic policy. 26.The goal of increasing housing will be jeopardized by abandonment of EDA master plan for multiple-use. 27. The administration contend that the proposal will create a rise in land values and additional demand for housing.Are any studies available from responsible MAI appraisers and others to support this contention? Why is Pioneer Park so dissimilar? 28. If RDA increment incentives are needed,then this scenario is not market driven. 29. Isn't the"distinctive public icon"described in the November 6th memo is really just a clone of the Vancouver library? 30. In one instance,Nancy Tessman assures us that the bond can at least partially cover the cost of open space construction. in others,it is contended that RDA participation will be needed. And in others,it appears that the bond only covers some phases of the library construction, excluding the new building between the old and new libraries,and also excluding the theaters. So,what is really going on here? 31.Issues of park construction,maintenance,justification of the light-rail stop as represented so UTAS and the feds,segregation of open spaces by the wall,abandonment of historical precedence as regards landscaped set-backs,ethics of the bond election and public process,and apparent public/private speculation in real estate ventures seem to merit further consideration. RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISE BY MR. WEBSTER Mr. James Webster submitted a list of issues and questions regarding the Library Block Master Plan at the City Council public hearing on January 2, 2001. This document was prepared in response to the issues raised by Mr. Webster. • Zoning: There is some misunderstanding about the proposed library and the text amendments to the PL District that the Planning Commission recommended for Council approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Library as a planned development. The Commission modified the underground setback required for the parking structure and allowed grade changes in excess of two feet. The reduced setback for the parking structure will not eliminate landscaping or interfere with the planting of street trees. Above grade, the new library meets or exceeds the 30-foot setback requirement of the PL District. The 90-foot building height was included in the planned development review to allow for additional public comment not because the proposed height was in violation of the zoning ordinance. The PL district allows certain uses to utilize the building height standard of adjacent zoning districts. The Library Block is adjacent to a D-1 district that allows building heights on corner lots of 375 feet as a permitted use. The Planning Commission has recommended amendments to the standards of the PL District. These amendments, if approved by the City Council will apply to all areas zoned PL, not just the Library Block. No spot zoning has occurred. • Open Space: Adding open space to the City's inventory may increase the Park Division's costs for maintenance. However, an aggressive fundraising campaign will be undertaken to provide an additional source of income. The recent Library Block transmittal included cost estimates for maintaining the proposed opens space on the Library Block. The Planning Commission did hear concerns from one individual about the lack of quality park maintenance and the questions about the need for additional open space in the Central Community. Questions about funding for additional open space are budget issues that the Council must decide by balancing community interests and needs with the ability or willingness of the City to finance new open space development and maintenance of existing resources. Mr. Webster suggests that the City wishes to condemn a mid-block corridor between the Library Block and Fred Meyer's. The opportunity of developing such a mid-block corridor was identified as a part of the Library Block Plan to build upon the corridor that exists through the City & County Building and will be continued through the Library Block. The Administration's long-term goal, consistent with the East Downtown Master Plan, is to encourage the extension of this pedestrian way to the Fred Meyer's/Family Center development and the Trolley Square area_ Presently,the development of a continuous pedestrian way is not achievable because of the existing development pattern. However,as the area redevelops,it is important to seize the opportunity to extend the pedestrian way. Once developed,the pedestrian way will be an important pedestrian amenity that will provide links to,and build on,the success of the University LRT. • City_Poli : The previous administration planned to develop a mix of office and residential uses on the eastern portion of the Library Block. However,the Anderson Administration has a vision of providing open space on the Library Block and encouraging the development of housing on the surrounding blocks. Although the vision for the Library Block has changed,there is still an emphasis to generate greater housing density in the downtown area. Mr.Webster asserts that Staff contends the development of open space will cause a rise in land values and create additional demand for housing. Staff has not made these claims. The proposed development of the Library block will make the area more attractive for housing simply because the proposed uses are more compatible with housing than courts and the county jail. There is no guarantee of new housing development if the City targets the eastern portion of the library Block or the surrounding blocks. It is interesting that Mr.Webster believes that the rnaiket will support housing on the 1,ibrary Block but not on the surrounding blocks. The success of the University light rail line will not be compromised by the Administration's desire to develop open space on the Library Block. When the alignment was being considered,the Edwards and Daniels plan for the library Block had beer developed;but the Council never adopted the plan. The intention of the City is to encourage intensification of residential density along the 400 Smith corridor by replacing the CC zoning with a transit oriented zoning district. Furthermore,beyond the CC zoning,higher density residential zoning is already in place. • Public Process: Mr.Webster suggests that the questions of open space,cost of developing and maintaining the open space,encouraging housing and the zoning issues deserve further public disclosure and discussion. The planned development,zoning amendments and the Library Block Master Plan have been through a public process that has afforded many opportunities for public comment. The master plan,zoning amendments and the planned development have been considered at public hearing. The Library staff conducted an extensive public outreach program making presentations at community council meetings and various public forums and public events. The great majority of responses received have been positive,though not unanimously in favor of the open space and the design of the new library. No public comment was presented at the Planning Commission public hearing on the planned development or zoning amendment petitions_ Mr.Webster was the only member of the public to offer comment during the Council's public hearing on the Library Block Master Plan. Only one member of the public spoke at the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Library Block Plan and mentioned a concern about the City's ability to pay for the maintenance of additional open space. • The Library Bond: Development of the eastern part of the Library Block, with mixed-use or as open space was not a part of the bond approved by voters. The Library has earmarked approximately $1.2 million of the bond for landscaping the eastern portion of the Library Block. The Library anticipated the need for temporary landscaping on the eastern portion of the block until the City made decisions for the long-term use of the property. The Library and the Administration have been upfront about the need for additional funding to develop the proposed open space. to 1 U 1/ e r� 7 ..1 1 5o E, C1eU2A�� /+V. ^' )1N 5Alt. LAkv, C 7, ur GDv�c 1735 0.-y «F 5/1 ft LikK some o Y II�P,W e �? ')d,'a� 2r Nam, Pw�1,� t,Io-+fy.� 1 �J 6� wo�d�� .� L '6eRev.- W6t,i t,'s ;MPre-SsN�. �fl . tgoicalo,) fio 12-4, i �c wf.) ate, Z a t Z„ 0_ fi �� i /��y W V 5(�Q�.l� P°�sb�y y f s t o,) tUe_ � ,�� r Co �� y e�J<<3 AJ1dw,^'°j A" College. ° f 6 ck �,`5 CoCa����eY , pert o,' of . �h,5 to s Qnsfi �M uS U/, 4 (, aow,r-fa � P NQxfi Cav1Ve�`'''arl�" � 1,,,a (d �'UQ- L`'S (X'S5 5 ����UR,1A"lstL t er} , l fi �.e,5oArce-5 t rev J $S;jL' o p�wta AI se odd Ta � wo��� P�v,' . ° L:(9 rA / ,J1�5 Fl aN w�►� Z TP ,✓ceAr 14 T I1U. anreu Mink Tell Us'What You lhiak :11bout Development :. :.About Development.::; of East Side of Dlock 37 of EastSide-of Block.37 _, Al t/,9,. f,,f . i/-- --_-�tL-c1Y.171,3._�7.� -_--- ,z<Ll GTY/ I1Q11e�., 5 ---- -- ,�J •-tnt,L2ru!r� o,,lc/ --- ny. .� zf<��C � -------------------If you would like to receive more If you would like to receive more information regarding this project, information regarding this project, plea/s,Ep/r/Q.vide u vyith th owing:l please provide us with the following: Name ` k& /" Name . Address -- �G/ti7 Address 53( F'iPr/v�a� City �G�—� State Pi Zip 6F1/2-, City _(,.(--. Slate OrZip_ Phone}�,��f J Phone 5r'�'S -o SeF<:-ax Z1- �� 7 email lei 9c_c_ti email� `� � 7CU 5%L -G/Z9 `'"��'- �4t15=r-- I • Tell Us.WhatYou•Think ,Tail ls:Wfia You Think. :.':'•Ahout Development •ModDevelopment of East Side of Block 37 of East Side of Block.37 Dis_qz.y_ :(11-({-)z4-F -- t y / j kvo S,t'l,j - , V Y( VIP , G 6 -1jq'/- �2_22.2Y t. lets (- L(Z r cz_ —_ `z' ;/�`z// ///G '7¢s-- 0_(leL _�, GN-L :f,f�� -%-F:,mot, ---, — /4G 21t S- ,62/'G�1/ GOI'GG�'- If you would like to receive more If you would like to receive more information regarding this project, information regarding this project, please provide us with the following: please provide us with the following: Name Name V`Y�// a5 S Address -_ Address S J-iz -o0 ,5 City - __. State Zip_ City 6-/--Z-- State L rzip 54-LI Phone _ Fax —_ Phone S-2_/-BbCCfax 5Z/-7 rfJ email email /.6- 5,5 5 AS—PG• "7h — -- • T What You .Think :RbóütflèvélónthAflt Te1lUs•WhafYou: , Thin of East SideAhout Development:ofBlock37 of:East Side ofB tack. S 5 (44_ r C. c- c r� c TJ C4.�iz ta_ P 42 r 2 x — 1 If you would like to receive more • information regarding this project, If you would like to receive more please provide us with the following:_ information regarding thig project, Name - i�.�.. 0 f}1� please provide us with the following: Address I S S c-c) Name Address City S `- State :1 ` Zip Phone t-4Ot9 -9'Ps-7 Fax City State Zip Phone Fax email email c C . c� �,� c TeltUs:What You Think Tell Us What About the new.MainYou Think Library�and Plaza About!keno Main. Library and Plaza /��7/' f�q fJf/�L - -u—�_ �x rt sp f G_ L s )--7//v- s�46 Y�,,LL[___-c vt,c-r_f___ a D r Jz 7 /zz A��1 / / / _ -t r 7Z .s..,___ f-v ,./1-1/4 4 �%/r/////- G f' ft"�, - z«-t.k. c f (i, c(_5'.__e "GS/ / G //1/ • — _._Lc,_�z_ ``� �/r-e 1,P/-A //1 /4/ '_ `4- c s�_1�c1 7-IX/. -c u as� / s _ • • r'SSC1E'i "/ '/ 79 _ CS i 1 tti r rt-r- o-fu-¢C Pkr.rk, If you would like to receive more r`{' s��ti information regarding this project, Ll If you would like to receive more )lease provide us with the following: information regarding this project, neL/GYGG,L�- , , �5 please provide us with the following: Name r-,,,,,�_,_e j o- ress �.275 !-Y 200 5 /G-2O Address 7.()(ram 1- aJ,-,/ it v L& State G/ 'Zip O`F/�/ /� City < c State I�LZip SV 0-g ie 0/ 5:2-/ Fax e°/ S Z/ 860� .7 /- Phone rax fl 5--5 6/,S—X,c„.val-r) — ,/ • email_ p,t/,1r c au c72u,_LLtL•�i1,t�ft ;Tell Vs What:Ton Think Tell Vs What:Tou Think �=About the new Main_ . ..About the new Main • • • Library and Plaza Library and Plaza V"„ ,.,k,Z,H 5 ( 5C C - - .PI-e_Q ls-a ,z,- -_ - Lfiez c // -a --4 _ -Pjek7 Ln�l�f� s l.J12Y�� ---�1p.0.Qh1l2CL--L�1Q/l ' ,c3 P.rc/ill �� 'a-_ • --me-1az= L4 /(V-Vic aCr --- If you would like to receive more If you would like to receive more information regarding this project, information regarding this project, please provide us with the following: please provide us with the following: me__ i 8pp-r-,?.plej Name doLIr FF -13_(' ti dress 53ZS iy,, , , (;,•1-4 Address 53(5 _ (r-,V a (\t; y SCE State LZip Syr City SLC State t-T Zip LQg >ne c01--508 05 Phone `5p�j-c5`15 Fax 5ZI-Sf'00 lit c 6et-v[a!G1 L q- �J- -,* email `b5-CD_c- r r2DJL ... . . : , . I 1 , a _ ou _ Ceti► (A - a �Cvpi•t-s' rCe„ d t-ea a 4a f j C{O -o fii -e 1,h m () Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in u New Main Library o New Main Library o Expansion at Sprague Branch ❑Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch o Expansion a n at Anderson -Foothill Branch Name RO Ct Q7 £-zlJ NameIle i #)f1 cc . Address 7- 5`� s�cef Address ��,� �- J fj eQ �La3 Zip Code �`� Phone 3z"SL73 Zip Code O`11U? Phonet./oq OT'Z I `- ,,-- I crD , I Q Youllith You Think . .• • )Wie (C r I/ Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects, I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in o New Main Library o New Main Library ❑Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch o Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch l Name a,„j I t-,lu:. Nam t- Address 4_4 d - '3�' ' 'J Address 7577 / —72-e'&i_/e Zip Code S`L I t[. Phone 3 2--z-3-?W Zip Code e/IW Phone o Is ► ► at You Think 1 \Ncos uw to r- c (` 115, c- _--izaLL &___gOtt Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. I am particularly interested in ew Main Library ❑East Side of Block 37 o Expansion at Sprague Branch ci Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name g-000LNnV\CIA Address '„Y^ L`tt ,c},,( \.1 1(./,Q'' �3 tt Zip Code Lr((] Phone 1`� .e" • I I I I Is You �n You In /7/4i43 cvr/0 /1/ .J/, T/ i TE C'TY C, ,vaT 4FFrDet, /C,( U.74 73 06 r s A/07 � yam- 4„6:2 7(7 'Vt3,Z OC/ Td,,i��/� oR&A-N nPS-t/ -S.� J"A /�-s4 -5-WA s.f4su/f f3-Pg- /,eS a--I) idR etT>7 i,, /z — .SPRz-a--- z:Y_z r T7Ff'.4 4TiT�/r 7'f, 4cRb55 77/ (i7Y ��r n/ Ba-.--- /10 IA/ r1/ 5 PLR / - Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in ❑ New Main Library ❑ New Main Library ❑East Side of Block 37 t- t Side of Block 37 ❑ Expansion at Sprague Branch ❑ Expansion at Sprague Branch ❑ Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch ❑ Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name /LL 7/47AY/(4- Name // lN0 y L reQ/i-f--z, Address / t 2C7//80 rg/y Address f57h E /p--D Zip Code o 2//6 Phone-530/ p Zip Code ��/cZ-t/ Phone -5 -4//S 9, [' re, NOWK --)I pi' o cA t t , -2,0-0-0 sots) CLAAA0LQ [Pd i nrT 1 2 2000 [j I --jot`cAaa1 1\4 epi � PLANNING DIVISION You Ilililk . . You Think ,_acc ►ave a- R � ``p� Arr au a _ U , o ic) ta,u91 i.,..tz,____,Vu firaPi`15 \)_\VCR ,__ ___10-t_ilath__na-<., "IVAgi, p441-1,,,4!_ e-eN2,.1s1 .--_ __e 11) mil: _ 5` ►- - QaAeac, -h --- ti a t d Ueo-noi— At ,lc,4-4 TALNIT7 so_ p9a-zr,Q ------------ -1�eg�/4 e t, . Please notify me of upcoming meetings _ Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in o New Main Library AbNew Main Library o East Side of Block 37 ❑East Side of Block 37 0 Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch ❑Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name /Allmrick, COM, Nam e\V\sit R-5 Addressr9 U 13a000 s<-C �(T Address573 3,s M� e,1 Zip Code `69 I 1e Phone53S-6515 Zip Code VW-6 PhoneS1 /a_ I j . I 11 You ThiNk You Think.. .. : k , . 1 rn eXQI--TY-1 : j__ air) in 40) 1 .V +he n( I Y- k/ r-C ^2Qi SC c -t_ 1EISt,A1e r i ?(_) n(rto ic' t�S: -q P� , f- ST --r)1 b 110 C I 1v2,.0 l',I 61 tihrt - t,(M 5L _ hoS trl i_Vcivin 1-1'-_,;m 11i,r-1 II v I rr Tt I \I % \I 41 ,CIA i 1c,r Jr- f 7f It f 'f''(1t �1' (1 tr rily tL t,i;y?rJ ('ti ;o / l 1)1-7- t11 : (,r. r1 I W( Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in d New Main Library ❑New Main Library D East Side of Block 37 o East Side of Block 37 D Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch o Expo ' n a erson-Foothill Branch' ' 1 ''i Sclit 1" -/Lc /i74,11,q lis-� t� i Name t�l\l t t�1t111 Ii="I Name �li v it ;1'v s � ,,r Address `). �\A-ii tI • �J�ir'A ti Address / Y S7 a ITci rr'S Zip Code 1:5i'� Phone ?--'<1 :S‘ zip Code ��( / �� Phone 115c--q trig. kAAk _t_i4 _vo . 1fou• Thiink :• • Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects_ I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in Li-New Main Library IA New Main Library ❑ East Side of Block 37 ❑East Side of Block 37 ❑ Expansion at Sprague Branch 0 Expansion at Sprague Branch ❑ Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch 0 Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name joc lv -t v_ Name 11,A 1 '^ Address '22 LA1 Address S . 6I Zip Code (5`f(v I Phone Z)c� �� 717 Zip Code 6410 (, Phone 4 (?--j- t 7 - 1. • • .. . . . . ou In • You in / "4:1,, te„,„4--(y,____-, : „..,:.-_-3,_-„,_,___-7-ci A.z :7-----i i le , --,7h4e-tit-i--- y7..-0- , i - -----77e,OL 7t-e, ----p71'7-14?)7 L., : fr.) 0-Txdr,_,.4 i %�--� �c� , , 9_,,_ - U ,,t,„,,,„..„-fr,,,,,., (_,,,,_,,,)(,___ „.„. ,, , -t,_,,,,,, tr-, ,,./42--- ; ? 4� , - ir/a(kY,/ ?le-- v nn � � \Do ) — Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I particu ar ested in i am particularly interested in New Main Libra t�3-New Main Library o East Side of Block 37 c4 East Side of Block 37 o Expansion at Sprague Branch 0 Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch o Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name ��,,J , ,,> Name , c7 Address 9 S 5 7,�} /(/C- Address/7/ St,, .?Zoa k 41, (,V7. Zip Code --il(7- Phone 5-5/`7�C- Zip Code 311//5 Phone /-hr / I5; � ► a .. . ._ ,, . ..,. - • . • • • , . • ..-, - . - YOU: In . . �K'1 V CJ� � C� �'C/ i_ .. , E_ . ( -�. I. r)X Li? l 1 " 7 S 1 6. T / 7c j / - L_�S S /11 t/it,' •c! /`ftf / s/C. Sys �} //• /JJ - rn-c'�-C a ki✓,4 /C/✓/<L /-(G -":t'= 1• ,.: c"� r�/ly T /(i,-G / pf (-,, Q (( / / / Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital Please notify me of upcoming meetings improvement projects. regarding the City Library's capital I a particularly interested in w Main Library improvement projects. I am particularly interested in East Side of Block 37 D Expansion at Sprague BranchLNew Main Library D Expansion at Anderson Foothill Branch -Expansion at Sprague Branch l // r D Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch Name Vif74-'1 - 11I,-,-ij5 !r:-i:% Name . vs11' 1-LA6-g- Address 2�j(��i 9�7 % r ,v 2 Address ( Z J E /3c C 5- Zip Code 5`i I�71 Phone 5 31- 76 Zip Code-g V/v_C Phone I You Ill (4) e« I .z---- -,-C (7. ._ , ---7---a Vk---e___ i ; �e 7, )2- rir.,,;-,c,A WSrro I. 1-- -d � j F, ' «.e /,,7 -1-,--e _ , ,, / Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in KNew Main Library A New Main Library `0 East Side of Block 37 D East Side of Block 37 o Expansion at Sprague Branch (Expansion at Sprague Branch 0 Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch p Expansion at Anderson-Foothill Branch Name -VO1\6 NV II l nn — t Namej fq _t Pt � )Ft Z z- Address Vil2 S_ «J J / Address 11/ z-f M L CI-E L L ,i it/.- Zip Code } Phone Zip Code 1-1/ °- ---Phone,5/ d` A// 1lellils a ou ou in t /tr�/ / . // ' JI P� . I 1./.:i i3L [S :- . r •• I S. f 4 __. at:. . .: , . • . I /114r7 /'_ 5-(-r j --�rrfO l , / /I�/ 1�' v,-N `i /t-- U (/B7' Y • at i MEgt . 1!I • 'I.A ., •!^a � �6 R OUS6 . 'l�J11. - c --la -aD Please notify me of upcoming meetings Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. improvement projects. I am particularly interested in I am particularly interested in ci New Main Library ©New Main Library 0 Expansion at Sprague Branch Expansion at Sprague Branch o Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch Expansion at Name Anderson tFoothill Branch Name G /� Name "`1 K-e_ GQ ',\ S;. �D Address l 135 E . S w YA kie, Address / 9 y Zip Code '17e f Phone V( Y7-1 //V Zip Code to Co Phone ��_? 7j f Telt Us What ;• You Think { me 61ic sth��� g�> "Ley_ � j r78- le i a / ��12�_c3� fke._ n 1'oiJ fie 5 GS-e.6 L7 -_-L- LJOn of ram ✓( 4 jp/, inn h> Please notify me of upcoming meetings regarding the City Library's capital improvement projects. I am particularly interested in uNew Main Library Expansion at Sprague Branch 0 Expansion at Anderson -Foothill Branch Name _Sin f� / 5.1^j Address �G% moo Zip Code /F`// Phoe Y�/ 73 0 EXHIBIT 9 ORIGINAL PETITION Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan The original petition was presented in an earlier transmittal. A photocopy is attached. Transmittal for Petition 400-00-44 Library Square Block Plan PETITION NO. 4/90- cO- 5/�! PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 7:17 G c Petition delivered to Planning 7 /p Petition assigned to: in e( ? Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date ,sf 17,Ur° /2i/mil 71, zoo, R i Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover VON < ? ) Chronology c-1zg(O f Property Description (marked with a post it note) e�� i3► 37 refe Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Ve Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils (-Zfr9 �? Mailing Postmark Date Verification Wo f Planning Commission Minutes 17,7000 C/ °/ S z1,zvp t Planning Staff Report /}7joi 1 va Cover letter outliningwhat the request is and a brief q description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. 7 Attorney's Ordinance Prepared by the Attorne 's Office GI�o! -1(14'1) -4 11 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and 4/z7/0J initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by V-Z'407 Attorney. Jowl a yr Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition �35-G/11 I JOG 1-pa ..Sic, c.( . 45 Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT E•` GUT `� f RA+ ` + r IONJOI 1:,E -'� soft�� An. `�'B"��" '�"�"'�� '�' ' RDSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSC PLANNING DIRE CTDa COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DE PUTT PLANNING DIRE CTOR MEMORANDUM TO: ALISON GREGERSEN-WEYHER,ACTING CED DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A LIBRARY BLOCK PLAN PETITION NUMBER DATE: JULY 7, 2000 Mayor Anderson has requested that the Planning Division begin a process to develop a block master plan for the Library Block (also referred to as Block 37 or the MHJ Block) located between 200 East and 300 East, from 400 South to 500 South. Moshe Safdie, design architect for the new Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library,will prepare the illustrative block plan_ Please assign a petition number to this project. 45) SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: 8D1-535-6174 REMARKS Petition No. 400-00-44 By Mayor Anderson Has requested that the Planning Division begin a process to develop a block master plan for the Library Block (also referred to as Block 37 or the MHJ Block) located between 200 East and 300 East, from 400 South to 500 South. Moshe Safdie, design architect for the new Main ! Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library, will prepare the illustrative block plan. Dale Filed Address • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 22, 2002 FROM: Charles M. Querry, Chief, Salt Lake City Fire Deaprtment RE: A resolution authorizing the Salt Lake City to Participate in a collaborative effort between the City and the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross to explore the possibility of joint planning, construction and cohabitation of a future City Emergency Operations Center/Training Center STAFF CONTACT: Kurt Cook, Battalion Chief, 580-1242 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None • DISCUSSION: See attached Project Summary RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SALT LAKE AREA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF JOINT PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND COHABITATION OF A FUTURE FIRE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER/TRAINING CENTER WHEREAS, the City has an interest in purchasing the 3.5 acres of vacant property adjacent to the City Fire Department's training center and Fire Station No. 14, located at 1500 South Industrial Road, as the future site of an Emergency Operations Center; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake Area Chapter of the American Red Cross has expressed an interest in participating with Salt Lake City in the costs associated with the planning and construction of a future Emergency Operations Center/Training Center for the purpose of joint cohabitation of the new facility with the Salt Lake City Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the mutual benefits of the foregoing proposal can best be achieved by the joint efforts of both organizations; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: The City does hereby acknowledge, authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY participating in a collaborative effort with the Salt Lake City Area Chapter of the American Red Cross for the purpose exploring the possibility of developing a future joint Fire Emergency Operation Center/Training Center. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002. Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: G'\RESOLUTI\Red Cross doc ORGANIZATIONS: Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter of the American Red Cross Salt Lake City Fire Department ADDRESSES: Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter of the American Red Cross P.O. Box 3836, Salt Lake City,UT 84110-3836 Salt Lake City Fire Department 305 E. 200 S., Salt Lake City,UT 84111 CONTACTS: Susan Sheehan, CEO,American Red Cross 801-323-7000 ssheehan@utahredcross.org Molly Dumas, Chief Development Officer, American Red Cross 801-323-7029 mdumas@utahredcross.org Kurt Cook,Battalion Chief, Salt Lake City Fire Department 801-596-5216 kurt.cook@ci.slc.ut.us PROJECT SUMMARY: With more than a century of service in Utah,the American Red Cross and Salt Lake City Fire Department have earned their place as a treasured and vital community resources. This Red Cross Chapter has aided thousands of families who lost their homes to fires, floods,tornadoes and other disasters-all the while without a home of its own. Salt Lake City has struggled to make efficient emergency operations that are fragmented,particularly in the case of the fire department. The Red Cross and Salt Lake City Fire Department seek to further demonstrate strength and expand services to Utah by taking up permanent residency-together. This proposal seeks to demonstrate a need for funding to design, construct and furnish a 76,000 sq. ft. sustainable building—co-locating the two agencies. It will house both administrations, classrooms, emergency services,dispatch and expandable emergency operations center for the City. Salt Lake City has struggled to keep pace with growth.The need has increased for disaster response by fire paramedic crews, as well as and training in life saving skills offered by the Red Cross, such as First Aid and CPR. Increasingly,these are a result of over-development of the land and global warming. This project is particularly unique as it will pursue high performance, or"green"building practices at a level never before attained in Utah or nationally in emergency management. "Green"buildings are constructed and designed to have lower negative impact on the environment,to be energy efficient, and to provide higher worker productivity through their design. The design will use such sustainability measuring tools such as US Green Building Council's LEED Rating System,but also explore more in-depth water conservation(Utah is a desert)and light pollution. One design concept is to reroute gray water from firefighter's practice drills to use for cooling the building and landscape. The vision behind this endeavor precedes,but will serve to demonstrate,new initiatives being developed by Salt Lake City administration to establish policies requiring high performance building standards for municipal projects. By co-locating,we will save more than$3.5 million in building and design costs, and realize considerable energy and operating savings for donors and taxpayers. The national American Red Cross has also selected the Salt Lake Chapter as a vanguard site to demonstrate innovation in emergency management alliances and sustainable building. The project encompasses expanding the Salt Lake City Fire Department's Training Center to create a campus in which multiple emergency management agencies throughout Utah can be trained, and the public can be educated about emergency preparedness and response. An Emergency Operations Center for Salt Lake City will be incorporated into the plans,providing an ongoing dispatch center and communications hub,which is expandable during disasters to network all emergency management entities away from Salt Lake's "ground zero". The City will purchase and own the property,both agencies will raise funds together to build, and Red Cross shall be a pre-paid permanent tenant for100 years of the City-owned building. The total project cost is estimated at$16,618,341. By co-locating the two agencies,we will have saved more than$3.5 million in building and design costs alone. Further,we will reduce operating expenses for both organizations as utility and maintenance expenses are significantly reduced and shared. This will result in both taxpayer savings and greater efficiency of donated dollars. MISSION: The mission of the American Red Cross is to improve the quality of human life; to enhance self-reliance and concern for others; and to help people avoid,prepare for, and cope with emergencies. It does this through services that are governed and directed by volunteers and are consistent with its congressional charter and principles of the International Red Cross:Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Volunteer Service, Unity and Universality. The mission of the Salt Lake City Fire Department is to protect life,the environment and property from events or occurrences that could otherwise have a detrimental impact upon our quality of life. HISTORY: For more than 100 years,the Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter of the American Red Cross has been helping Utahns prevent,prepare for and respond to personal, community and national emergencies. The Chapter now has 35 staff and covers a large geographical area including Salt Lake, Tooele, Summit, South Davis,Wasatch,Kane and Washington counties. Salt Lake City Fire Department began in 1853 as a fire brigade. Today with 360 employees and 14 stations,the Fire Depaitinent protects 97 square miles from Wasatch to Oquirh mountain range, including the International Airport. SERVICE PROVIDED: Today,the Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter touches the lives of more than 150,000 Utahns each year.We do this through various program services including: Water Safety, First Aid, and CPR; Armed Forces Emergency Services ; International Social Services; Local,National and International Disaster Relief; Utility Assistance Programs; Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA) Services; and HIV/AIDS Education. The Salt Lake City Fire Department responds to medical calls, fires, hazardous materials problems, and other emergencies. Community education in fire safety and prevention,building inspections and permits, and field training are other services provided. SERVICE OUTCOMES: Last year,the Salt Lake City Fire Depai tment responded to 27,371 calls: • 18,875 Medical responses,including 1,423 breathing problems,2,660 traffic accidents, 1,500 assaults, 1,539 falls, 1,615 chest pains/cardiac/heart problems, and 117 pregnancy/childbirths • 5,722 Fire responses • 1,827 Dispatches • 947 other public assist responses The efforts of the Salt Lake Area Chapter of the American Red Cross resulted in the following successes in Utah last year: • 306 students were trained as Certified Nursing Assistants • 549 children learned about hygiene through the school"Scrubby Bear"program • 174 teens were trained in babysitting skills • 14,186 received training in First Aid, CPR and AED,and 310 new instructors were trained • 25,467 learned about water safety and lifesaving techniques, and 1,003 in a special aquatics institute • 109 families were assisted in local disaster incidents-almost all single home fires • 20,721 meals were provided to disaster victims and emergency responders • 599 military cases were assisted • 1,503 elderly and disabled families were provided$358,000 in emergency utility assistance • 5,414 were educated about HIV/AIDS, and outreach efforts to at-risk populations reached 11,514 • 27 international cases were traced for reunification with families in other nations • 31 people were assisted through international social services • 23 first aid stations were set up at local events to assist in emergencies • More than 1,100 volunteers were recruited for first aid stations and disaster preparedness for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. 17 first aid stations were staffed 20 hours a day throughout the Games IDENTIFICATION OF NEED Utah's population has more than doubled in the past 30 years, and is projected to double again in the next five. Yet where there were once forty-one chapters in Utah,there are now four. Chapter operations are currently being conducted in a building that is leased, and poorly designed for disaster response of considerable magnitude. Further, it is not energy efficient. A majority of the space is occupied below ground level. Artificial light is necessary for all spaces-even those with windows-and interior spaces have no light source in case of power outage. In 2001,the chapter was rendered inoperable 12 times due to power outages and flooding. The facility has problems with security and accessibility for people with disabilities. The parking structure cannot accommodate emergency vehicles, and storage trailers must be docked 20 miles away from the building. In the event of a disaster,the Red Cross and Fire Department must be prepared to dispatch immediately. This Red Cross Chapter and Salt Lake City Fire Department continue to increase the response area and frequency each year,yet both operating centers are poorly situated for rapid response and inadequate for response vehicles or supply storage. The Fire Department has its services split amongst five locations, as far apart as five miles. Current facilities and their lack of access to major transportation corridors further hamper response time. As we begin a second century of service,we face many challenges: A. Terrorism Long before the attacks of September 11,the U.S. Justice Department ranked Salt Lake City as one of 21 cities worldwide targeted for terrorism. This will likely increase with recent approval of nuclear waste transport through Utah enroute to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. • Nearby military installations, chemical weapons incineration facility in Tooele -the largest incineration facility of the most dangerous chemicals in the United States. • Increased population, and visibility and tourism associated with the Olympics place significant demands on our emergency services infrastructure. The Salt Lake Chapter recruited and trained 1,100 new volunteers to prepare for the Olympics alone. • The tragic events in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania made all emergency responders keenly aware of the challenge to be prepared. Red Cross is a key component to Homeland Security plans. B. Natural&Manmade Disasters: The 2002 World Disaster Report by the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies indicated that the risks of natural disasters are increasingly caused by the pressures exerted upon our environment. Due in part to over-development,population growth and global warming,humanitarian organizations cannot make a dent in world poverty and hunger without reversing these environmentally adverse directions. For example,mountainside and canyon homes encroach on forested areas and are therefore vulnerable to wildfires and subsequent mudslides The Red Cross is the only not-for-profit organization in the United States that is assigned a Congressionally Mandated role in the United States' Emergency Response plan. The Red Cross is responsible to perform Emergency Support Function #6 in the federal plan. During a large disaster,the Red Cross takes on the responsibility of providing mass shelter, feeding, casualty response, and functions as the central information and referral source for individuals seeking the status of a loved one. • We continue to respond to fires,hazardous waste spills and other disasters caused by human error. Flooding and avalanches caused by seasonal weather and severe storms,result in flash floods, snow, mud and rockslides. While tornadoes are not as frequent,Utah has experienced several disasters whose magnitude and location in burgeoning urban areas adversely affected hundreds of people. Old dams and irrigation have also begun to deteriorate, and wildfires have evacuated whole towns. With population densification,these disasters have wider impact. • Pollutants from auto and industry emissions have not only increased global warming, extending the wildfire season,but increased health problems for valley residents. • The U.S. Geological survey ranks Utah's Wasatch Front as the third highest risk area for a catastrophic earthquake, only after San Francisco and St. Louis. • One of the greatest increases we have seen is in the response to families displaced by methamphetamine production—lab fires and toxins in the residential area that force families to abandon their homes, sometimes permanently. C. Health& Safety Risks in Utah: This state has a particularly high incidence of health concerns related to its population growth,large child and elderly population, and increased environmental problems. • Utah has the highest number of youth per capita,and has the fifth fastest growing elderly population in the country,resulting in increased health care needs attributable to childhood and aging. Yet health benefit coverage for these populations is one of the lowest in the U.S.. • Emergency medical response time has increased due to population growth and traffic congestion. • Accidental injuries and drowning are the leading cause of death for all Utahns through age 44. • HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for Salt Lake City men aged 18-44. The rise in HIV/AIDS among Hispanic populations is growing exponentially. Though Hispanics represent 12% of U.S. population,they account for 19% of AIDS cases. Utah is experiencing a similar health crisis due in part to immigration of such populations. However,teen boys remain the most at-risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. • The dramatic increase in the state's population, coupled with poor diet-obesity is very common- and the lack of exercise habits put more adult Utahns at risk of cardiac arrest. • Increased vehicle traffic,lack of mass transit systems and alternative fuel availability, industrial pollutants and atmospheric conditions have resulted in poor air quality—particularly during winter inversions or summer heat waves. Vehicle traffic accounts for 60% of the harmful particulates in the Salt Lake valley.Utah is essentially a high desert,with summer temperatures that reach into the 100s. • The geography of the valley often results in summer haze that worsens with local fires or other pollutants. The winter brings an inversion which keeps pollution settled in the valley. This has resulted in increased asthma, and other respiratory problems. At least 40 times a year,bans are made on wood burning, driving and/or industrial emissions because the maximum level of pollutants has been violated. The Salt Lake Metro area governments have committed to improving air quality by increasing bus systems, creating Park-N-Ride lots, expanding light rail commuter trains, encouraging alternative fuel vehicles, fostering energy conservation methods, and tightening industrial emissions. • The Salt Lake Metro area has suffered increased temperatures as open green space lost to paving and building. The present city administration envisions future initiatives that encourage or mandate future buildings to incorporate revegetation and conservation of green space,reduce energy and water consumption,limit pollutants, and further reduce "heat island"space which contribute to global warming. • Though Utah has enjoyed an economic boom,40% of children, and 33%of female-headed households in Salt Lake live in poverty. Unemployment remains low,yet a vast number of families live below the poverty level and have no health insurance. Immigrant families are at highest risk for health and safety concerns, earning the lowest wages without health care coverage, increasing demand for emergency medical rather than preventive care. As a result of increased community need and demand for health and safety education,the Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter has experienced a doubling of class registration. The Chapter has conducted cost analyses of programs that could maximize staffing patterns with more adequate space, and keep the cost of such education affordable to Utah families. Salt Lake City Fire Department has also maximized its space capability to train firefighters and paramedics. D. Emergency Response Transportation-The Chapter's Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV)is used for both local and national disaster responses. Most of the nation has access to alternative fuels,whereas Utah is limited to propane,natural gas and electric power. Ethanol is soon to come. Chapter vehicles must depend on fossil fuels for the ERV. Reliance on only one ERV for disaster response has left the chapter vulnerable when national disasters have prompted its dispatch to other states. The Chapter has increased its response area as other Utah chapters lost their charter,and Utah has also created a"no- borders"response agreement between Nevada and this state. In addition to leaving a huge geographic area unprotected when dispatched out of Utah,the ERV has also been needed for multiple local events. The Red Cross seeks to add bi-fuel vehicles to its existing fleet to meet demand, and reduce pollutants PROJECT DESCRIPTION Why "Green" Increasingly the American Red Cross and Fire Service are responding to disasters and emergencies caused by the pressures exerted upon our environment due to development and population growth. For example,mountainside and canyon homes encroach on forested areas and therefore are vulnerable to wildfires and subsequent mudslides. In addition,pollutants from auto and industry emissions have increased the health risks for individual with heart and lung disorders. The need has increased for response by fire paramedic crews, and training in life saving skills offered by the Red Cross, such as First Aid and CPR. As the agencies explored the prospect of building a new facility together,three guiding imperatives emerged: I. The Red Cross and Fire Department must respond to emergencies,regardless of magnitude,in a consistent, dependable and efficient manner. Therefore,the facility must remain operational, even in instances of power interruption or loss. Being less dependent on such resources,the agencies will be poised and ready to respond. H. The Red Cross and Fire Department must be conscientious and frugal fiscal managers of donated and tax dollars in delivering services. Therefore,operating costs to offer classes and services must be minimized by implementing sustainable designs and practices that are more cost- effective and energy efficient. III. The Red Cross and Fire Depai talent must be careful stewards of our world's most precious resource -our environment-in the planning, design, construction, and operation of a facility. Therefore,the agencies will seek to reduce its environmental impact by designing a high performance building. This will incorporate energy-saving technology and resource conservation components. In May 3-5,2001,the American Institute of Architects (AIA)Utah,American Red Cross,American Consulting Engineers Council of Utah, State Office of Energy Services and National Renewable Energy Laboratory of Golden Colorado conducted a hands-on workshop on the design of high-performance buildings.Design For Life—Red Cross Goes Green seminars concluded with a design charette. The American Red Cross new facility was used during the exercise to create a sustainable buildings using integrated design and"Green Building"practices: site considerations,building material selection, integrating natural and artificial lighting,photovoltaics,thermal performance, envelope design, life-cycle costs, and innovative financing. Using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Green Building Rating System conference participants—architects, engineers,interior designers and public utilities representatives - used best practice knowledge and experience to create five conceptual designs specifically for a new Chapter headquarters,training facility and emergency operations center. Common elements of the design concepts were: Site Designto: •Ener gy m um 40%reduction in building energy Reduction&Atmosphere • Enhance sustainability • Reduce heat islands use • Connect to public transportation,reduce • Potential for renewable energy use (solar, parking wind) • Minimize storm water runoff • Elimination of HCFC's • Reclaim"brownfields"industrial usage • Operate"off-the-grid"using alternative • Maintain potential for future expansion power • Ensure emergency access via main arteries Indoor Environmental Quality Green Materials • CO2 Monitoring • Construction waste management • Increase Ventilation Effectiveness • Recycled content for building materials • Low-Emitting Materials • Maximize use of local/regional materials • Thermal Comfort&Controllability • Maximize use of renewable resource • Daylight and Views • EOC Hermetically sealed for weapons of Water Efficiency mass destruction disaster • Low water-use landscaping for heat reduction • Water use reduction When disaster strikes, we'll be there In August 2001,the American Red Cross began a collaboration with the Salt Lake City Fire Department. The Fire Depai Intent had recently completed the first of a multi-phase expansion to build a fire training tower, educational facilities, administrative offices, dispatch unit and emergency operations center. Exploration of the opportunity to jointly construct an emergency response and training center with the Fire Department and the Red Cross resulted in a strong partnership. Combining and sharing spaces resulted in a 76,000 square feet building project,with an estimated cost of$16,618,341. By partnering with a governmental entity such as the Salt Lake City Fire Depaitiuent,the overall cost savings realized is$3.5 million in construction. The design phase of this project will begin with the local design team.Another design charette, facilitated by Rocky Mountain Institute,will be held in the fall 2002. Rocky Mountain Institute, a group of exceptional talent that has assisted in the development of several "green"projects(such as Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Overland College. See www.rmi.org),will do the background and intent of the programming,working with the local team to lay out multidisciplinary strategies. After the charette, Rocky Mountain consultants will continue to provide peer review of concepts, systems, life-costs and cost/benefit analysis as the design progresses. Both organizations have missions to educate citizens and render aid at disasters and emergencies. Shared training,public education facility, and a single base of operation for coordinated emergency response will greatly improve the ability of the Red Cross and Fire Department to meet public need and better utilize the two institutions' resources. In addition,the Red Cross is also responsible for Emergency Support Function 8 in the Federal Response Plan that entails ensuring that a safe and adequate blood supply is available in the instance of mass casualties. A building that is constructed to withstand seismic activity is crucial to making sure that in the future,the Red Cross can perform this function well. Building it green will reduce annual operational costs of utilities and maintenance, saving tax dollars and increasing funds to service delivery. Utilizing the Emergency Operations Center as a daily dispatch center for the Fire Department and Red Cross response will maximize space efficiency as well as response efficiency. Clean-Fuel Fleet The Chapter seeks to expand its fleet for Disaster Response,First Aid stations,HIV/AIDS Outreach and other programs.New outreach programs to youth and minorities require staff access to transportation. Expansion of Health and Safety service delivery has resulted in satellite classrooms throughout the valley. The recent major gift campaign afforded additional equipment,but not vehicles for transport. In addition to the ERV, two vehicles are available which utilize natural gas. These vans are limited to local excursions because of limited distance capability using natural gas. However,Utah's Division of Air Quality reports that 60% of emissions that produce criteria pollutants are from cars and trucks. The Chapter seeks to lead in the state's efforts to improve air quality by converting to cleaner,more efficient, and renewable fuel sources. By using alternatives such as ethanol,methanol or electricity,the American Red Cross will rely less on petroleum-based fuels that are subject to local damage in an earthquake and international trade unavailability. Other existing vehicles -many of which were donated-are unreliable, are in need of considerable repair or replacement. They are also ineffective for multi-use purposes, and no longer meet requirements of the Chapter. Anticipated Results The positive impact of moving forward with this project and constructing the envisioned campus are as follows: • Improving and Enhancing an Area/Healing the Land-The proposed site for the campus is in a blighted,brownfields area on the west side of Salt Lake City, and presents an eyesore to the adjacent owners. A component of this project is to mitigate the waste and blight,by restoring the land and offering a park-like setting for the campus,which will include streams,natural plantings and a walking tour. The site itself will serve an educational purpose for the community,by establishing a self-guided walking tour in high performance building practices, and our environment. In addition, the site will be offered to the public for activities such as Community Council meetings and other gatherings. Conversion of fleet to dual-fuel vehicles will lower emission and sustain transportation needs. This project will also serve to demonstrate the good business sense of environmental stewardship,with the potential to change corporate strategy in building/operating practices. • Expanded Capacity to Serve-With a state of the art facility,which affords more space at a lower operating cost,the Red Cross and Fire Department will have greater ability to offer community training in health and safety skills training, and services to low income people. The Red Cross and Salt Lake City can increase the number of residents it serves annually. The Fire Depa'tiuent already shares its fire-training tower with many municipalities. The new training center will be used state- wide for fire and paramedic training courses • Expanded Capacity to Protect and Serve During Disaster-As discussed earlier,the Red Cross is congressionally mandated to respond and offer mass casualty first aid,mass shelter, feeding and disaster welfare inquiry during times of disaster. We function in tandem with the Fire Department and other City public safety depattiiients, and will be more coordinated,unified, organized and efficient. The response capabilities offered out of an Emergency Operations Center,which can withstand chemical or biological weapons events, is critical to the safety and well being of all along the Wasatch Front and Back. Building an EOC will provide a place to coordinate efforts outside the "ground zero" of downtown Salt Lake City. Its proximity to major thoroughfares will further expedite immediate response. In addition, in order to allay community fear about such events,the Red Cross will offer training to the public on consequence management during weapons of mass destruction events so that Utah families are better prepared for such a possibility. Our current facility is inadequate in size and capacity to allow for this expansion of curriculum and course offerings. TIMELINE Feasibility/Collaboration Phase—July 2000-March 2002 In this phase,the Red Cross and Fire Dept.will explore potential collaborations, and ascertain potential for fund raising, leadership, campaign goals and infrastructure building. Planning Phase—November 2001-July 2002 In this phase, campaign systems and processes will be developed to conduct a successful campaign.We will purchase available property through Salt Lake City Corporation,and initialize EPA and other ground studies. Approval from Red Cross local and national board, and Salt Lake City Administration and Council will be obtained. We will also begin leadership cultivation and lead gift solicitation needed for campaign and design. Lead Gift Solicitation&Design Phase—July 2002-April 2003 This phase will concentrate on securing lead gifts-$100,000 and higher, as well as government grant opportunities. As funds are secured,we will contract an integrated design team, contractor,and break ground. A design charette and programming will be held in the fall 2002. Public Launch Phase—April 2003—May 2004 Our goal is to break ground Earth Day, April 22, 2003, with an alternate being Arbor Day, September 2003. In this phase, we will have completed the design phase, and raised sufficient funds,built sufficient momentum and succeeded in a sufficient number of collaborative efforts to ensure the ultimate success of the campaign. A broader local audience will now be introduced to, and encouraged to participate in, the campaign through a challenge grant. We will acquisition final funds for furnishings and equipment. Campaign Conclusion Phase—May 2004 The final phase of the campaign will bring together earlier efforts, complete key funding initiatives and celebrate successes while laying the groundwork for strategic donor stewardship and post-campaign plans and structure. A grand opening event will include all who were integral to its success. Schedule for Design/Construction The timeline for design and construction will be based on reaching certain benchmarks in funding, including government contract agreements and private funding acquisition. To follow is an estimation of project flow from an architectural production standpoint. 1. Phase 1 Environmental 2-3 weeks 2. Phase 2 Environmental Unknown if required 3. Soils Investigative Report 2-3 weeks 4. Site Survey/Topo 2 weeks 5. Programming 2-3 months 6. Schematic Design 3 months 7. Including workshops with Sustainable Design Consultants 8. Design Development 4 months 9. Construction Administration 6 months 10. Bidding and Awarding of Contract 1 month 11. Construction 18 months 12. Building Commissioning 1-1/2 months 13. Close-out/Record Documents 2 weeks PROJECTED BUILDING OPERATION COST SAVINGS:_Preliminary estimates on the operational and maintenance costs for a typical administration and services building are currently$4.50-4.75 per square foot. This estimate generally includes utilities,maintenance, insurance,janitorial, elevator service, and upkeep for a low-rise building operating 7am-6pm, five days per week. The lighting, cooling,heating,ventilation, hot water expenses for this green building are projected at 30%reduction of current buildings,with energy-savings to be roughly 50%. For a LEED certified rating of gold or platinum it is possible to save 30%-40% in operational costs over a typical code compliant building built today. Yearly operational utility cost* for 50,000 SF office space Typical Code Compliant Building built today @$1.50/SF/Yr. Avg. $ 75,000 Typical Building built in the 1970's @ $2.25/SF/Yr Avg. $112,500 Administration&Services Building @ $0.90-$1.05/SF/Yr. Avg. $45,000-$52,500 PROJECT EVALUATION: This project will continue to receive study and analysis for years after construction to determine functionality during multiple operations—both day-to-day and during disasters. Collaborations have been established with TreeUtah and the coming Utah Science Center to use a portion of the land for tree and native plantings, and education on sustainable architecture and landscaping. The project will also serve as a benchmark for Salt Lake City's High Performance Building Policies, currently being established by the City administration's"Green Task Force". Red Cross and Fire Dept. staffs are represented on the task force. MAJOR PROSPECTS: The following prospects are targeted for a gift exceeding$5,000. FEMA R.Harold Burton C. Comstock Clayton Found. Sorenson Foundation. OC Tanner Janet Lawson Found. Jon Huntsman Katherine&Ezekiel Dumke Nancy Eccles&Homer George&Dolores Eccles Ezekiel &Edna Wattis Dumke Hayward Fnd LDS Church Bamberger Found. SJ Quinney Found. Emma Eccles Willard Eccles Found. Mitch&June Morris Found. SLC Corp. Appropriations Redford Found. Lindquist Found. Energy Found. Herbert Michael Found. Pierce Truck IHC PacifiCorp Wells Fargo Questar Fidelity SLC CDBG Key Bank SL County CDBG Marie Eccles Cain Found. HUD Brownfields Clyde&Gail Heiner COMMITMENTS TO DATE Major Gift Donors Amount Pledged/Donated Heiner, Clyde&Gail 25,400 Bruch Trust,Michael 10,000 Misc. gifts 1,300 Salt Lake City Corporation 750,000 (property purchase) TOTAL 786,700 PROJECT BUDGET Building Project Cost—Red Cross raises a minimum 50% Property 700,000 Environment Mitigation 50,000 Design Charette with Rocky Mountain Institute 75,000 Architect/Engineering/Surveys/Fees 1,263,578 Construction(76,090 sq. ft with 3%inflation) 10,529,823 10% Contingency 1,179,340 Furnishings 1,100,000 Technology/Communications 500,000 Landscaping 105,000 Parking/sidewalk 265,000 BUILDING EXPENSE: 15,767,741 Campaign Expense Campaign Staff Salaries&Benefits(two years) 518,500 Administrative (CEO,Accounting,etc.) Chief Development Officer(50%FTE) Prospect Dev.Dir. (75%FTE), Data Specialist(25%FTE) Public Affairs Officer(50%FTE), Project Manager(100%FTE,three years) Equipment/Maintenance/Space/Utilities 49,000 Office/Meeting Supplies 4,000 Printing/copying/Postage/Mailing 19,000 Promotion/Events 39,100 Training/Travel/Lodging 12,500 Phone 5,000 Direct Mail Expense 15,000 Subscriptions/Membership 3,500 Recognition/Awards/Gifts 6,500 CAMPAIGN EXPENSE: 720,600 Alternative/Dual-Fuel Vehicles VEHICLE EXP: 130,000 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSE: $16,618,341 10 American Red Cross KEY PERSONNEL: Design Team, Currently,this team is comprised of the Red Cross and Fire Department, Salt Lake City Emergency Manager,AJC Architects (which includes at least one LEED-Certified architect),Weber Sustainability Consulting(a former Sierra Club chapter president),TreeUtah(a non-profit urban forester) and representatives of the American Institute of Architects Committee On The Environment. The following staffs of the Red Cross and Fire Department are part of the Design Team, and will conduct the fundraising and publicity campaign together with a leadership committee. Susan Sheehan,Red Cross CEO,has more than 18 years experience in non-profit agencies from both the private and public sector. Her skill at identifying and securing government funding has sustained organizations whose budget deficits she inherited. She has developed innovative programs and expanded service delivery,brought non-profits to financial viability,initiated and secured legislative change to better lives of Utahns. She has built collaborations between numerous entities at the national, state and local level. Molly Dumas,Red Cross Chief Development Officer,oversees the chapter's development and public relations departments,plus serves as the lead chapter for development of the Nevada/Utah Council of Chapters. She has 16 years of successful fund development and marketing experience in the non-profit sector,plus five years in advertising/publishing for the corporate sector. She has raised more than $19 million in the past 12 years for both operations and capital campaigns,most recently for Olympic preparedness. Jared Wood, Red Cross Public Affairs Officer serves as the marketing and public information staff for the chapter, and oversees all external communications including media,newsletters,brochures and other collaterals. He possesses a BA in Communications/Public Relations and BA in Women's Studies. He has 6 years fund raising and public relations experience in corporate,politics and non-profit organizations such as the YWCA, and Utah AIDS Foundation. Joyce Munson,Red Cross Prospect Development Director, oversees the entire database management, direct marketing and research analysis for the chapter. She has 10 years Raiser's Edge experience,and has successfully reconstructed the donor databases of two non-profits to achieve greater maximization of data for prospect analysis. Her background in finance and office management have ensured accounting principals and procedures are incorporated into donor record management. Ernest Hudson,Red Cross Chief Programs Officer, is retired from the US Army Corps of Engineers. He recently served as Coordinator for 2002 Olympics. While with the Corps of Engineers in Saudi Arabia, Ernie was the Chief of the Planning Division and was responsible for the development of all the building plans, construction schedules, and workforce requirements for several of the major building projects (Military Cities, airports, seaports) for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He was the Director of Logistics for the Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska from 1985 to 2001. As a Corps of Engineers Logistics Emergency Response leader,he was part of the joint FEMA/COE management team for federal response. Kurt Cook, Salt Lake City Fire Department Battalion Chief, is an 18-year fire service veteran. Currently serving as Division Chief of Training,Apparatus and Special Operations,he recently completed the nearly three million dollar renovation to the training tower providing the safest, state-of-the-art training opportunity available throughout the western region. His experience in emergency management during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and 1998 Salt Lake Tornado disaster have provided insight into the need for an emergency operations center. 11 American Red Cross American Red Cross Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter OPERATING BUDGET-FY 2002-03 Sources of Support United Way 281,112 (8%) Government Contracts 620,000(18%) National Red Cross 5,200 (<1%) Fees for services/products 671,880 (20%) Events 40,000 (1%) Individuals 995,000 (29%) Corporations 200,000 (6%) Foundations 225,000 (6%) Investments&Other 12,000 (<1%) Utility Assist. Contract 108,000 (3%) Building Campaign(for oper.) 215,000 (6%) TOTAL: $3,383,172 Expenses Salaries&Benefits 1,581,128 Emergency Services 186,487(6%) Conference/Travel 69,624 Disaster/Emergency Relief 500,000 (15%) Office/Program 79,806 Volunteer Recruitment/Train. 117,904(3%) Printing/Copying 27,037 Health& Safety Services 644,330 (19%) Advertising/Promotion 9,550 Nursing Services 131,241 (4%) Cause Marketing/Events 103,427 St. George Office 21,994 (<1%) Direct Mail 145,145 Development/Public Relations 462,050 (14%) Equipment,Repairs 22,834 Building Campaign 159,945 (4%) Property Rent&Maint. 183,422 Justice Program 429,854(13%) Cost of Goods Sold 208,459 National Assessment 245,552 (7%) Professional Fees 32,840 Administrative/Finance 479,315 (14%) Interest&Bank Fees 11,760 TOTAL: $3,378,673 Insurance 30,000 Phone 45,714 Postage/Freight 22,376 Emergency/Disaster Assistance 500,000 Depreciation 60,000 National Assessment 245,552 TOTAL: $3,378,673 12 American Red Cross (11 4) 6 + A shared facility 'r Amerkan for a prepared community incorporating Rea Cross vr. / Together.enan sore ahie high performance building practices gadib _, 6 f y ! • f ,ems • si, z^ �y 1 f Fly, ilk' r4k— - - ��-� \�.. FR i It EMS E ; - N - ii.-- -., ill J.-S::"4 :7.--,=„ ,, 4 r _- . a _ .--��� _ F _ 1 ' t A shared facility Vs -' American for a prepared community incorporating Red Cross '`jr`, sJ r nx..<�,,:><, high performance building practices preliminary information conceptual drawings rendering education&services building 10 - -— , A;' _ I`- ' �I i may r- — ` ,„,,, tas„,k,, ,,_-.77,,,, pak ..v.z_fr. ..., ni *. ,a Zs. prnIldw .,.'' Er �� � �< 4u,tiy,14 ry L llp )•., .- ,s r i!oa. R ro '1� oic architects eV)) r 1 + A shared facility \AZ;i: iiii:" Re American for a prepared community incorporating 5: 6- conceptual vow cross gym, >Y icaKour high performance building practices preliminaryinformation conceptual drawings - -S; - Y\ .I sketch 1 �� ;1� �kt� view towards education& �� Mv,, d ? \_`y_ ` ` 4411011.7 -t 'r, �/ I " services building from `root/�I parking i- / ... �- '' o1,1p1. ii......,1174.1_,7'-_____ ) o augdo� 11/,/ I -w'` - r 1' si i 7, 1 -6 --a it, - , , 4i- : 6,0--tills , .. _ I P I j. i si F�% --T,� :`•► ..:e'on...gai.Ifli� - ,� P�1 , ,., ,,;,. .-�. i I; � !V •.iil1�� !i? ' 4144-16 i lip‘ '—— 1 ifi r t '`, - #11111111111111111 I i t l�� �I (-' J alt architects a ➢ ?f f A shared facility �{� American \�,' 6.11:::":_4iRed Cross fora prepared community incorporating high performance building practices preliminary information ���5 ;J conceptual drawings r) /r" 6 �-J `_, - sketch 4 - J '-n apparatus and emergency ~' operations center building ____. „ :-Z:_.____j--______--- ____/. ' , � i lial-- ale architects r ( �r ,J4 f� ,,- A shared facility '7 American q"�� Red Cross for a prepared community incorporating rswros:or con weo hie high performance building practices preliminary information conceptual drawings site plan diagram J - - - .- - INDUSTRIAL ROAD -- - - -- - �'—'�/y 11 '.- _ EXISTING TRAILERS LL 0 C' EXISTING 1 � Ci FINE STATION,1<4 _ EXISTING I _r`- __� I _ LNE FIRE .k. I i TRAINING \I t BUILDING © ,� ,III i I •, PROPARFA EDUCATION I = 0 r { -- EMERGENCY /0 - - ! VEHICLE OPERATIONS 1 �� ! COURSE / © 0 . I UTAH // JN SUBSFAON P - - - - - WALLACE ROAD(1900 VI) - - - - - - --- l 1.Low heat absorbing paving material to reduce"Heat Island."6.Low heat absorbing roof 2.Canopy trees for parking lot shading. material. 3 Maximize pervious landscape and paving materials. 7.Urban wildlife habitat. 4.Drought-resistant and native planting. 8.Outdoor dining area. 5.Landscape feature for storm water management 9.Potential future expansion a i c architects and micro-climate control. (shown dashed) A shared facility American for a prepared community incorporating >•1RE �+ JRetl Cross ems` �J high performance building practices preliminary information - conceptual drawings '''':'" S.L.C. vicinity map International I Airport i, 1 some advantages of the location: ' Gov�"_1ment,, Center antl Central excellent access to and from 1-15, Business District University of Salt Lake City Utah Campus 1-215,1-80 and other major 1 throughways such as 2100 South s9 on Redwood Road and California do south St Street i.....,.,,,..u.,11,,,, i E 005uuih S=moo_ se crated from the densi of the _ _ — - — - government center and the Site Central Business District("ground ,,* Vicinity mnsantake zero"),yet accessible to it • Enlarged // y o this location is not encumbered ite Vicinity .Y _ ., by the high-density traffic wisoos / encountered in the CBD —yv, / seismic forces are lower by 10%- c 1/ o a,c,oek 15%at this location compared W 1700 5'T $wit 00 South St I. - with a downtown site per 2000 tr, Custer Rd best VaN " ;' International Building Code eHuter 1S E 171 — ii elo 19: 9er Rd o _.__o, proposed location property prices V 1 yz ee sIwould generally be expected to w F -' "'-'''.ia 11 be lower per S.F.than property in ist'w2i`o '' 'z ri the CBD d+,F�' _ o onadey /' approximately 50%of required property is already owned by SLC Corporation ai ar ai3OC,s A n -,= A shared facility Pine ,V. , S American Red Cross for a prepared community incorporating vx.ed osr high performance building practices preliminary information conceptual drawings section diagram 1 Light colored roof surface +\c�aOO _ to reduce"heat island." 0 O��° 2. Mechanical system uses convection for distribution. 0 I 3. Natural/passive ventilation. � � _ 4. High-value building _, insulation. 0 r--1 -4 -L- _ i� E� 5. Operable windows. 0 e 6. Occupant control of air flow. 4+ 7. Indirect lighting for even t. ... . .I .. . . ,,-.v._., I .-....,.I , distribution. 4 4 �r u- / O 8. Passive solar heat gain in -�. i.,,,. .\0** winter. 1- I ' p s '° 0 9 Vertical shading devices to control direct sunlight. .,©_ $ 10.Light shelves distribute light r ,1. _ I _I 1 -i i 1 L I ! _ I into the building. 1—. —. i i / 11.Photovoltaic-ready on-site 0 • renewable energy. A .I. . F i L_, LJ 1 Q ➢ r.------1 A shared facility Red Cross an for a prepared community incorporating iii,...„_. Am Cr r thecwemo.,otf high performance building practices preliminary information space requirements previous previous total shared # GSF each GASP* EMBARC SLCFD previous difference Shared Spaces Reception/Display Area 1 @ 850= 850 750 904 1,654 -804 Centralized Copy Function 2 @ 200= 400 320 564 884 -484 Lg.Conference Room(35-40 capacity) 1 @ 750= 750 1,000 464 1,464 -714 Med.Conference Room w/coffee bar 1 @ 420= 420 692 219 911 -491 Sm.Conference Rooms 6 @ 216= 1,296 160 0 160 1 136 Commercial Kitchen/Dining/Vending 1 @ 1,500= 1,500 2,510 1516 4026 -2526 Library 1 @ 600= 600 0 432 432 168 General Use Restrooms M&F 8 @ 260= 2,080 2,000 2204 4204 -2124 Outdoor reception dining area Classrooms Auditorium 150 seats 1 @ 2,200= 2,200 0 2168 2168 32 24 Capacity(primarily Red Cross) 3 @ 800= 2,400 2,750 0 2750 -350 35 Capacity(primarily SLCFD) 2 @ 950= 1,900 0 2592 2592 -692 Fire Training Classroor/Medical Classroom 2 @ 880= 1,760 0 1728 1728 32 Skills Practice Room(primarily SLCFD) 1 @ 288= 288 0 288 288 0 Nursing Classroom&Lab 1 @ 2,750= 2,750 2,750 0 2750 0 Classroom Associated Storage CNA classroom storage 1 @ 200= 200 200 0 200 0 Mannequin Decontamination 1 @ 200= 200 266 0 266 -66 Inventory/Mannequin Storage 1 @ 600= 600 750 0 750 -150 Freezer 1 @ 80= 80 0 0 0 80 Equipment(Audio Visual) 2 @ 64= 128 0 0 0 128 Chairs/fables 2 @ 80= 160 0 192 192 -32 Computer Lab 1 @ 432= 432 200 432 632 -200 Apparatus Bays(5) 1 @ 10,780= 10,780 0 8800 8800 1980 Compressor Room 1 @ 180= 180 0 180 180 0 E.O.C./Dispatch/Emergency Service Office Suite 1 @ 7,500= 7,500 2,860 12804 15664 -8164 and media room Secured Storage 1 @ 4,000= 4,000 390 4648 5038 -1038 Shop 0 @ 266= 0 266 0 266 -266 Building Maintenance Office 1 @ 200= 200 200 0 200 0 Laundry 1 @ 143= 143 0 143 143 0 subtotal 43,797 18,064 40,278 58,342 -14,545 alc architects A shared facility ,wE- ic , American Reci Cross for a prepared community incorporating T tSr..,consowohi high performance building practices preliminary information space requirements Salt Lake City Fire Department previous previous total # GSF each GASF* EMBARC SLCFD previous difference SLC Fire Department Community Education Staff Office Suite 1 @ 1,040= 1,040 0 1040 1040 0 Medical Division Office Suite 1 @ 1,152= 1,152 0 1152 1152 0 Administration Office Suite 1 @ 2,000= 2.000 0 0 0 2000 Fire Training Division Office Suite 1 @ 1,152= 1,152 0 1 152 1152 0 Special Operations 1 @ 576= 576 0 576 576 0 College Extension Personnel Offices 0 @ 209= 0 0 209 209 -209 Overflow(Future Offices) 0 @ 144= 0 0 144 144 -144 Video Production/Recording 1 @ 1,272= 1.272 0 1272 1272 0 Video Tech&Office 1 @ 570= 570 0 570 570 0 Wellness Center Fitness Room 1 @ 960= 960 0 960 960 0 Aerobics Room 1 @ 1,140= 1,140 0 1140 1140 0 Mud Room 1 @ 143= 143 0 143 143 0 Instructor Lockers/Showers/Restrooms 1 @ 420= 420 0 602 602 -182 Trainee Lockers/Showers/Restrooms 1 @ 1,700= 1,700 0 1166 1166 534 Radio/Small Tools Repair 1 @ 552= 552 0 552 552 0 SCBA Repair 1 @ 336= 336 0 336 336 0 Apparatus Office 1 @ 182= 182 0 182 182 0 Storage Room 1 @ 142= 142 0 142 142 0 Open Patio Recovery Pavilion(Outdoor) subtotal 13,337 0 11,338 11,338 1,999 ajc arc,,,,, r A shared facility ' American for a prepared community incorporating m Pf. '� Retl Cross Together. a high performance building practices preliminary information P rY space requirements previous Red Cross and TOTALS previous total # GSF each GASF* EMBARC SLCFD previous difference Red Cross Administration Office Suite 1 @ 2,731 = 2,731 2,731 0 2731 0 Finance/Accounting/Technology Office Suite 1 @ 1,463= 1,463 1,463 0 1463 0 CNA Office Suite 1 @ 693= 693 693 0 693 0 Hispanic Outreach Office Suite 1 @ 812= 812 812 0 812 0 Health&Safety Office Suite 1 @ 1,118= 1,118 1,118 0 1118 0 Multi Use Office Suite 1 @ 639= 639 639 0 639 0 HIV/AIDS Office Suite 1 @ 825= 825 825 0 825 0 Bookstore 1 @ 750= 750 750 0 750 0 subtotal 9,031 9,031 0 9,031 0 total GASF 66,165 27,095 51,616 78,711 -12,546 15%circulation,utility 9,925 4,064 7,742 11,807 -1,882 total Gross Area 76,090 31,159 59,358 90,518 -14,428 ram---. o;< „ A .,. Q-_ >➢ r:•-.i:r7,--. A shared facility American Rea cross for a prepared community incorporating � high performance building practices ,preliminary information contacts American Red Cross Greater Salt Lake Area Chapter Molly Gorman Dumas Chief Development Officer (801)323-7029 mdumas@utahredcross.org Salt Lake City Fire Department R.Kurt Cook Battalion Chief (801)580-1242 kurt.cook@ci.slc.ut.us Salt Lake City Corporation Engineering Division Gaylord V.Smith, Consultant Project Manager (801)535-6344 gaylord.smith@ci.slc.ut.us rLl--_ oi< architects The City could finance its portion of the construction costs of the proposed facility with bonds issued by the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake, impact fees, grant funds and pay-as-you-go capital improvement funding. The Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross feels that a resolution would be beneficial to its fundraising efforts. The Administration is in support of this resolution. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: The American Red Cross is requesting that the Council adopt this resolution to assist with its fundraising efforts. However, a resolution is not required and the Council's appropriation to purchase the land may send same message to potential donors as this resolution hopes to accomplish. If the Council wants to approve this resolution the following motion may be used: ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the resolution authorizing Salt Lake City to participate in a collaborative effort between the City and the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross to explore the possibility of joint planning, construction and cohabitation of a future City Emergency Operations Center/Training Center. Page 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing a collaborative effort between the City and the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget& Policy Analyst CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Chuck Querry, and Kurt Cook Document Policy-Related Facts Type Budget-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Resolution Budget requests for this This resolution allows the This resolution will be project will be City and local chapter of used in the fundraising considered after the the American Red Cross to efforts of the Red fundraising efforts of the participate in a Cross.The Council and City and the Red Cross collaborative effort relating State/Local Code do are complete. to a future City Emergency not require a Operations resolution of this Center/Training Center. nature. The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution that will authorize the City to participate in a collaborative effort between the City and the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross relating to a future City Emergency Operations Center/Training Center. The resolution is being forwarded to the Council with a request for $750,000 to purchase land for a future Emergency Operations Center/Training Center. The appropriation of funds for the purchase of land is being considered as part of Budget Amendment 9. The purpose of adopting a resolution of this nature would be to show prospective donors to the proposed Emergency Operations Center/Training Center that the City is exploring the possibility of cohabitation with the local chapter of the American Red Cross at the proposed facility. This resolution would be used as an aid in the fundraising efforts of the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross. As noted in the transmittal from the Administration and as discussed by the Council during the fiscal year 2002-2003 Fire Department budget briefmg, the City could purchase the approximately 3.5 acres adjacent to the current Fire Training Tower and use the site for the proposed Emergency Operations Center when construction and operations funding becomes available. It was noted during the budget briefmg that the American Red Cross would -- like to contribute one half of the anticipated cost of the facility. They could contribute to the construction of the facility and then sign a long-term lease for a portion of the facility. The necessary fundraising efforts of the Red Cross could take several years. Page 1 AUG 2 6 21102. ROCKY J. FLU HART `-'i/'' t\ a ap1`GZT ' omo, A, li Ni -rs,.�.. ,��� ...-s s .i,nr�.d v�c�,,�we,_..r-:�- ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 9 Recommendation: We recommend that on September 3, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on September 10,2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 9. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on September 3, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B0 1-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-61 90 P 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001 which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted biennial budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on September 10, 2002 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on September 10, 2002, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, 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 biennial budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2'003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. 2 SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biennial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHII-F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: ;•`:2,TO FCal Lt•!L.' C A oy's •' t—24:—CHIEF DEPUTY DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G.\Ordinance 02\Amending budget 9-10 doc 4 FY 2003 Grant Initiatives in Budget Amendment - September ............................. ............................................. llouselcee )ing 1. Washington Square $39,750.00 $39,750 -0- -0- -0- Restoration 2. General Fund $2,385,021.00 -0- -0- Encumbrances 3. Forestry and Sweeping $568,944.00 -0- -0- Vehicle Replacement— Lease Payments and Cash Purchases 4. Prior Year Outstanding $1,315,922.00 -0- -0- Obligations—Refuse, Golf and Fleet Funds 5. Closed-out CIP Projects $750,620.00 -0- -0- 6. School District $15,782.00 -0- -0- Reimbursement—CIP 7. Non-CDBG Special $17,987,026.54 -0- -0- Revenue Carryovers 8. CDBG Recaptures $442,559.42 -0- -0- 9. Grant Program Income $990,298.69 -0- -0- 10. CDBG Carryover $2,862,162.18 -0- -0- 11. 800 Mhtz Radio Lease $61,716.98 -0- -0- Pa ments Grant Re airing Existing Staff Resources 12. US Dept. of Energy Solar $50,000.00 -0- -0- Roof Partnership 13. Sorenson/Intel Computer $5,000.00 -0- -0- Clubhouse Security Camera 14. National Trust for Historic $5,000.00 -0- -0- Preservation 15. County CDBG—Odyssey $65,000.00 -0- -0- House Building Im t rovements Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources 16. State Dept. of Energy $60,000.00 1.0 -0- Services—Clean Cities 17. Weed and Seed $275,000.00 1.0 -0- 18. VAeA—Domestic Violence $21,854.25 OT -0- Prosecution 19. UT State Univ.—Crisis $13,788.00 OT -0- Intervention Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: AS TO FOal ek, iofnay'a CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending budget 9-10.doc 4 20. Sorenson/Intel Computer $60,000.00 1.0 -0- Clubhouse New Items 21. Fire EOC/Training Center $750,000.00 -0- -0- 22. ADA Ramps & Defective $45,000.00 -0- -0- Sidewalk—7th E. from 9th S. to 17th S. 23. Sidewalk on Redwood Rd. $69,500.00 -0- -0- from 4th S. to Indiana 24. Salt Lake City Intermodal $9,704,335.00 -0- -0- Hub 25. Parking Validation Program $39,000.00 $39,000 -0- $59,500 -0- 26. Hansen Planetarium $25,000.00 $25,000 -0- -0- Evaluation 27. Library Block Open Space $3,675,886.00 $3,675,886 -0- -0- Development 2 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year . Washington Square Restoration-Budget Rollover BA#9 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping.or Routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund General Fund Balance 39,750 Total $39,750 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Public Services Department, Parks Division 39,750 Total $39,750 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 39,750 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) $0 Total $39,750 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Throughout the year various celebrations are held on the grounds of the City and County building. It is the expectation of the City administration that the grounds are kept in good repair and are well maintained. In February, the City and County building was the site for the City's downtown festival celebrating the Olympic Winter Games, and as such incurred damage to the turf on Washington Square. City administration was aware of the damage, and the City Council appropriated $39,750 in the June 2002 budget amendment to pay for the restoration of the grounds on Washington Square. Originally, the cost to restore the grass from the damage caused during the Olympic festival was estimated to be $90,000; however, after the Olympics it was determined that the scope of the restoration work wasn't as extensive as originally envisioned, and the restoration cost estimate was reduced to $39,750. The City Council appropriated $39,750 as part of the June 2002 budget amendment. Although the funds were appropriated, they were not encumbered prior to the end of fiscal year, and therefore lapsed to fund balance. If the $39,750 is not reappropriated from fund balance, then Public Services must absorb the cost of the grass restoration within its current budget. The money was not encumbered prior to year-end due to the late timing of the appropriation, delays caused by having to coordinate construction activities with prescheduled events on the grounds, and the timing of committing the contractor to this phase of the restoration efforts. It is recommended that the budget be reappropriated for this restoration project. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year General Fund Encumbrances •• BA#9 02 . Initiative Name Initiative Number Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By Phone Number 'Housekeeping or routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund General Fund Encumbrance Carryover 2,385,021 Total $2,385,021 $0 $0_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) 2,385,021 Total $2,385,021 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Department Amount Attorney $59,448 Community and Economic Development $401,187 Council $326,602 Fire - $72,748 Mayor $16,718 Management Services $183,003 Non Departmental $65,920 Police $61,553 Public Services $1,197,842 Total $2,385,021 Note: Detail at the cost center and object level is available in the Finance Division office Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization General Fund departments will be able to liquidate prior year encumbrances without using fiscal year 2002'budget. F. Issue Discussion Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis can't be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: General Fund departments comparison to budget includes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end. Historically, the Council has appropriated fund balance to provide a means to "hold harmless" the General Fund departments prior year encumbrances. There were $2,385,021 of encumbrances at Fiscal 2002 year end. Without Council action, the General Fund departments' Fiscal 2003 appropriation will be forced to fund encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end. The encumbering of funds at contract inception or purchase order issuance causes a timing difference between the "earmarking" of funds for an expenditure and the actual expenditure It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. BA#9 FY03 Initiative#02-GFcarry03 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Vehicle Replacements BA#9 03 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 585-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping or routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Fleet Management 568,944 0 I 0 Total $568,944 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Public Services Capital Outlay (568,944) 0 0 Non-Departmental Transfer Out to Fleet Mgmt 568,944 0 0 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Fleet Management 568,944 . 0 - Total $568,944 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay-Cash Purchases/Fleet Replacement 362,161 0 0 6. Other(Specify)-Lease Payments/Fleet Replacemnt 206,783 0 0 Total $568,944 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Current accounting treatment in the city requires the Fleet Replacement Fund budget for the cost of vehicle lease payments and vehicle cash payments for General Fund entities. When the Forestry and Street Sweeping budgets were moved from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund in budget amendment #7 beginning with the FY 02-03 budget, vehicle lease payments and vehicle cash payments were also budgeted in Public Services' budget. The Forestry and Street Sweeping vehicle lease payments and cash payments should have been placed in the General Fund Nondepartmental budget along with the existing funding provided by the General Fund for fleet replacement. This proposed budget amendment will make the necessary adjustments by moving $568,944 of budget from Public Services General Fund budget to Nondepartment from where a transfer will be made to the Fleet Management Fund. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Prior Year Outstanding Obligations-Refuse Golf and Fleet Funds BA#9 04 Initiative Name Initiative Number/type Greg Davis -. 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping or routine Type of amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Fleet Management fund balance 911,216 Total $911,216 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Refuse fund balance 239,473 Golf Fund Balance Rollover 165,233 Total $404,706 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Fleet Management Fund 911,216 Total $911,216 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Refuuse Fund 239,473 Golf Fund 165,233 Total $404,706 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 155,296 4. Charges and Services 40,120 5. Capital Outlay 1,120,506 6. Other(Specify) Total $1,315,922 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Encumbrance Roll Detail Cost Center Obj Code Amount 5711600 2222 884 5711410 2275 19 5711200 2289 285 5711600 2295 672 5711600 2299 23 5711200 229501 69 O&M Total 1952 5711200 2329 2201 5711600 2396 275 5711520 239601 190 C&S Total -_2666 5711200 2750 142110 5711600 2750 92745 Capital Total 234855 5901005 2234 657 5901025 2240 59968 5901065 2292 3100 O&M Total 63725 5901055 2329 10118 5901040 239601 5117 5901035 2329 3600 C&S Total : -18835 5901055 273101 13566 5901065 27030 1895 5901075 273103 67212 Capital Total . . . 82673 6100001 2221 100 6100002 2233 911 6100002 2234 8 6100002 2234 589 6100002 2234 100 6100002 2234 5110 6100002 2234 113 6100002 2234 1481 6100002 2234 568 6100002 2234 3939 6100002 2234 356 6100002 2234 719 6100002 2234 1456 6100002 2234 1082 6100002 2234 93 6100020 2234 25294 6100020 2234 1410 -- 6100002 2246 472 6100020 2246 2660 6100003 2265 180 6100003 2265 787 6100001 2296 4264 6100004 2298 54 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 6100001 2299 55 6100002 2299 705 6100002 2299 90 6100003 2299 39 6100003 2299 234 6100004 _ 2299 304 6100002 223101 12 6100002 223101 2 6100002 223101 1 6100008 223101 4494 6100008 223101 10 6100008 223101 1029 6100002 223104 15 6100008 223104 5912 6100008 223104 15 6100008 223104 775 6100003 _ 224101 1311 6100003 224101 556 6100004 224101 2298 6100004 224101 52 6100006 224104 1481 6100006 224104 2290 6100006 224104 1647 6100006 224104 3197 6100003 224105 497 6100003 224105 212 6100004 224105 1412 6100004 224105 1464 6100006 224106 303 6100003 224108 95 6100004 224109 24 6100004 224109 300 6100004 224109 2444 6100008 224110 2120 6100005 224111 500 6100005 224111 1978 O&M Total .89619 6100001 2329 2201 6100001 2350 5703 6100001 2350 8638 6100004 2395 655 6100001 2529 1317 6100001 233607 60 6100002 239601 45 C&S Total 18619 6100001 2750 15902 6100001 2750 42569 6100001 2750 25379- 6100020 2750 70433 6100020 2750 31391 6100020 2750 80543 6100020 2750 78542 6100020 2750 66122 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 6100020 2750 19867 6100020 2750 67973_ 6100020 2750 240403 6100020 2750 63854 Capital Total 802978 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: State law requires that all budgets, except that of the Capital Project Fund, lapse at June 30th or fiscal year end. Historically, purchase orders entered near the end of the fiscal year are not paid by June 30th and therefore the payment will occur in the next fiscal year. Because the budget from the prior fiscal year lapsed, it is necessary to again appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior year and paid in the current year. The funding source for this type of transaction is fund balance (cash reserves). Cash or revenue collected in the prior year and not spent lapses to fund balance or cash reserves and is therefore available to cover the commitments made. This amendment request will appropriate $239,473 in the Refuse Fund and $922,216 in the Fleet Management Fund. There is adequate fund balance available in each fund to accomplish this request. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services- Engineering FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Closed-Out CIP Projects BA#9 05 Initiative Name Initiative Number Randy Hillier/Joel Harrison 6353/6234 Prepared By Phone Number - Housekeeping or routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Capital Projects Fund: CIP Contingency(GF Funded) 401,508 83-87049 Indiana Avenue (20,741) 83-96024 Ottinger Hall (6,000) 83-96109 Air Conditioning @ Streets (10,000) 83-96119 Bonneville Shoreline Trail (5,400) 83-97012 Playground Replacement (1,999) 83-97076 Fleet/Street Maintenance Facility (22,464) 83-97080 Independent Cost Verification (14,460) 83-98005 East Liberty Park Street Design (8,174) 83-98008 Chase Home Renovation (2,286) 83-98032 Sunnyside Park Renovation (2,350) 83-98071 Rebuild Rain Pump (12,000) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 83-98079 MHJ Block Master Plan (100,917) 83-98106 600 South Repairs (1) 83-99007 Citywide Playground (4,432) 83-99010 Tennis Court Reconstruction (21,924) 83-00010 Federal Way Barrier (565) 83-00012 100 South- 102084 (18,228) 83-00026 Park Pavilion-271701 (13,564) 83-00048 Hayes Avenue Sidewalk- 102086 (11,885) 83-00049 Fire Station#3 (7) 83-00076 Pioneer Road Right of Way (25,000) 83-01012 100 South-800 to 900 West (14,607) 83-01013 Exhaust at Fleet Shop (6,446) 83-01015 Hayes Avenue (57,073) 83-01025 Playground Improvements (11,348) 83-98108 UDOT Cable Stayed Feature (9,635) Class C Projects Contingency 349,112 83-91065 Indiana Avenue Surplus Canal (8,931) 83-97021 Gladiola/Indiana Street (6,052) 83-99038 Pioneer Road (272,896) 83-00038 Pioneer Road- 1300 to 1700 South (61,234) Other Changes-no cash balances 7,961,508 83-00087 South Temple (4,548,500) 83-00090 1300 South (80,000) 83-00106 400 South/Indiana (50,000) 83-01087 Air Intake&Exhaust Fan (58,472) 83-01088 Pavement @ Landfill (26,250) 83-98016 Bridge Replacement @ California Avenue (720,000) 83-98020 Pioneer Road SID (200,000) 83-98096 Landfill Module#6 (2,244,400) 83-00114 Fire Training Center (33,886) Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(CIP Contingency) 750,620 Total $750,620 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Periodically, Engineering reviews the Capital Improvements Program project cost centers that can be closed. If a project is placed on the list, Engineering is indicating that the project is finished, and no further expenditures needed. Each of the project amounts have been compared with IFAS to confirm the amounts remaining. It is recommended that the Council approve the amendment and place the remaining amounts into the CIP Contingency Fund. There are $401,508 of projects funded by the General Fund and $349,112 of projects funded by Class C Road funds. These balances will be moved to a contingency fund in CIP for future appropriation and use. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment - Management Services FY 02-03 • Department For Fiscal Year School Dist Reimbursement BA#9 06 Initiative Name Initiative Number Randy Hillier/Joel Harrison 6353/6234 Prepared By Phone Number - Housekeec ing or routine • • Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 _ $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Contingency 15,782 Total $15,782 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Contingency 15,782 Total $15,782 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services - 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Deposit into CIP fund balance) 15,782 Total $15,782 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: In June of 1996, an agreement was signed between the City and the Salt Lake City School District concerning improvements to Morton Drive, a property adjacent to school district property. The agreement required the school district to reimburse the City for the final actual costs of the work upon closing on any partial or complete sale of the property The property was recently sold, and the amount of $15,782.40, the amount agreed upon, was reimbursed to the City by the school district. Funds were not previously budgeted. It is recommended that the funds be deposited into CIP contingency and the contingency budget be increased. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 02-03. • Department For Fiscal Year Non-CDBG Special Revenue Carryovers :BA#9 07 Initiative Name Initiative Number Elwin Hellmann 535-6424 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping`or routine _.. ; Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Non-CDBG Special Revenue 5,543,056.14 Non-CDBG Special Revenue fund balance 12,443,970.40 Total $ 17,987,026.54 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0_ 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Non-CDBG Special Revenue 17,987,026.54 Total $ 17,987,026.54 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages * 2. Employee Benefits * 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services *5. Capital Outlay * 6. Other(Specify) *See detail below * Total $0 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization City will not be able to complete projects in the Miscellaneous Grants Fund, Miscellaneous Special Revenue Fund, Housing Special Revenue Fund and Private Donations fund if this amendment is not approved. F. Issue Discussion Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis can't be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. At the beginning of each fiscal year the City Council has appropriated the project balances (carryover budgets) of the Special Revenue Funds. Many, but not all of the projects have cash balances as well. Most of them are reimbursement grants, etc. that only provide cash after expenditures have been made. As of June 30, 2002, the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these projects lapsed. Without Council action, the City cannot finish the started projects. Budgets in special revenue funds by state statute lapse at fiscal year end. It is recommended that the Council approve the carryover budgets for these special revenue funds BA#9 FY03 Initiative#07-72_78FY2003carryover Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Revenue Impact Detail Cost Center/Obj Code Amount RENTER REHAB. 89/90 7200910 197478 176,557.74 FEMA HAZ MITIGATION GRANT 7210202 1360 20,000.00 STATE EMS GRANT 7210614 1370 20,000.00 BOARDED/TRANSITNAL HOUSING G.F 7217006 1360 38,392.23 FEMA PROJECT IMPACT GRANT 7219901 1360 6,116.38 '99 LCL LAW ENFORC BLK GRANT 7220002 1360 118.00 FBI WEED AND SEED 7220006 1360 36,442.83 VOCA 7220104 1360 173.45 UTAH POLICE CORP 7220105 1360 14,924.00 LLEBG 2000 7220106 1360 53,018.08 COPS IN SHOPS 7220108 1360 557.00 INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST KIDS 7220111 1360 9,503.00 ALSAM FOUNDATION 7220113 1360 6,469.73 CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM 7220114 1360 1,972.80 WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 7220115 1360 2,915.00 VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAM -COOR 7220202 1360 1,562.80 VAWA 7220203 1360 9,068.22 2001 LLEBG 7220204 1360 295,375.14 NATIONAL INCIDENT BASED RPRTNG 7220205 1360 5,113.61 WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 7220206 1360 33,033.60 VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAM GRANT 7220208 1360 59,744.47 COPS IN SHOPS 7220209 1360 10,000.00 INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST KIDS 7220210 1360 5,249.00 VAWA 7220212 1360 8,121.72 HIDTA GRANT 7220213 1360 84,824.00 COPS DEMONSTRATION CENTER 7229804 1360 73,221.47 COPS SCHOOL BASED PARTNERS 7229907 1360 48,835.49 FRIEND OF MEMORY GROVE GRANT 7230102 1360 22,613.52 INTEL COMPUTER CLUBHOUSE 7230201 1360 6,765.81 NHS-25TH YEAR 7260001 1360 26,075.58 FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER 7260005 1360 1,000.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION-25TH YEAR 7260009 1360 120,900.00 UTA LIGHT RAIL COORDINATOR 7260014 1360 21,159.00 NHS-26TH YEAR 7260101 1360 230,194.67 SL CDC NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION 7260103 1360 21,956.51 HOUSING AUTHORITY-26TH YEAR 7260104 1360 1,000.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION-26TH YR 7260109 1360 121,500.00 BROWNSFIELD GRANT-CLEANUP 7260112 1360 153,969.24 BROWNSFIELD GRANT-IPA POSITN 7260113 1360 10,661.39 RAPE RECOVERY CTR-CNTY CDBG 7260114 1360 3,218.00 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM-DOE 7260119 1360 514.41 COMMUNITY PROSECUTION GRANT 7260121 1360 47,048.65 NHS-27TH YEAR 7260201 1360 128,450.08 SL CDC 7260202 1360 13,500.00 _- SL CDC 7260203 1360 186,506.00 HOUSING AUTHORITY-27TH YR 7260204 1360 19,922.00 NHS-CHDO 7260205 1360 202,500.00 SL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM 7260206 1360 34,007.14 ESG-27TH YEAR 7260207 1360 15,088.67 SLC HOUSING& NEIGHBORHOOD DEV 7260208 1360 269,501.28 HOME ADMINISTRATION -27TH YR 7260209 1360 135,400.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment UTAH NONPROFIT HOUSING-27 YR 7260210 1360 14,000.00 UTAH AIDS FOUNDATION 7260211 1360 7,705.00 SL HOPWA 7260212 1360 44,114.88 TRAFFIC CONTROL CTR OPERATOR 7260213 1360 51,608.26 REFUGEE YOUTH/FAMILY CONSORTIU 7260215 1360 81,771.70 WEED& SEED GRANT-COORDINTR 7260216 1360 18,885.75 WEED&SEED GRANT 7260217 1360 81,767.45 STATE CED GRANT-LANDMARK WEB 7260218 1360 2,000.00 REFUGEE GRANT-PAYROLL COSTS 7260219 1360 16,105.30 QUALITY GROWTH PLANNING GRANT 7260220 1360 15,000.00 CTY CDBG-NGHBRHD HSE ASSOC 7260221 1360 50,000.00 PIONEER PK USE PLAN 7260222 1360 60,000.00 HISTORIC PLANNING-SURVEY 7260223 1360 18,039.00 HISTORIC PROPERTY-PR CAMPAIG 7260224 1360 1,483.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION 24TH 7269905 1360 60,543.55 GATEWAY BROWNSFIELD GT 7269915 1360 4.00 HHS-MMRS GRANT 7270002 1360 143,741.06 EMS STATE GRANT 7270101 1370 16,612.21 MMRS GRANT 7270103 1360 200,000.00 COMPUTER GRANT 7270104 1360 3,500.00 FIRE-EMS GRANT 7270105 1370 87,703.24 EMS STATE GRANT 7270202 1360 127,650.00 WILD FIRE TRAINING 7270203 1360 5,000.00 HOME PROGRAM HOLDING 7272000 1360 120,142.97 HOPWA STATE GRANT 7272020 1360 31,561.37 ASSESSIBLE HOUSING 22ND YR 7272101 1360 25,000.00 HOME HOUSING NHS 22ND YEAR 7272104 1360 4.00 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM-OES 7280101 1360 5,290.82 REFUGEE CONSOR. COORDINATOR 7280102 1360 9,919.49 PARLEY'S TUNNEL ST DEPT RESRCE 7280103 1360 100,000.00 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM 7280201 1360 60,000.00 Miscellaneous Grants Total - .. -=. . • . ._ :.4,273,914.76 NTL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS 7300801 1890 165,650.00 Other special Revenue Funds Total - _ - : _ 165,650.00 — PROGRAM INCOME RENTER REHAB 7800201 197472 131,880.81' HED DEFERRED LOANS 26TH 7826010 197403 78,132.29 HOUSING DEF LOANS-27TH YR 7827010 197403 626,977.00 HOME LOANS 27TH YR. 7827030 1360 266,501.28 Housing Fund Total 1,103,491.38 Total Revenue 5,543,056.14 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Expenditure Impact Detail Cost Center/Obj Code Amount RENTER REHAB. 89/90 7200910 291015 176,557.74 FEMA HAZ MITIGATION GRANT 7210202 2590 20,000.00 STATE EMS GRANT 7210614 2590 20,000.00 UDAG REVOLVING PAYBACK 7215607 2950 4,675,862.26 HOUSING TRUST FUND UDAG 7217004 2950 3,641,460.68 BOARDED/TRANSITNAL HOUSING G.F 7217006 2590 38,392.23 FEMA PROJECT IMPACT 7219901 2590 6,116.38 '99 LCL LAW ENFORC BLK GRANT 7220002 2590 118.00 FBI WEED AND SEED 7220006 2590 36,442.83 VOCA 7220104 2590 173.45 UTAH POLICE CORP 7220105 2590 14,924.00 LLEBG 2000 7220106 2590 53,018.08 COPS IN SHOPS 7220108 2590 557.00 INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST KIDS 7220111 2590 9,503.00 ALSAM FOUNDATION 7220113 2590 6,469.73 CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM 7220114 2590 J 1,972.80 WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 7220115 2590 2,915.00 VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAM-COOR 7220202 2590 1,562.80 VAWA 7220203 2590 9,068.22 2001 LLEBG 7220204 2590 295,375.14 NATIONAL INCIDENT BASED RPRTNG 7220205 2590 5,113.61 WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 7220206 2590 33,033.60 VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAM GRANT 7220208 2590 59,744.47 COPS IN SHOPS 7220209 2590 10,000.00 INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST KIDS 7220210 2590 5,249.00 VAWA 7220212 2590 8,121.72 HIDTA GRANT 7220213 2590 84,824.00 COPS DEMONSTRATION CENTER 7229804 2590 73,221.47 COPS SCHOOL BASED PARTNERS 7229907 2590 48,835.49 FRIEND OF MEMORY GROVE GRANT 7230102 2590 22,613.52 INTEL COMPUTER CLUBHOUSE 7230201 2590 6,765.81 NHS-25TH YEAR 7260001 2590 26,075.58 FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER 7260005 2590 1,000.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION-25TH YEAR 7260009 2590 120,900.00 RDA GRANT-HOUSING TRUST FUND 7260011 2950 860,069.37 UTA LIGHT RAIL COORDINATOR 7260014 2590 21,159.00 NHS-26TH YEAR 7260101 2591 230,194.67 SL CDC NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION 7260103 2590 21,956.51 HOUSING AUTHORITY-26TH YEAR 7260104 2590 1,000.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION-26TH YR 7260109 2590 121,500.00 BROWNSFIELD GRANT-CLEANUP 7260112 2590 153,969.24 BROWNSFIELD GRANT-IPA POSITN 7260113 2590 10,661.39 RAPE RECOVERY CTR-CNTY CDBG 7260114 2590 3,218.00 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM-DOE 7260119 2590 514.41 COMMUNITY PROSECUTION GRANT 7260121 2590 47,048.65 NHS-27TH YEAR 7260201 2590 128,450.08 SL CDC 7260202 2590 13,500.00 SL CDC 7260203 2594 186,506.00 HOUSING AUTHORITY-27TH YR 7260204 2590 19,922.00 NHS-CHDO 7260205 2592 202,500.00 SL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM 7260206 2590 34,007.14 ESG-27TH YEAR 7260207 2590 15,088.67 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment SLC HOUSING&NEIGHBORHOOD DEV 7260208 2590 269,501.28 HOME ADMINISTRATION-27TH YR 7260209 2590 135,400.00 UTAH NONPROFIT HOUSING-27 YR 7260210 2590 14,000.00 UTAH AIDS FOUNDATION 7260211 2590 7,705.00 SL HOPWA 7260212 2590 44,114.88 TRAFFIC CONTROL CTR OPERATOR 7260213 2590 51,608.26 REFUGEE YOUTH/FAMILY CONSORTIU 7260215 2590 81,771.70 WEED &SEED GRANT-COORDINTR 7260216 2590 18,885.75 WEED & SEED GRANT 7260217 2590 81,767.45 STATE CED GRANT- LANDMARK WEB 7260218 2590 2,000.00 REFUGEE GRANT- PAYROLL COSTS 7260219 2590 16,105.30 QUALITY GROWTH PLANNING GRANT 7260220 2590 15,000.00 CTY CDBG-NGHBRHD HSE ASSOC 7260221 2590 50,000.00 PIONEER PK USE PLAN 7260222 2590 60,000.00 HISTORIC PLANNING-SURVEY 7260223 2590 18,039.00 HISTORIC PROPERTY-PR CAMPAIG 7260224 2590 1,483.00 HOME ADMINISTRATION 24TH 7269905 2590 60,543.55 GATEWAY BROWNSFIELD GT 7269915 2590 4.00 HHS- MMRS GRANT 7270002 2590 143,741.06 EMS STATE GRANT 7270101 2590 16,612.21 MMRS GRANT 7270103 2593 200,000.00 COMPUTER GRANT 7270104 2590 3,500.00 FIRE-EMS GRANT 7270105 2590 87,703.24 EMS STATE GRANT 7270202 2590 127,650.00 WILD FIRE TRAINING 7270203 2590 5,000.00 HOME PROGRAM HOLDING 7272000 2590 120,142.97 HOPWA STATE GRANT 7272020 2590 31,561.37 ASSESSIBLE HOUSING 22ND YR 7272101 2590 25,000.00 HOME HOUSING NHS 22ND YEAR 7272104 2590 4.00 RIVERPARK PROGRAM INCOME 7272906 2590 857,534.14 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM-OES 7280101 2590 5,290.82 REFUGEE CONSOR. COORDINATOR 7280102 2590 9,919.49 PARLEY'S TUNNEL ST DEPT RESRCE 7280103 2590 100,000.00 CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM 7280201 2590 60,000.00 Miscellaneous Grants Total --14,30.8,841.21 NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT 7300200 2590 16,590.04 NEIGHBORHOOD MATCH GRANT FY00 7300201 2590 10,014.26 NEIGH. MATCH GRANT PARKS FY00 7300202 2590 8,545.00 NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT 02 7300203 2590 96,948.20 DEMOLITION FUND 7300500 2398 39,066.68 AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS 7300600 2590 25,000.00 NTL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS 7300801 2590 104,712.07 WEED ABATEMENT FUND 7303035 2590 23,700.00 NARCOTICS EVIDENCE TRUST FUND 7373001 2590 3,722.50 GENERAL EVIDENCE TRUST FUND 7373002 2590 90,995.05 = VICE EVIDENCE SP.REV. FUND 7373003 2590 3,204.79 TENANT RELOCATION 7373008 2590 34,462.56 POLICE REWARD FUND 7373009 2590 23,500.00 Other Special Revenue Fund Total 480,461.15 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment PROGRAM INCOME RENTER REHAB 7800201 291072 131,880.81 HED DEFERRED LOANS 26TH 7826010 291071 78,132.29 HOUSING DEF LOANS-27TH YR 7827010 291071 626,977.00 HOME LOANS 27TH YR. 7827030 2950 266,501.28 CITY HOUSING PROGRAM 7878006 2950 700,000.00 HOME PROGRAM INCOME LOANS 7878325 2950 413,184.01 Housing Fund Total 2,216,675.39 YOUTH CITY PROGRAMS 7700875 2590 53,678.57 EAST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD 7703040 2590 37,595.39 CYCLE SALT LAKE 7710000 2590 2,110.51 ACCESS SALT LAKE CTIY 7777103 2590 18,409.99 PARKS& REC. MAINT.TRUST 7777108 2590 45,536.87 PARKS DIVISION FLOWER FUND 7777112 2590 1.60 DEVELOPMENT AGREE.HUGHS INVST. 7777113 2590 52,633.01 SORENSON CTR AFTERSCHOOUSUMME 7777114 2590 4,291.11 SORENSON CTR.ARTS PRGRM TRUST 7777115 2590 9,647.05 SORENSON CTR SPORTS TRUST 7777116 2590 569.23 SORENSON TECHNOLOGY CENTER TRS 7777119 2590 19,536.55 RAINY DAY GALLIVAN TRUST 7777121 2590 199,776.57 SLC CLASSIC DONATIONS 7777122 2590 21,544.44 SLC FIRE TRAINING CENTER TRUST 7777124 2590 218,517.15 ECCLES SLC FOUNDATION TRUST 7777125 2590 513.97 SLOC TORNADO PINS 7777126 2590 13,878.78 IMAGINATION CELEBRATION 7777130 2590 46,244.16 JUNIOR GOLF DONATIONS 7777131 2590 4,445.34 SLC TREE REPLACEMNT TORNA 1999 7777132 2590 105,031.70 PHYSICAL FITNESS OF CITIES 7777134 2590 29,782.39 GREEK SCULPTURE INSTALLATION 7777135 2590 10,000.00 STEINER ACQUATIC TRUST 7777760 2590 77,455.19 NEWSPAPERS FOR TREES 7777780 2590 9,849.22 Donations fund remaining cash total - _ 981,048.79 — Total Expenditure 17,987,026.54 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED-HAND FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • • CDBG-Recaptures BA#9 08 Initiative Name initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping or routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund Recaptured Program Income 187,950.00 CDBG 71 and 83 accounts for reprogramming 254,609.42 Total $442,559.42 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Recaptured Program Income 187,950.00 CDBG 71 and 83 accounts for reprogramming 254,609.42 Total 442,559.42 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Recaptured Program Income 187,950.00 6. CDBG 72 and 83 accounts/reprogramming 254,609.42 Total $442,559.42 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Cost Center/Project Name DEBIT CREDIT 18th Year 7'1-80642 City Housing Plan 1,593.20 71-80901 Operating Contingency 1,593.20 22nd Year 71-22054 City Housing Plan(71-80642) 13,268.90 71-22098 Operating Contingency 13,268.90 83-97059 Glendale Street Drainage Study 8,352.00 83-97094 Jefferson Street Improvements 1,238.58 83-97098 CIP Contingency 9,590.58 24th Year 71-24045 Environmental Cleanup Program 100,000.00 71-24098 Operating Contingency 100,000.00 83-99051 Harmony Block Re-Design 12,605.00 83-99056 Glendale Area Street Reconstruction 10,006.11 83-99061 Tennis Court Renovation 2,569.17 83-99098 CIP Contingency 25,180.28 • 25th Year 83-00058 ADA Park Modifications 1,905.37 83-00061 Playground Replacement 1,887.95 83-00063 Park Irrigation Improvements 17,417.96 83-00065 800 West Street Improvements 1,275.00 83-00064 Jefferson Street 1,991.34 83-00098 CIP Contingency 24,477.62 26th Year 71-26033 Family Support-Building Improvements 2,100.00 71-26039 Poplar Grove Boys&Girls Club 1,069.36 71-26048 Wasatch Homeless Health Care-Bldg Improvements 3,249.22 71-26050 Utah Alcoholism Foundation-Building Improvements 1,659.55 71-26051 VOA Homeless Resource Center-Building Improvements 3,501.44 71-26053 St.Vincent DePaul-Building Improvements 48.00 71-26054 St Mary's Home For Men-Building Improvements 12,000.00 71-26055 YWCA-Lilie Eccles Teen Home-Building Improvements 42,035.74 71-26099 Operating Contingency 65,663.31 27th Year 71-27001/01-71811 Finance 13,969.10 71-27003/02-71811 Crime Prevention/Neighborhood Improvement 866.43 71-27099 Operating Contingency 14,835.53 Total Amount Recaptured for Re-allocation 254,609.42 254,609.42 *25th Year 71-25056 Multi Ethnic Housing Development 187,950.00 71-25055 Multi Family Housing Project(Program Income) 187,950.00 Total funds 442,559.42 442,559.42 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment * Note: These funds are Program Income generated from repayment of an old Multi-Family Loan Project. These Program Income funds were then allocated to Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation for a project they were unable to develop. This action recaptures these funds and places them back into the account designated for multi-family use programs. By doing this,CDBG Program Income funds meet the program income guidelines of utilizing the funds for the same eligible activity. These funds cannot be reprogrammed into future CDBG projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management _Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Each year end the City recaptures the remaining balances of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects/programs that have been completed or have not spent funds within the allotted timeframe. Funds are placed into the Contingency accounts of the same year for future CDBG programming or cost over-runs for same year projects that have not been completed. With the exception of the Multi-Ethnic Family funds, $254,609.42 could be reprogrammed into the future years CDBG process. The Multi-Ethnic Family funds are being recaptured from a project that was not done and placed back into the original account. Doing this will ensure that the Program Income funds meet the HUD program guidelines of utilizing the funds for the same eligible activity. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary action to recapture remaining balances of completed CDBG projects/programs and place into contingency accounts for the same year to be reprogrammed for future CDBG use. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant satisfies#2 below. 11 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? NA. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Various CDBG Projects and Program are funded. Infrastructure projects are 100% complete. Social Service Programs must meet objectives to be considered for additional funds. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? NA. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? NA. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment .CED-HAND FY 02-03 - Department For Fiscal Year Grant Program Income BA#9 09 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping or routine ' '> Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG and HOME 71 and 78 Funds 990,298.69 Total $990,298.69 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG and HOME 71 and 78 Funds 990,298.69 Total $990,298.69 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other-Program Income 990,298.69 Total $990,298.69 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Program Income Title Cost Center Amount CDBG-Housing Rehab Prog. 78-28010/71-28010 514,818.00 HAND-First Time Homebuyer 78-78325 232,232.00 RR-Hand Renter Rehab 78-00201 115,411.00 CDBG Utah Heritage Foundation RLF 71-20015 118,098.87� CDBG-Cleaning& Securing 71-70631 9,738.82 Total Program Income 990,298.69 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: These Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded programs/projects, have received program income from re-payment of loans or other reimbursement costs due to liens etc. This action establishes a budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated back into the individual program for continued programming. It is a HUD Federal guideline that Program Income be reallocated to programs that have the same eligible activity. It is recommended that The City Council adopt the necessary adjustment for these budgets. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED-HAND FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year CDBG-Carryover BA#9 10 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number =• e;-:Housekeeping or routine, Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Recaptured Program Income CDBG 71 Carryover 2,862,162.18 funds Total $2,862,162.18 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Recaptured Program Income CDBG 71 Carryover 2,862,162.18 funds Total 2,862,162.18 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. CDBG 71 Carryover funds 2,862,162.18 Total $2,862,162.18 $0 $0 Note: Please refer to attached sheet for detail Cost Center/ Description Carryover Amount Fund Class : 71 CDBG OPERATING FUND • 7120015 HERITAGE FOUNDATION RLF 20TH 346,934.43 7120044 NEIGHBORHOOD SELF HELP 20TH 290.25 7121040 CAPITAL HILL MASTER PLAN CD21ST 4,161.97 7121042 NEIGHBORHOOD SELF HELP GRANTS CD21ST 5,473.93 7122040 SUGARHOUSE MASTER PLAN CDBG-22 1,255.04 7122054 CITY HOUSING PLAN - 71-80642 13,268.90 7122098 CIP CONTINGENCY CDBG 22ND YR 417.00 7123017 CPPD HOUSING MATCH 23RD 22,751.50 7123045 SUGAR HOUSE MASTER PLAN 23RD 8,430.50 7124045 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP LOAN PROGRAM 100,000.00 7124098 CONTINGENCY CDBG 24TH YEAR 14,875.44 7125017 SLC HOUSING MATCH FUNDING 51,833.00 7125019 SECURITY LOCK PROGRAM 18,050.87 7125045 MARILLAC HOUSE 4,500.00 7125055 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING 16,471.89 7125056 MULTI-ETHNIC HOUSING 184,950.00 7125098 CONTINGENCY-25TH YEAR 61,444.69 7126010 HED-HOUSING REHAB 78,132.29 7126013 HAND-OPERATION PAINTBRUSH 23,600.31 7126017 CPPD HOUSING MATCH 100,000.00 7126026 RAPE RECOVERY CENTER 3,886.00 7126033 FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER IMPROVEMENTS 2,100.00 7126038 DRUG FREE ZONE SIGNS 4,000.00 7126039 POPLAR GROVE BOYS/GIRLS CLUB 1,069.36 7126045 MARILLAC HOUSE 7,000.00 7126046 OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES 0.56 7126048 WASATCH HOMELESS HEALTH CARE 3,249.22 7126050 UTAH ALCOHOLISM FOUNDATION 1,659.55 7126051 VOA-HOMELESS RESOURCE CENTER 3,501.44 7126053 ST VINCENT DEPAUL 48.00 7126054 ST MARYS HOME FOR MEN 12,000.00 7126055 YWCA-LOLIE ECCLES TEEN HOME 42,035.74 7126056 CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN 9,278.50 7126057 BENNION/DOUGLAS HISTORIC DISTRICT 1,000.00 7126099 CONTINGENCY-26TH YEAR 104,629.95 7127001 FINANCE 13,969.10 7127003 CRIME PREVENTION 866.43 7127010 HOUSING REHAB LOANS 27TH YEAR 626,977.00 7127011 ASSIST-EMERGENCY REPAIRS 55,853.02 7127012 NHS REVOLVING LOAN FUND 87,203.53 7127013 LEAD-BASED PAINT TRAINING 15,000.00 7127019 SL HOUSING MATCH FUNDING 65,000.00 7127023 YOUTH WITH A VOICE 292.58 7127025 PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE 10.00 7127026 RAPE RECOVERY CENTER 0.12 7127027 NORTHWEST EMERGENCY FOOD PANTRY 12,965.60 7127031 WEIGAND HOMELESS DAY CENTER 5,424.67 7127034 GUADALUPE SCHOOLS 2,956.00 7127035 OUR HOUSE DAY CARE 7,206.64 7127037 MOBILE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH 9,242.42 7127039 POPLAR GROVE BOYS&GIRLS CLUB 28,905.23 7127040 YMCA HOMELESS YOUTH PROGRAM 1,319.66 7127041 ODYSEEY HOUSE 100,000.00 7127043 GOOD TOUCH/BAD TOUCH 8,000.00 7127044 NETTIE GREGORY CENTER 141.00 7127045 MARILLAC HOUSE 11,000.00 7127046 OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE 4,107.82 7127047 FOURTH STREET CLINIC 92,834.00 7127048 SALVATION ARMY 40,000.00 7127051 NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE 90,000.00 7127052 SL DONATED DENTAL 2.00 7127054 ST MARY'S HOME FOR MEN 49,685.00 7127055 SUGAR HOUSE HISTORIC NOMINATION 10,000.00 7127056 WESTMINSTER MASTER PLAN 5,125.00 7127058 VOA ADULT DETOX CENTER 45,249.00 7127099 CONTINGENCY-27TH YEAR 36,320.00 7170631 CLEAN&SECURING VACANT PROP. 17 72,245.19 7180642 CITY HOUSING PLAN CDBG 18 1,593.20 Total 2,751,794.54 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The attached list of CDBG projects and budgets require Council action to bring the carryover budgets into FY 2002-2003. As of June 30, 2002 , the spending authority for the remaining budgets lapsed. Adopting the necessary action will allow the City to further facilitate the CDBG Grant. Budgets in special revenue funds, by State Law, lapse at fiscal year end. It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary action to carryover the budgets for these special revenue funds. This is a House Keeping Item. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year 800 Mhtz Radio Lease Payoff-CIP BA#9 11 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 499-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping or routine Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Contingency for Police 800 Mhtz Radio 61,716.98 Lease Payment Total 61,716.98 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Police 800 Mhtz Radio Lease Payment 61,716.98 Total 61,716.98 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Lease Payment) 61,716.98 Total $61,716.98 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: When the Police received approval from the Council to purchase an 800 megahertz trunked radio system, approval was also given to obtain the "quantar radio repeaters" that hold the necessary radio frequencies to operate the system. We obtained 10 repeater boxes that operate at the City Creek Peak transmission tower. Each box carries one frequency The radio system was purchased through Motorola, but the repeater boxes were obtained through UCAN because they had a surplus. The UCAN portion was financed through GE Capitol as a lease-to-buy arrangement at a cost of $308,584.90, including $42,233 in interest. The payment schedule is 10 payments of $30,858 to be made twice a year on May 1 and November 1.The first 4 lease payments were covered by the carryover budget from an existing 800 trunked radio system cost center. The next payment will be due in November, and another payment will be due In May, 2003. While it was known that these payments were due, the funds were inadvertently not requested from CIP for this fiscal year, and it will be necessary to use CIP Contingency Funds to make they payments this fiscal year. The radio repeaters are already in use and the obligation has been incurred. One payment will be due in November and another in May of this fiscal year. This is a CIP lease obligation which will not be met without using contingency funds to make the November 2002 and the May 2003 payments. There was an inadvertent failure to make the request for CIP funds necessary to make the payments due this fiscal year. It is recommended that CIP Contingency Funds be used to make the November 2002 and the May 2003 payments. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayor's Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year US Department of Energy Solar Roof Partnership BA#9 12 - Initiative Name Initiative Number/Type Lisa Romney/Sherrie Collins 535-7939/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number ;Grant Requiring:Existing Staff Focus Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 50,000 Total $50,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 50,000 Total $50,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other Contractual 50,000 Total $50,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Mayor's Office applied for and received this grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. These funds will be used to"Partner"with two consultants to provide technical expertise in formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Service Commission as it pertains to removal of financial barriers associated with the installation of solar, rooftop photovoltaic systems in Salt Lake City. The intent is to provide expert evidence and testim ony to the Commission, PacifiCorp, and other regulatory agencies which demonstrates that partial utility funding of private rooftop PV systems is a cost-effective means for the utility to its public service obligation. During the 2002 session, the Legislature passed two bills, HB 7"Net Metering of Electricity"and SB 152, "Electric Energy Efficiency Conservation Tariff'. The HB 7 bill mandates that public utilities must provide a net metering tariff to its customers. This tariff has not yet been submitted for approval to the Utah Public Service Commission. The Partnership will initiate a tariff filing and monitor process to insure the tariff is beneficial to PV systems and consistent with the legislative intent. SB 152 allows a separate charge to be placed on a custom er's bill to collect money for energy conservation measures. This benefit charge is envisioned as a source of revenue that will fund primarily demand-side programs. The Partnership will participate in this process to show that PV solar units are equivalent to demand-side measures and this can be include in the tariff. The Partnership will participate in regulatory proceedings to revise the Standards and Guidelines for Integrated Resource Planning, to design Demand-Side Management programs and implement tariffs that are favorable to solar technologies. Participation is critical to ensure that regulatory policies recognize the public benefit of renewable energy, particularly the peak shaving capabilities of solar PV units. The Mayor's Office expects to receive an additional $5,000. From the Utah Energy Office. All grant funds will be used for consultants, the City will provide approximately $9,125 of In-kind match which will include two members of the Mayor's staff and approxim ately 35 hours of a City Attorney. It is recommended that the City Council pass the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant satisfies number 2 below. 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2_Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3=Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Contractual consultants. If successful, solar energy methods will be included in the utilities demand-side programs, offering further savings to the City's constituents for cost effective energy measures. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse Security Camera BA#9 13 Initiative Name Initiative Number • Sean Martin/Sherrie Collins• 908-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing'Staff Focus Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply _,- 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 5,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $5,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization No Impact F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center requested and has been awarded a $5,000 cash grant from the Intel Foundation for upgrading the Security Camera System in the Center and Intel Computer Clubhouse. The current security cameras system is VHS, which provides poor quality resolution. These funds will be used to purchase a digital upgrade, providing better resolution quality for all cameras in the Center, in addition to the Clubhouse Cameras. Upgrading the security system will provide better safety for Center participants as well as better security to the Center's property and equipment. Due to the additional computer equipment provided by Intel, a better camera system was recommended by Center management. The Center submitted an additional grant request to Intel for the purchase and installation of the new system. An additional $2,000 of Weed and Seed funds was awarded by the Weed and Seed Steering Committee for the Community Prevention component of the Weed and Seed grant, to supplement the purchase price. The Resolution was previously adopted by the Council authorizing the Mayor to accept the original Intel grant and sign any additional agreements that stem from the grant. This is an additional $5,000 award from Intel, to be combined with $2,000 of Weed and Seed funds to purchase the Security system cameras. It is not a new grant and does not hire any additional employees. It is recommended that Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the grant requirements. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant satisfies #2 below. 1•- In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund willprovide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4—None of the above. Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will pay for an upgraded security camera system. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? NA Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED-Planning Division FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year National Trust for Historic Preservation BA#9 14 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Reauiring Existing Staff Focus • Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 funds 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 , $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 funds 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other -Contractual 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Major Impact on Function F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Council appropriated $15,000.00 of CDBG funding to study the transportation, parking, street modifications, needs, and future design options for the Sugar House Business District. These funds will add another component to that plan providing a cost savings to the City, as well as a more completed addendum to the current Sugar House Master Plan. The CED Planning Division applied for and has been tentatively approved for funds from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These funds will be used to hire a consultant to develop and produce a Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook pertaining to Historic Preservation. The award has been tentatively approved pending the City's selection of a consultant and the approval of that consultant by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These funds require a 100% match. Planning received a $15,000.00 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation which was awarded for a Transportation Study of the Sugar House Business District. The Historic Trust funds will be used in conjunction with the CDBG funds to address both issues in one plan. The CDBG monitor has stated that this is allowable under CDBG Federal Regulations. The total RFP solicitation will be approximately $15,000 to $17,000 for development of the study/plan. The remaining funds will be used for copies/publishing and public notification. Planning is waiting for the solicitation of an RFP, until all funds are in place and an actual budget has been established. After a consultant has been selected, Planning will submit the consultants name for final approval to the National Trust and at that time National Trust will release a final contract to the The purpose of the historic design guidelines and transportation study is to assist with the implementation of the goals of the Sugar House Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for new buildings in the business district to honor the historic character of the area and to retain the historic scale and massing of existing buildings. The Transportation Study will address the multi-modal transportation system. Planning anticipates that the project will begin in the Fall of 2002 and be completed within six- months. Further, the final Design Guideline should be ready for Council adoption by Summer of 2003. By combining these funds, Planning can address two issues in the Sugarhouse Master Plan within one RFP at a cost savings to the City. The Guidelines will be published as an addendum to the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment It is recommended that the Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and any subsequent agreements resulting from this award, pending the legality of the terms of the award by the City Attorney's Office. Further, it is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate RFP solicitation of a consultant. The RFP will not be awarded until final approval and completion of the National Historic Trust contract. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant relates to number 2 below. 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2=Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4—None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This grant will fund a consultant to produce and develop a small plan addendum, which addresses Historic Preservation as well as Transportation issues, to the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED Hand FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • • County CDBG-O•yssey House Building Improvements BA#9 15 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6353 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 65,000 Total $65,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 65,000 Total $65,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail - 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 65,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $65,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Substantial impact on physical structure. F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Odyssey House Therapeutic Child Development Center, located at 340 East 100 South was provided $100,000 of 27th Year 2001-2002, Community Development Block Grant funds, to provide building improvements to include renovations to the ground floor of the Center to provide a facility that can serve children ages' birth to nine years. The renovations include the children's bathrooms, the kitchen and childcare and storage areas. Odyssey House provides a long-term residential treatment program for seriously addicted mothers with children. The City will enter into an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County who will provide an additional $65,000 of County 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant funds. The County's funds will be used for two emergency exits, installing a new furnace/air conditioner, improvements to the plumbing systems and increased lighting for the center. All work will be provided as funding permits. The City will be the lead agency and ultimately responsible for the construction and installation of the project. This project will result in a $165,000 improvement to the Odyssey House facility. The City will be the lead agency and the project will be coordinated by and under the general supervision of the City's Engineering Department, who will obtain bids, award construction contracts, and act as project manager. It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary resolution and budget to facilitate the interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayor's Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year State Department of Energy Services-Clean Cities BA#9 16 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 60,000 Total $60,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 _ $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 60,000 Total $60,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 38,261 2. Employee Benefits 12,739 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply _.. 4. Charges and Services 4,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other- Travel 5,000 Total $60,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount $alary 1 38,261.00 Benefits 1 12,739.00 Total 51,000.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Substantial Impact F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City applies for and receives this grant annually from the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development, Office of Energy Services for the Clean Cities Program. The City has received this grant for the past 6 years. Specific tasks as outlined in the agreement include: Continued coordination assistance to promote the use of alternative transportation fuels and the ultimate development of a refueling and vehicle maintenance infrastructure; Educate the public on alternate fuels and alternate fuel vehicles, collect and distribute information pertaining to costs and technology, coordinate and support media special events; Work to implement Clean Cities Coalition, relying on input and guidance from Clean Cities stakeholders/Board of Trustees, and recommend strategies regarding alternative fuel findings, incentives and education; Work with stakeholders to implement the Strategic Plan, serve as resource liaison to ongoing policy groups; Work with stake holders and interested parties to identify existing regulatory or other barriers to the use of alternative fuels; Analyze problems and propose solutions. This is a continuation grant which the City has received for the past 6 years. The contract specifically states that none of these funds will be used for equipment. Although travel is an eligible expenditure, all out-of-state travel must be pre-approved by the Utah Energy Office. These funds will provide for continued implementation of the Alternative Fuel Vehicle program. The resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award, and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant, was previously adopted by the Council. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant satisfies#2 below. 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2=Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4—None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes, the Clean Cities Coordinator. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? The Clean Cities Program, Alternative Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicles is primarily responsible to educate the City of alternate modes of transportation. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? City has been awarded these funds for the past 6 years and it is anticipated that these funds will continue to be awarded from the State Office of Energy as long as funds are available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED-Housing and Neighborhood Development FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • Weed and Seed 2003 1. .. BA#9 17 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff.Resources Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Funds 275,000 Total $275,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Funds 275,000 Total $275,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 90,828 2. Employee Benefits 15,411 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 15,629 4. Charges and Services 7,378 5. Capital Outlay 5,200 6. Other- Contractual 140,554 Total $275,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Coordinator Salary 1 $38,052 Grant Monitor-Charges 15% $6,212 SLCPD Overtime-Narcotics Task Force $32/hr @336 hrs $10,752 SLCPD Overtime-ProstitutionNiceTask Force $32/hr @336 hrs $10,752 Global Artways Instructor $10/hr @505 hrs $5,050 Technology Center Instructor $10.5/hr @ 1560 hrs $16,380 Sorenson Center Receptionist $9/hr @ 48 hrs $432 Sorenson Building Supervisor $8.5/hr @ 48hrs $408 Sorenson Gym Supervisor 8.5/hr @ 48 hrs $408 Sorenson Computer Staff $20/hr @ 48 hrs $960 Sorenson Janitors (2) $8.5/hr @ 36 hrs $612 Sorenson Summer Youth Employment 6.75/hr @ 120 hrs $810 Member Intake Total - $90,828 Coordinator Fringe 1 $11,846 Grant Monitor Fringe 15% $1,649 FICA for Hourly Positions $1,916 Total =" $15,411 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Major Impact F. Issue.[discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition,effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Salt Lake City has received Weed and Seed funds from the Department of Justice for the past 6 years. Weed and Seed provides funding to "Weed" out crime and to "Seed" programs for residents and youth living within the Weed and Seed targeted area. The targeted area includes Glendale, Poplar Grove, and State Fairpark neighborhoods. The City will contract with the County AmeriCorp program for two AmeriCorp members to provide tutoring in Jackson, Edison and Parkview Elementary Schools; both the FBI and ATF Task Force for "Weeding" objectives that will be used for Officer time, buy money, and surveillance equipment; the Salt Lake County Court Therapeutic Justice Program that will provide services to 100 offenders, including counseling services and treatment for the misdemeanor drug court, prostitutes and their customers, the mentally ill, and non-violent property offenders; The Boy's and Girl's Club youth programs; the Wonderful Outdoor World Camp to send approximately 84 youth to camp; and the Salt Lake City Housing Authority Enforcement Coordinator to monitor 166 owned properties in the Weed and Seed area for criminal and drug related activities. This year, as last, the Department of Justice has mandated that at least$50,000 of the allocated amount be used for the "Weed" (Enforcement) portion of the Weed and Seed strategy. These funds were previously awarded directly to the Police Department from the FBI asset forfeiture funds, which are no longer available. Salt Lake City Officer over-time reflects$21,504., the FBI Joint Task Force is to receive $25,000, and the ATF Joint Task Force is to receive$5,000., totaling$51,504.00. These funds will allow youth program services within the targeted area to continue, as well as continue the joint law enforcement activities to address the methamphetamine, prostitution, gangs and guns problems that exist within these neighborhoods. The City Council passed the necessary resolution two years ago, authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant. This is a continuation grant. This grant has and is following the federal implementation guidelines as they pertain to the three components of the grant, which are Community Driven Law Enforcement, Prevention, Intervention & Treatment, and Neighborhood Restoration. The Coordinator has established a strong community based committee consisting of local non--- profits as well as citizens and law enforcement agencies. The basis of the recommended program funding was established by the committee, within the purview of the grant. All grant funded positions are aware that once funding is eliminated the position will be eliminated also. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate and continue this grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant satisfies number 2 below. 1—In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects orprograms that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4—None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes, This Grant funds the Coordinator's salary and benefits and reimbursed the monitors time spent. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Many contractual programs with local non- profit organizations will be funded with this grant for continuation of current youth programs and new organizations for new program implementation. Last year the program served approximately 75 youth at the Sorenson Center Summer Program, and in a collaborative effort computers bought with prior year Weed and Seed funds for Sorenson Tech Center, were donated to the Guadalupe Schools serving approximately another 86 youth. The LIED Boy's and Girl's Club reported 148 new member enrolment. Collaborative efforts with local law enforcement agencies resulted in major infiltration, arrests and prosecution of several drug trafficking rings which included cocaine trafficking from Mexico to California to Utah, as well as investigation and closure of approximately 24 local Methamphetamine labs. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Salt Lake City is eligible to apply for Weed and Seed funds, within this target area, up to the and including year 2006. Salt Lake City will continue to apply. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. However, it is believed that the Committee will continue to function in a collaborative effort with local agencies, law enforcement and the community. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Contractual programs with youth service providers provide direct services to youth living with in the Weed and Seed targeted area. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Prosecutors Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year VAWA-Domestic Violence Prosecution BA#9 18 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Jean Robison 535-7960 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 21,854.25 Total $21,854.25 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 21,854.25 Total $21,854.25 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 21,854.25 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $21,854.25 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Overtime for SLCPD Domestic Violence 21,854.25 Detectives to arrest Domestic Violence Offenders who do not appear for court. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Major Impact on Function. F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Prosecutors Office applied for and received a continuation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant from the State Office of Crime Victim Reparations.Last year we received $20,000.50. This grant will be used to pay overtime to two domestic violence detectives to serve warrants and apprehend fugitives who fail to appear in court on misdemeanor domestic violence charges. Offenders are arrested and booked into jail on their outstanding warrants and scheduled to appear before a judge within 48 hours. We are required to provide a 20% match, and we do that through the time of the Program Coordinator and Monitor. This is the second year of the grant. Acceptance of the grant will enable us to continue dedicating overtime hours of two officers to the service of warrants and apprehension of those who fail to appear on domestic violence charges.. If the grant is not accepted, the current program will not receive the same level of attention as is currently being provided because the Police Departmentwill lack the resources. During the last quarter, 81 offenders failed to appear. Domestic violence detectives, using grant overtime, were able to locate and serve, or cause to return to court, 45 offenders.They continued to attempt to serve 29 warrants, and 7 warrants were not issued. The grant has substantially increased the number of domestic violence offenders who return to appear in court. For the past year this grant has provided resources not previously available for the SLCPD to execute on misdemeanor warrants for offenders who fail to appear in court on domestic violence charges. Acceptance of the grant funds will allow the program to continue unchanged. It is recommended that the Council approve acceptance of $21,854.25 in funds from the State Office of Crime Reparations. This is a continuation for the second year of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant. A resolution accepting the previous grant was passed in BA#1 of 2001-2002. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: 1 In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. Funds pay overtime for two Officers. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? The same two Officers have been working with this program since it's inception. In the last quarter, 81 offenders were placed on a list for failing to appear. Officers located and served arrest warrants on 11 offenders. Another 34 warrants were recalled before being served. The reason for this is because offenders heard that officers were looking for them either because officers had visited their homes or place of work in an attempt to serve, so the offender voluntarily returned to court and had the warrant recalled. Another 29 warrants remain on the active list that officers continue to attempt to serve. The remaining 7 warrants were not issued, which generally means that the offender contacted the court and rescheduled the hearing date before the court issued the warrant. The warrant is held pending the offenders court appearance at the rescheduled date. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. VAWA funds have been available for a number of years and it is anticipated that the City could continue to receive grants. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? The positions will not be eliminated, however, overtime will stop. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Of course, new warrants are always being issued, so the need continues. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Although warrants will continue to be served, the degree of success will be impacted by the decrease in available resources. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Utah State University-Crisis Intervention-Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources BA#9 19 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 13,788 Total $13,788 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Fund 13,788 Total $13,788 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 10,000 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 2,400 4.Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other-Contractual 1,388 Total $13,788 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount CIT Officer-$29.25 hr x 10 weeks(*$2,340) 9,360.00_ Officer Overtime$32.00 x 25 hrs(*$160) 640.00 Total Grant 10,000.00 Note: *indicates amount of match from Police Departments existing general fund budget. No additional funds will be required. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Considerable Impact on function - Little Impact on PD Budget F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Police Officer Crisis Intervention Team Certification/Training. This training teaches officers how to recognize and deal with various mental health conditions in a law enforcement setting. SLCP runs the program for police officers, in partnership with other state and local agencies using professional mental health trainers. This grant requires a 10% match, which is met with participation from trained and certified officers and grant administration time. The program runs 5 times a year, with approximately 20 to 25 officers in each session. Sessions include 40 hours of training and conclude with a written test and role playing. Successful completion results in state CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) certification. SLPD can only place 5 or 6 of their officers in each session because it takes them out of the field. Officers from other police departments fill the other 15 spots. The goal of this project is to train an additional 120 Utah law enforcement officers during the next year (30 of them will be SLPD Officers). During the five training sessions completed with the original grant, 30 SLPD Officers were certified. Supplies for the training include training manuals, a CIT Newsletter and miscellaneous supplies. Consultants from mental health agencies are used to create the realistic role-play scenarios that the officers must participate in as part of the training. The grant pays for the bulk of these expenses. The remaining expenses are absorbed within the Police Department's existing general fund budget and are counted as part of the 10% match. This grant does not require the hiring of any additional employees. This continuation grant will provide the additional resources necessary for the Police Department to continue the training program. Another 30 SLPD Officers (120 statewide) will be certified to deal with serious mental health conditions they encounter safely and with sensitivity. Last year the Council passed the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign any additional contracts in relation to the grant. This is a continuation grant with the same requirements and conditions. It is recommended that the Council authorizes the Mayor to accept the continuation grant and to sign any additional contracts necessary to fulfill the purposes of the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant Satisfies #2 below. 1_- In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. Grant pays for Officer time spent while performing grant related responsibilities. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? To date 100 Officers have received training/Certification. This grant will provide for approximately 120 additional Officers Statewide to be trained and certified. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? If funds are available the Police Department will continue to apply. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes, continued training/certification will be difficult to fund due to lack of resources. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse BA#9 20 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sean Martin/Sherrie Collins 908-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 60,000 Total $60,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 60,000 Total $60,000 $0 I $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 35,500 2. Employee Benefits 10,400 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 3,100 4. Charges and Services 11,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $60,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Coordinator(Continuation for year 2) 1 305 28,600 Seasonal Part time Assistant 700 6,900 Sub-Total 35,500 Benefits 10,400 Total 45,900 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Functions: The impact on current functions of the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center will be continued emphasis on project-based discovery learning within youth technology programs. No major impacts on structure or organization will occur as a result of the continuation of this Grant. F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition, effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center has been awarded $60,000 cash grant from the Intel Foundation for 2nd year funding of the Intel Computer Clubhouse. In 2001, the Grant provided computer equipment, and goods and services valued at approximately $200,000 for start-up and implementation. Intel collaborates with the Boston Museum of Science, who develops and supports the "Computer Clubhouse" program. The $60,000 will allow the Sorenson Center to continue employment of a full-time Computer Clubhouse Coordinator for an additional year, purchase supplies and attend grant required trainings. The Coordinator will manage the"Clubhouse" program by working directly with the youth, providing community outreach, recruiting and training volunteer mentors, as well as assisting with other Sorenson Technology Center programs and activities. Current Technology Center programs include: Adult and youth open access; adult computer literacy courses in Computer Fundamentals, using the Internet and Word Processing, After-school, summer and evening youth computer activities. The grant funds will continue funding Clubhouse operations. This program will continue to provide unique services to approximately 125 youth, ages 8-18 yrs old, enrolled in the Sorenson after-school, summer and evening programs. In addition, 300"drop-in"youth from the surrounding area have and will continue to participate in the Clubhouse activities as well. Non profit groups and Schools such as the YMCA Homeless youth after-school program, Detention Alternatives for Responsible Teens (DART), (through Utah State Youth Corrections) and Center City Junior High-School students utilize the Clubhouse. Activities will focus on creative expression and scientific exploration including; graphic design, scanned and computer generated art projects, video production, digital music creation, multi-media presentations and engineering/robotic projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment After a successful first year of operations, the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center requested and was awarded, an additional year of funds. The Resolution was previously adopted by the Council authorizing the Mayor to accept the original Intel grant and sign any additional agreements that stem from the grant. The 2nd year continuation grant, will fund existing personnel. Since opening in November 2001, The Computer Clubhouse has had 465 youth register - averaging approximately 200 current members and 40 youth served on a daily basis. The Computer Clubhouse program operates 25-30 hours per week, 50 weeks a year and has successfully collaborated with other non- profit groups and schools. It is recommended that Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the grant requirements. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in lona-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 2-- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? YES What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This grant will provide funding for the 2nd year operating of the Computer Clubhouse located at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. (Department of Public Services) Including the continuation of 1 FTE-Computer Clubhouse Coordinator, staff training, travel and supplies. Since opening in November 2001, The Computer Clubhouse has had 465 youth register - averaging 200 current members and approximately 40 youth served on a daily basis. The Clubhouse program operates Mon-Sat, 25-30 hours per week for 50 weeks a year. Collaborations will continue with non-profit groups and schools such as the YMCA Homeless youth after-school program, Detention Alternatives for Responsible Teens (DART), (through UT State Youth Corrections) and Center City Junior High-School (a chartered Alternative Junior High School) students utilize the Clubhouse. Activities focus on creative expression and scientific exploration including; scanned and computer generated art projects, video production, digital music, multi-media and engineering/robotic projects. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The Intel Computer Clubhouse grant is renewable for an additional 2 years beyond this grant cycle. $30,000 is available in Fiscal year 03-04 and$15,000 is available in 04-05. It is the administrations goal to obtain other private and federal funds to make up for the expected reduction in Intel funding, as well as continue the program beyond the 4 year grant period. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. The Clubhouse Coordinator position was posted and filled with condition that employment is contingent on continued grant funding. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Given the Successful first year of operations, Sorenson Center's management is confident it will continue to meet the goals of the program for the current funding period and beyond. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes, however as stated, it is the administrations goal that other funding, from private and federal sources, will be secured to make up for the expected reduction in Intel Funding and to continue program beyond Intel's 4 year grant period. If additional funding is not secured through new grants or savings in other departments, the Computer Clubhouse program's services can be continued, at reduced levels, by existing funded position with in the Dept. of Public Services including, the Sorenson Technology Center Manager, part-time staff and volunteers. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. There are no other programs within the Salt Lake County that "duplicate" the Intel Computer Clubhouse program. Other public and private sector organizations do not offer any similar programming to young people in west- side communities in Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Fire Department FY03 Department For Fiscal Year • • Fire EOC/Training Center BA#9 21 Initiative Name Initiative Number John Vuyk 801-799-4210 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund CIP Impact Fees 750,000 Total $750,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund EOC Land Purchase 750,000 Total $750,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 750,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $750,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The Fire Department would like to move forward with Phase II of the Fire Emergency Operation Center (EOC)/Training Center, as outlined in the 5-year CIP Plan, by purchasing, with available impact fees, the 3.5 acres of property adjacent to fire station #14, located at 1500 So. Industrial Road. Because of its location adjacent to the fire training tower and fire station#14, this property represents a good investment for the City for future development regardless of the success of the proposed collaboration. The Department is requesting $700,000 for the property and $50,000 for an environmental assessment. Currently, the Flre Department has approximately $325,000 available in impact fees. It would be necessary to borrow the remaining $425,000 from other impact fees. The Fire Department would pay those fees back as their impact fees become available, probably over a two year period. If the Council approves the purchase of this property, the Council will also be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the Fire Department to join forces with the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Red Cross for the purpose of raising the funds to design and build the future Fire EOC/Training Center. The Center would belong to the City but the Red Cross would be located in the facility. Funding would be obtained from a variety of sources, including federal grants, state grants, and private donations. Note: The purchase of the land will be contingent upon the final environmental assessment. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the funding from Fire Department Impact Fees and authorize the Fire Department to borrow the remaining amount from other impact fees for the purchase of the land as the future site of the Fire EOC/Training Center. According to the General Fund Impact Fee Study the $750,000 can be funded through impact fees. Currently, approximately $325,000 in Fire Department Impact Fees are available. Borrowed impact fees will be reimbursed as - future Fire Department Impact Fees are collected. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Engineering FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year ADA Ramps& Defective Sidewalk-7th E.from 9th S. to 17th S. BA#9 22 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Fund-UDOT 45,000 Total $45,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Fund Installing ADA Ramps and Replacing 45,000 Defective Sidewalk on 7th E. Total $45,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 45,000 6. Other (Specify) Total $45,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Utah State Legislature annually appropriates funding for the State Pedestrian Safety Program to fund the construction of sidewalks on state roads. Salt Lake City has been approved for funding to construct ADA pedestrian ramps and to replace defective sidewalk on 700 East between 900 South and 1700 South. Under the terms of the State program, the local government is required to participate with a 25% local match. The City's share will be $15,000, which is currently appropriated for ADA ramp installation (cost center 83-03010). Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Engineering FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Sidewalk on Redwood Road from 4th S.to Indiana •BA#9 23 Initiative Name Initiative Number/Type ,Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number • New Itern Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund C/P-UDOT 52,000 Total $52,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP-sidewalk on Redwood Road 52,000 C/P Contingency (17,500) CIP match 17,500 Total $52,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 52,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $52,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Utah State Legislature annually appropriates funding for the State Pedestrian Safety Program which funds construction of sidewalks on State roads. Salt Lake City has been approved for funding to construct sidewalk on the west side of Redwood Road between 400 South and Indiana Avenue. Under the terms of the State program, the local government is required to participate with a 25% local match. The City's share of the cost will be $17,500, which is being requested from CIP Contingency. Since this is the installation of new sidewalk the $17,500 cannot be funded by Local Street Reconstruction cost center appropriated for this fiscal year. Also, at the time the CIP budget for this fiscal year was created, it was unclear whether this appropriation from the state would be received. Therefore, the best approach will be to appropriate CIP contingency for the $17,500 local match. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub - BA#9 24 Initiative Name Initiative Number Mary Guy-Sell 535-6244 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund FTA Grant Appropriations 5,838,860 Greyhound Contribution 1,865,475 UTA Contribution 2,000,000 Total $9,704,335 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Intermodal Hub permanent facility design, 9,704,335 engineering and construction Total $9,704,335 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 1 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 9,704,335 6. Other(Specify) Total $9,704,335 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Intermodal Passenger Hub will serve as a destination, departure and transfer hub for UTA bus, light rail, Amtrak, Greyhound, private shuttles, taxis, pedestrians and bicyclists. The $40 million FTA grant appropriation includes the passenger and administrative facility, Amtrack trackage and the light rail extension to the hub. UTA is the grantee for the FTA grant, and Salt Lake City is the sub-grantee. Phase 2A involves the design and construction of the permanent passenger and administrative facility, which is scheduled for completion in fall of 2003. These funds will be used to move forward with Phase 2A's bid and construction of the Intermodal Hub. This project will provide Salt Lake City with a successful transit hub, and will meet both the interim and long-range transportation needs. The scope of Salt Lake City's intermodal facility has expanded significantly over the past year due to post-occupancy evaluations of Park City's and Ogden's facilities along with re-evaluation of the program needs of the transit providers. Park City and Ogden have completed and are occupying their intermodal hub facilities, and the information from their operations will be used to improve the design of Salt Lake City's facility. The project is scheduled for completion in fall of 2003. The project estimate has increased with the program changes. However, the estimate is still within the budget line item in the grant for design and construction of the permanent facility. The proposed grant funding and partner contributions are needed to fund the project. Intermodal hub facilities are relatively new facility-types in the United States. Owners and transit providers continue to re-evaluate and make improvements to the facility programs to create more successful transit facilities. Salt Lake City is partnering with UTA and Greyhound, and utilizing grant funds from the FTA to provide this facility for the community. The Council adopted the necessary Resolution during the first appropriation of funds, and has approved an interlocal agreement with UTA, which commits SLC to the project and UTA to reimburse SLC for the project as appropriations become available. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this project. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1—In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 -- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Design and construction of the Salt Lake City Intermodal Passenger Hub Facility are funded with this grant. The performance measure at this point in time is based on the space criteria established in the Environmental Assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of the transit user space needs. Ultimately, the performance will be measured by the success of the facility as a transit hub. The Salt Lake City Corporate Scorecard identified the goal to "Provide Safe and Efficient Transportation: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods." The Intermodal Hub is part of the City's overall transportation plan to achieve this goal. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA (no positions). Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA (no positions). Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes, the time frame for the grant is based upon the availability of annual appropriations. The grant will continue to be funded until all of the Federal monies have been appropriated (80% of eligible costs), and the facility will be constructed within the funds available. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. The grant is funding design and construction of the facility, which will provide a completed facility to the community when the grant funds end. Tenant leases will fund operations, maintenance and future capital expenses for the facility, so grant funds will_ not be needed for ongoing operations. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. The grant is a part of a public-private partnership to provide a transit hub for the community. Salt Lake City is the best location for this intermodal transit hub because of the current Amtrak and bus services provided in Salt Lake City. This facility will provide one location for these two existing services and will connect them with other transportation options, such as private shuttles, light rail, and taxis. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • Parking Validation Program BA#9 25 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number . New Request - Type of Amendment Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Parking Validation Program 39,000 59,500 52,400 General Fund Contingency (39,000) Total $0 $59,500 $52,400_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 39,000 59,500 52,400 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $39,000 $59,500 $52,400 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The perception that parking is not available downtown has been identified as a barrier to improving business on Main Street, in particular, and in the downtown, in general. More than two years ago a study recommended a parking validation program for the downtown area. This kind of program is expected to make it easier for people to come downtown via personal cars or mass transit to shop, dine, attend events, and do business. A program using tokens that can be used either for off-street parking, parking meters or transit rides is one way to implement the recommended program. Seattle and Pittsburgh have programs that use coinlike tokens. Merchants, restaurants, theaters and businesses may buy the tokens and give them out to customers who make purchases. For the businesses that participate, a token is to be given to customers who make purchases of$20 or more. For purchases less than $20, it is up to the business to decide whether tokens will be given. Each token would be good toward one dollar off parking lot/garage fees, one hour of parking meter time or one UTA bus or light rail ride. Currently there is no parking validation program for downtown Salt Lake City, but the Downtown Alliance is proposing a program that will use tokens. UTA and about three dozen parking lots and parking garages including the Crossroads and ZCMI Center malls and The Gateway have expressed willingness to use the parking tokens. Businesses can buy the tokens from the Downtown Alliance, and can then give the tokens to customers. The City is being asked to contribute to the funding to implement a three year program. Expenses for the program will be to provide maps of participating parking lots and garages, mint the tokens, retool the parking meters, and provide advertising and signage for the program. The Downtown Alliance has committed staff time and about $5000 per year for the program. Funding is being requested from the City and the Redevelopment Agency. The RDA has committed $46,000 for the first year. The City is being asked to provide $39,000 for the first year, $59,500 for the second year, and $52,400 for the third year for a total of$150,900. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment A program has not been implemented in the past because there was never agreement between all parties as to how it should function. The Downtown Alliance has received verbal agreements from parking lot and garage owners, UTA, and at least 14 downtown merchants to participate in the program. Many other merchants and businesses are interested as well, but are waiting to see if participation and funding committments are made to allow the program to begin. The Alliance has distributed draft particpation agreements to all parties for review and committment to the program. It is recommended that the City provide the funds for the three year program. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Property Management FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Hansen Planetarium Evaluation BA#9 26 Initiative Name Initiative Number John Spencer 535-6398 Prepared By Phone Number New Issue Amendment Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Transfer from General Fund Contingency 25,000 Total $25,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Hansen Planetarium Evaluation-Engineering 25,000 Total $25,000 $0 $0_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Engineering Evaluation) 25,000 Total $25,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Planetarium will soon be moving to the Gateway. The County will be vacating the Hansen Planetarium, and old City Library building, in which it was located, at the end of December. At that time, the City will take over the building. Since the City currently has a minimal understanding of the current condition of the building an engineering study is being requested. This study will help to acertain the physical condition of the structural, mechanical and electrical components of the building. A study of this sort will be necessary before another use is found for the building. The City currently has a architectural firm on contract as a consultant who will be capable of completing the study and providing a written report. The estimated cost of the study will be approximately $25,000, including Engineering's project management fee. Funding for the cost of the study is proposed to come from General Fund Contingency. %# 1n, i?j * .. ••st ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON SIA42 TI ' 1(��� r y� MAYOR � l' l �v � ! SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ('66 ) TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 30, 2002 (- FROM: tele . Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor SUBJEC IF CommonsRe commendation Open Space Funding Recomme dation STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, 535-7735 RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council approve one-time Olympic revenues in the amount of$3,675,886 for the construction of Library Commons Open Space and two years of maintenance costs. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration had originally requested $4 million from the Olympic one-time revenues to fund construction of the open space. With the approval of the revised designs, the Administration has reduced its request to $3,675,886. DISCUSSION: Please see attached materials for an overview of the request, an itemized bid for construction of the open space and the crosswalk improvements, and an explanation of the request for a 2-year maintenance budget. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 Library Commons Open Space Funding Proposal August 30, 2002 D.J. Baxter, Salt Lake City Mayor's Office Revised Costs: Open Space Design & Construction Phase 1 (earthwork and irrigation systems): $1,284,010 Phase 2: (earthwork, concrete, site improvements furniture, lighting, electrical, and landscaping $3,012,944 Subtotal: Commons Design and Construction: $4,296,954 Crosswalk Design and Construction: Basic Traffic Signal: $100,000 Improved crosswalk, with planters, textured concrete pavement, Washington Square oval adjustments $318,932 Subtotal: Crosswalk Design and Construction: $418,932 Total Budget: $4,715,886 Sources of Revenue Already Secured: Traffic signal funds already allocated in Transportation budget $100,000 Library Bond Proceeds dedicated to east side of block: $1,100,000 Total Revenue Secured $1,200,000 Revised Request for One-time Olympic revenues: Original Request for One-Time Olympic Revenues: $4,000,000 Revised Cost Estimate $4,715,886 Secured Funding $1,200,000 Revised One-Time Olympic Funding Request: $3,515,886 Two-year Maintenance Request (see attachment): $160,000 Total Request: $3,675,886 Library Commons Open Space Maintenance Funding Proposal August 30, 2002 D.J. Baxter, Salt Lake City Mayor's Office Salt Lake City will be responsible for maintenance on the east side of the library block. The Library and the new tenants of the current lilrary will be responsible for exterior maintenance on the west side of the block. They have contracted with the City for those services and will be responsible for bearing the costs. The Public Services Department will undertake responsibility for management and maintenance of the Library Commons Open Space. Public Services estimates that this will cost approximately $80,000 per year. Actual costs may be slightly higher or lower based on several factors: 1. Public Services can cover the costs associated with coordination for special events from existing budgets. This does not mean producing or programming the events, but using existing staff to coordinate the use and protection of the space during events sponsored by others, such as the Living Traditions Festival. 2. Maintenance crews can achieve some efficiencies by coordinating Commons maintenance with maintenance activities on Washington Square. For example, maintenance efforts for the Commons area will likely fall under the same supervisor as those conducted on Washington Square, and some equipment and personnel may be shared. 3. Public Services will need additions to its existing budget to cover the costs of water, electricity, and seasonal labor, and other routine and annual repair and wear-and-tear materials for the Commons. These costs are all contemplated in the $80,000 annual estimate. Funding Proposal: The Administration proposes that Council allocate enough funds from one- time Olympic revenues to cover 2 years (one budget cycle) of maintenance for the Commons, or $160,000. This will enable Public Services to request, at the end of that period, a budget adjustment based on the actual costs of maintaining the space, and will give Public Services time to incorporate this new amenity into their maintenance program. It will also give the Council a full budget cycle during which General Fund revenues are not needed for this purpose. © __ '� -_ u r.: .: o A 1.Uc © o- © eo 0 � ,,<. P'),Qi7ib PROJECT NAME SALT LAKE LIBRARY PARKS SCHEME C 201750 SF ARCHITECT MSA&VCBO STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL Off ' ..1' ' D S'CR1PATiOli : -'' 4 K', t . a AI,F c in 11_ �' re 9Y. r PHASE I 02 SITE WORK Earthwork& Grading 201750 SF $ 0.25 $ 50,438 Imported Fill 20163 CY $ 10.42 $ 210,099 Place Stockpiled Dirt 5000 CY $ 4.75 $ 23,750 Structural Foam 225200 CF $ 1.25 $ 281,500 Concrete Retaining Walls 7200 SF $ 13.42 $ 96,624 Footings for Retaining Walls 400 CY $ 195.00 $ 78,000 Concrete Paving 3600 SF $ 3.20 $ 11,520 Curb Cut 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500 Topsoil- Minimal 2400 CY $ 17.50 $ 42,000 Irrigation Systems 165120 SF $ 0.37 $ 61,095 Hydroseeding 165120 SF $ 0.09 $ 14,861 SUBTOTAL $ 873,387 GENERAL CONDITIONS 6% $ 52,403 OVERHEAD&PROFIT 5% $ 43,669 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 10% $ 87,339 SUBTOTAL- CONSTRUCTION $ 1,056,798 ARCHITECT& ENGINEERING FEES 10% $ 105,680 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES 1.5% $ 15,852 OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $ 105,680 TOTAL PROJECT COST FOR PHASE I $ 1,284,010 .giitc F ).Ya'? NF' PROJECT NAME SALT LAKE LIBRARY PARKS SCHEME C ARCHITECT MSA&VCBO STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL 1s , p gNMtyjg=VP ;=;' .,0 •a.7:C© _ 'r�©�•�1�. PHASE II 02 SITE WORK EARTHWORK: Earthwork&Grading 10630 SF $ 0.15 $ 1,595 Import Fill 16163 CY $ 10.42 $ 168,419 Storm Drainage 201750 SF $ 0.40 $ 80,700 Subtotal for Earthwork&Grading $ 250,714 SITE CONCRETE: Curb&Gutter 1238 LF $ 12.50 $ 15,475 Concrete Sidewalks& Exterior Concrete 11180 SF $ 2.75 $ 30,745 Retaining Walls- 12" 9374 SF $ 13.42 $ 125,800 Retaining Wall Footing 88 CY $ 195.00 $ 17,160 8"Concrete Banding 1442 LF $ 10.40 $ 14,997 Concrete Seat Wall 1085 SF $ 17.40 $ 18,879 Concrete Stairs 845 LFN $ 16.50 $ 13,943 Subtotal for Site Concrete $ 236,999 SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Restrooms-Tenant Finish Only 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000 Bridge Allowance 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 Benches- Single Sided 14 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 16,800 Page 1 MkVE6M- }eaf tTl. v-z,, ZO A i fi -0;1 0 1,.- ►. 0 { 0.r 0 CAR 0 : .4• K,13* W ' r'IMO 1 PROJECT NAME SALT LAKE LIBRARY PARKS SCHEME C ARCHITECT MSA&VCBO STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL ✓ ..,1 ,. S :tl;i m sa � n'v-t�. �:"f.ro,..�-ram, 4ems. , ,. +1r -:.,¢�TpTI.O� : t < " �;; N -:: c o ST I c . Benches-Double Sided 21 EA $ 1,550.00 $ 32,550 Tables 3 EA $ 1,750.00 $ 5,250 Site Amenities& Furniture 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 Site Lighting & Electrical 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 Subtotal Site Improvements $ 479,600 LANDSCAPING: Stone Pavers 26300 SF $ 16.50 $ 433,950 Crusher Fines Paving 34384 SF $ 3.60 $ 123,783 Steel Guardrail 981 LF $ 80.00 $ 78,480 Steel Edger 2567 LF $ 6.91 $ 17,738 Sculpted Berm 3029 SF $ 10.50 $ 31,805 Trees-Large 126 EA $ 550.00 $ 69,300 Trees- Medium 12 EA $ 350.00 $ 4,200 Trees- Evergreens 38 EA $ 350.00 $ 13,300 Shrubs 49 EA $ 32.50 $ 1,593 Low Shrubs& Grasses 9439 SF $ 5.00 $ 47,195 Sod 123496 SF $ 0.37 $ 45,990 Top Soil 2946 CY $ 17.50 $ 51,555 Irrigation Systems 123496 SF $ 0.46 $ 56,883 Plantings Allowance 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000-- Subtotal Landscaping $ 1,000,772 TOTAL SITEWORK $ 1,968,085 Page 2 pr9© _- . -- ,,' ' f ,G*O- w` _R,1''c, o ; 70 -,,= A,o.,is �R 9 R.f�T:Dti�,'t- , ,;:ai, + r37�G 7'' sz A1"i�`f PROJECT NAME SALT LAKE LIBRARY PARKS SCHEME C 201750 SF ARCHITECT MSA&VCBO STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL Ai ;• .t 741%10),. 0 nallMbilacomilr w1 b fig t; PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR PHASE II 02 SITE WORK $ 9.76 $ 1,968,085 GENERAL CONDITIONS 6% $ 0.59 $ 118,086 OVERHEAD & PROFIT 5% $ 0.49 $ 98,405 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15% $ 1.46 $ 295,213 SUBTOTAL- CONSTRUCTION $ 12.30 $ 2,479,789 ARCHITECT FEES 10% $ 1.23 $ 247,979 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES 1.5% $ 0.18 $ 37,197 OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $ 1.23 $ 247,979 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 14.94 $ 3,012,944 U8/30/2iU2 14: 16 8015782068 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL PAGE 02 r �{ Yr �� 9' � 1 Yam_ Y •- �v��'�t ..r.l i c �,•��•,•}y{'_7,'A.y.,..�r�.�. 1-. s 4 ;ft ,V1 �.g..S�.+ crai .i �' '' .�.. :*Ikb ,.3,.e... iq�? t r� g M 4 rZA <:;', 44 �''6:,:. "�.'f;'.! t•;! ......�..lt.".R ... .5irS..i�._ -n..,� ✓�..f,9�lJ4h...£h.::�rl�J9S,..n,4�d1�IN PROJECT N MESALT KE CI LIBRARY 2ND EAST ISLAND ARCHITECT VCBO ARCHITECTURE / CIVITAS STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPT JM • Ju' Jy:. •;ish':�;,. ..r.,-i •k.4;':?;�b. .:41':f'_.+:.- Y.� ' r'r`�.'?7:."•:/7:%='r btiii,T� ��.%r'•r�rr�,i�,f��;ti^.j;'Zi..� i:{l,:.t:.:.. J.f.•,i• -h- r:.4:t'. ;:),..,5.Y•�i:}ir.. �=`I% a4`'n :GC•.4 �: :l y...�.. '/! ♦-�f f l•: rf4• '1. rr .((S°;rS'� .7 G:C:: •.•Y0:7�Y..•..J.•.a,,�-..,:4:•:)�:':'-'::5..'. !':2544.'•pC,�'S'•!r ::}, J.:1•..ii: Jt{.V./J. ,�S ;h:. •, 7N•��•:41y'!. '':.lc x. .i?.]�] ;:.:(1.: =:i:: .`.::(S:y.. .�. !. '.5C•tinisy:•h t•. •->.-C. -. ?-•.Ya_451�•4:!,: i•, rr/. '�. `"iv:'• ..4•.rS•..1•Q:Fi n?sA,': i,:'�.,r.Jt., a}.a .]X'`>'.•7nro,., ,r,;;.r..•:%ZS.,e •�!, '.S. -r. `•i•:`:. .. •n• r•`r`,`.i::` arr>�`�. J JT: .�.('! r,?,/..J.Ct, ,.�:: -.,<ri:J �V`.11:' `lr1• �Y):S•l4�)!•foil r� ..).. r,.C:i :a.'•Gr J'''4' •..4:..!��},..'J,..,�,A i. `p17.}. �5r ••}k ar r,:rJn?.,;''j,'ti :yirr'r,r,:r,,`u. •i•: G;q;. .:••sY.. „/.,i.. ..C",. .•ti,,:SEy S. .r.. "dY. .] . ^.tJ»•%s•?._O„n::;..c'�.�. .1.,�.Y.. ••')•:, .S, 'r'r�::.r.., S r,1.?.J/ •;•r,.t.?,..,.:�]v.}2..,f. :-0.. {,. 15.. .�": •:S'v:.:J�:.�:.. .Jr{•".._J�..J<:.,:lir?,Crerirr::'..:':IJ�.,.,, - .Fi :�:�::1:. G•1't � J,]Lr:r,J.JtJ. fi ::1:, ,r .�.,^! •,•�i.,.. :`r•r'•:�••y:irc,7i?i•i�:»`! ,Y{�l'�rir!". .,��,},n ...17:. ;., • ��;yy;'yy 'ir:`n^.:?'%/i`.°` :.7�.r.., e;V.J. '.:t)S:':S;S••n•},[;, c44•,.,ta.a.t-.J ,.4�'...•- r'i:;:..•y."'�:'•'.iii:::.r�4gYr,:__J. ..'SG.SkS•• :: - r.�,.. .. -. CONSSRUCTION_COSTS SAWCUT PAVEMENT 740 LF $3.75 $2,775 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT 13200 SF $1.50 $19,800 TRANSPLANT TREES 4 EA $750.00 $3,000 REMOVE CURB &GUTTER 250 LF $5.10 $1,275 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVING 4000 SF $2.20 $8,800 CURB&GUTTER 740 LF $11.20 $8,288 SIDEWALK 4000 SF $2.75 $11,000 SCORED CONRETE 7240 SF $7.30 $52,852 FINISH &ROUGH GRADING 20000 SF $0,65 $13,000 TREES 16 EA $465,00 $7,440 SOD 15000 SF $0.31 $4,650 PLANTINGS 15000 SF $1.50 $22,500 IRRIGATION 15000 SF $0.65 $9,750 CONCRETE PAVING 4000 SF $3.80 $15,200 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1 ALLOW $10,000.00 $10,000 STREET LIGHTS BY OTHERS RELOCATE STREET LIGHTS 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 SUM $10,000.00 $10,000 LANDSCAPE REPAIR 1 SUM $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $208,330 GENERAL CONDITIONS 6% $12,500' OVERHEAD & PROFIT 5% $10,417 PAGE 1 Uol 3 i/L Jei[ 14: lb 11/ 2FJbb CONSTRUCTION CONTROL PAGE 03 V 5--� V 9 _ _7„',.. , 04r r..d '1 9' r r �'A'. f { � i 2A' r i i2 } v, +, i n.f V . A\Y� .._____ .i < v«%;<.r'';�:_ rS ?i ..a.t ..>r�...:�@c.4 . ..�,. .h...•L �. iL'11914,-.,�.b....�t. I�ll....•..9.f • ••v,+:r'r ✓i:.. .b:n PROJECT NAME SALT LAKE CITY LI RARY 2ND EAST ISLAND ARCHITECT VCBO ARCHITECTURE I CIVITAS STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPT �y^!.�'7r6R•,;}�r�•h.�';�t,.•r,r"rr:•rzcr.•.i,s+r..,C;o•4•:`:«r4,r,��.r,•,.)r.,vi or :;'�4.,:+•,vo,v-er`v.g{rr.r rswvsvr.;,•,:,)r,.,;t,,+'•��:v�;,-.L,,-s•+i{�wF��t4..4R;J+,..•r.+..5:r,!•a.,4',ti:?e:'t,`n,::�..+:r:�.,..:fr r.,Nrt.,;rr'c-:..;,r.,�L:L5i l i�:..�,ti+.�,:�••}..t;+n•ss Y;•+.:;%:r.•yr..1:.s.r.",�.4.i••r>r'.?v.S.v;c<:+..;?.;,r,t.v�n,?,,i.,i�.;l4.;,C.+]S,5.v,,o_.?l v.:.��;..,•5yr',.:•.r4+^C'<r-rrS'„.k,o.-}.:,i•.d•..1+,s�;:d•..Yr,r�,..;:.4.rr,fi{i:1'r:U-,t,'.cr.'e.r�;^rJ..s3r,_::.•,,4,,h7•,,,...r.:F.`•:s5(6^<::v.F�•r4,c:rsC'.',:..�.r:+',:c^1}:cCJ v`.r:i:,;J.l.ti•,,.�•:1�ti:'}.`;�f%.••.ao,,�.;;Jy•S,+hl:4•�.,;•...�}a7•,,;v 4f:f`:vri•`,:,qr id:v,�-rS,r.fc!,+"s�?.:..v,,,,?,,�.,y.,tpr..:v.:.•ry.ti:n..:�t1�f.r,.�•.•Yl��L,^rr�r'.•v{_f',;S'=wC,Sr';rc..4yk,..� 1-$9- •s.0 r.i•.yr' .T•�voY+•raGr�M1f t ,Sia,,PIA% r+. v-Y " i,ri lf,, DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15% 631,250 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION 6262,496 SOFT COSTS A/E FEES 10% $26,250 P.M. FEES 1.5% $3,937 OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% 526,250 TRAFFIC SEMIPHORE BY CITY SUBTOTAL SOFT COSTS 656,437 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 5318,932 • PAGE 2 ► ��i:: `, e, OU2 SALT A a��'Gicj GOi wt °�� ¢IOI MARGARET HUNT �.�� *o-s. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANS MITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: August 15, 2002 FROM: Margpret Hunt RE: Quarterly Hbiising Report for Fiscal Year 2001-02 (Fourth Quarter) STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, 535-6136 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing DISCUSSION: The City Council has requested a quarterly housing report from the Community and Economic Development Department. The following information has been included in the report: • Loans for first time homebuyers, single-family rehabilitation and multi-family rehabilitation are reported separately • List of the funding sources with the dollar amount spent for the fiscal years • Building Permit Activity Report including demolition permits reported by structure and the number of units • Housing Starts by District • Boarded Building Activity and Boarded houses or apartments listed by Council District • Housing Trust Fund ledger • Residential Subdivision and Condominium Approvals and Activity Reports • Housing Economic Update • Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Quarterly Report • Community Development Corporation Quarterly Report • Neighborhood Housing Services Quarterly Report It is our understanding that the Council has received copies of the Equimark Multi-family report for July 2002. No copies are included in this report. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-5230 FAX: SO1-535-6005 RECYCLED PAPER HOUSING QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT April 1,2002-June 30,2002 Fourth Quarter The First Time Homebuyer Program,which includes HOME,CDBG,Renter Rehab and Bank Partners funding,has placed 213 families into their first home. At the end of the fourth quarter,seven homes are in the process of rehabilitation and two new construction projects are in the bid process for first time homebuyers to purchase. Nine families were placed in new homes during this quarter. Currently seven homes are ready for sale,and an additional seven homes are still in the rehab stage. Current contracts include purchasing three additional homes for rehab. First Time Home Buyer Loans Fiscal YTD 4th Quarter Loans Closed 23 9 Dollar Amount $2,772,410.00 $1,068,250.00 Average Per Loan $ 120,539.57 $ 118,694.44 The Housing Rehabilitation Program has completed 52 projects with 85 units this fiscal year. In the fourth quarter,the rehabilitation staff closed 3 projects with 3 units, Single Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD 4th Quarter Loans Closed 48 3 Dollar Amount $820,364.40 $29,950.00 Change Orders $ 20,903.00 $ 4,907.00 Average Per Loan $ 17,526.40 $ 9,983.33 Multi-Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD 4th Quarter Loans Closed 7 0 Dollar Amount $410,927.47 $0 Average Per Loan $ 58,703.92 $0 Number of Units 40 0 Average Per Unit $ 10,273.19 $0 The list below reflects both the amount and percent of total dollars spent from each funding source. FUNDING SOURCES Fiscal YTD %OF 4th Quarter %OF 7/01/00—6/30/02 FUNDS 1/1/02-3/31/02 FUNDS Community Development $ 1,046,454.00 26% $ 30,442.00 2.8% Block Grant Rental Rehab Funds $ 290,413.47 7% $ 0.00 0% Personal Contributions $ 121,783.00 3% $ 23,115.00 2.1% Private Funding Sources $ 1,598,831.00 39% $ 664,954.00 60.3% Home $ 847,890.00 22% $ 289,196.00 26.2% River Park $ 15,044.00 1% $ 0.00 0% Other $ 104,189.40 2% $ 95,400.00 8.6% TOTAL $ 4,024,604.87 100% $ 1,103,107.00 100% Below is a list of mailing outreach efforts for the fourth quarter. DATE of MAILING NUMBER AREA April 26,2002 526 600 North to 1000 North 9i°West to Colorado Street _ May 2,2002 224 600 North to 1000 North 9'h West to Colorado Street May 23,2002 1587 1700 South to 2100 South 500 East to 1300 East May 23,2002 230 600 North to 1000 North 9i°West to Colorado Street June 13,2002 133 600 North to 1000 North 9th West to Colorado Street Total Mailed 2,700 STATUS OF CURRENTLY FUNDED PROJECTS: Phoenix Circle Subdivision: Size: 7 New Homes-2 twin homes and 3 detached,single-family homes Target Population: First-Time Homebuyers Location: 200 North and 600 West Partners: Salt Lake City,and the Multi-Bank Pool(financing) Preliminary Review with Council Member: Met with Council member Reid and Janice Jardine on April 9,1996. Council member supported as long as homes were built for home ownership and approval received from Community Council. Met with Council Member Christensen,Janice Jardine and Kristen Kamerath on March 12,1998. Council Member Christensen supported project as preliminary designed. Community Council: Fair Park Community Council approved project on June 27, 1996. Status:The easement issue has not been resolved. Riverview Subdivision Size: 7 Single-Family Homes Target Population: Mixed Income Location: 1000 West 700 South(former LDS church site) Partners: Salt Lake City,LDS Church land donation,(SLC will paid for demo/cleanup and asbestos removal) Preliminary Review with Council Member: Met with Council member Milner and Janice Jardine on October 3, 1996. Community Council: preliminary subdivision plans were taken to Popular Grove Community Council meeting for review and comments on March 26,1997. Community Council updated November 19,1997. Status: All homes are completed and all have been purchased by first time homebuyers. Sherwood Place Size: 6 Single-Family Homes Target Population: Mixed Income Location: 350 Navajo Street(former LDS Church site) Partners:Salt Lake City,LDS Church land donation,(SLC will pay for demo/cleanup and asbestos removal) Preliminary Review with Council Member: Met with Council member Milner and Janice Jardine on October 3,1996. Council member Milner indicated support for homeownership on the site. Community Council: Preliminary Subdivision plans were taken to Popular Grove Community Council for review and comments on March 26,1997.Community Council updated November 19,1997. Status: Subdivision engineering and drawings have been completed and various city departments are completing final review and approval. Home plans are being reviewed and completed. Property continues to be monitored for cleanliness and security. BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR FOURTH QUARTER: April No. of Units Permits Issued* Single Family Dwellings 13 13 Duplex 2 1 Manufactured Homes 2 2 Total New Construction 17 16 Additions, Alterations and Repairs 76 182 Total Residential Construction 93 198 Demolition Permits Single Family Dwelling 4 4 May No. of Units Permit Issued* Single Family Dwellings 19 19 Manufactured Homes 3 3 Total New Residential Construction 22 22 Additions, Alterations and Repairs 153 176 Total Residential Construction 175 198 Demolition Permits Single Family Dwelling 1 1 June No. of Units Permits Issued* Single Family Dwellings 9 9 Total New Construction 9 9 Additions, Alterations and Repairs 128 171 Total Residential Construction 137 180 Demolition Permits Duplex 4 2 *Permits Issued Category is the number of permits issued to a contractor or sub contractor for plumbing, electrical, mechanical, etc. permits. All building permit information has been provided by the Building Services and Licensing Division. HOUSING STARTS FOR APRIL 1,2002 TO JUNE 30,2002 Council House Dir Street Suffix Cnstr kind Bld type issue date 1 1816 N CAVALLO DR BLD SF 04/01/2002 1 1878 W ROUNDUP CIR BLD SF 04/11/2002 1 223 N 800 W BLD SF 04/23/2002 1 40 N CHICAGO ST BLD MH 04/24/2002 1 38 N CHICAGO ST BLD MH 04/24/2002 1 1946 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF 05/10/2002 1 1915 N CORRAL LN BLD SF 05/14/2002 1 1917 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF 05/14/2002 1 1892 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF D5/14/2002 1 607 N 1300 W BLD MH 05/22/2002 1 1978 W RED ANGUS DR BLD SF 05/23/2002 1 1920 N BRANDING CIR BLD SF 05/28/2002 1 1829 N CAVALLO DR BLD SF 05/29/2002 1 1879 N BRANDING CIR BLD SF 05/29/2002 1 1920 N CORRAL LN BLD SF 05/29/2002 1 1938 N CORRAL LN BLD SF 05/29/2002 1 1933 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF 05/29/2002 1 1872 W ROUNDUP CIR BLD SF 06/06/2002 1 1895 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF 06/07/2002 1 1959 W BLACK ANGUS DR BLD SF 06/14/2002 1 1714 W FEATHERSTONE CIR BLD SF 06/27/2002 2 748 W JUSTIN KAY CT BLD SF 04/02/2002 2 1709 W JOUST CT BLD SF 04/10/2002 2 1601 W FRANKE CIR BLD SF 04/16/2002 2 740 W JUSTIN KAY CT BLD SF 04/22/2002 2 1164 S PROSPECT ST BLD SF 04/22/2002 2 1252 S JUSTIN KAY CT BLD SF 04/25/2002 2 737 W JUSTIN KAY CT OLD SF 04/25/2002 2 1521 S 1000 W BLD SF 04/29/2002 2 1602 W INGLEBY CIR BLD SF 05/02/2002 2 906 S 1500 W BLD MH 05/08/2002 2 1576 S VON BARON PL BLD MH 05/21/2002 2 1142 S PROSPECT ST BLD SF 06/06/2002 2 1619 W LILJAY CIR BLD SF 06/06/2002 2 1717 W JOUST CT BLD SF 06/21/2002 2 1280 S JUSTIN KAY CT BLD SF 06/24/2002 2 756 W JUSTIN KAY CT BLD SF 06/24/2002 3 673 N NEW BONNEVILLE PL BLD SF 04/02/2002 3 640 N K ST BLD DP 04/30/2002 3 8 E KNIGHTSBRIDGE LN BLD SF 05/21/2002 3 972 N CHURCHILL DR BLD SF 05/29/2002 Housing Starts continued next page. r NO HOUSING STARTS IN DISTRICT 4 5 1344 S GREEN ST BLD SF 05/09/2002 5 1383 S PARK ST BLD SF 05/29/2002 7 1679 E KIERSTIN PL BLD SF 05/07/2002 7 2076 S SCENIC CIR BLD SF 05/20/2002 7 1771 S DEVONSHIRE DR BLD SF 05/31/2002 All Housing Starts information has been provided by the Building Services and Licensing Division. BOARDED BUILDING ACTIVITY BY DISTRICT LIST BOARDED BUILDING ACTIVITY: y Existing Boarded Building as March 30, 2002 74 Vacant/Secure Buildings as of March 30, 2002* 5 Demolition Permits 0 Remodeled/Rehabilitated 0 New Buildings Boarded 2 Total Boarded Buildings as of 6/30/02 76 Buildings Vacant/Secure as of 6/30/02* 5 *Vacant properties where complaints or activities have required the staff to monitor but not board. CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#1 Address S/dwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded" Comments 578 N.Redwood Rd. 08-34-202-12 Alan T.Parsons 724 South 300 East Oct-99 203 North Redwood Rd 08-34-331-015 Vasilios Priskos 51 East 400 South May-99 Two Units Boarded 176 North Duder St. 08-34-331-017 Vasilios Priskos 51 East 400 South#210 1-Mar No PTB 185 North Harold St Same Parcel _Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 — 1-Aug 1898 North 2200 West 08-21-276-001 Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood parkway#5E 1-Jun do Cottonwood Realty Service Salt Lake City,Ut 84121 1862 North 2200 West 08-21-276-002 Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood Parkway#51 1-Jun c%Cottnwood Realty Service Salt Lake City,UT 84121 1822 North 2200 West 08-21-276-005_Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood Parkway#51 1-Jun do Cottonwood Realty Service Salt Lake City,Utah 84121 477 North Pamela Way 08-34-176-014 Victor Huizar 477 North Pamela Way 1-Dec Forclosure,owner MIA C/O Gonzolo Huizar Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 1619 W.Ivy Circle 08-27-452-029 John Tidwell 5175 S.Welsey Rd 3/25/2002 Boarded 3 times SLC,Utsh 84117 1210 W.1000 North 08-26-154-022 Esteban Lopez&S.Martinez 1210 W.1000 North Notice Sent 6/25/02 SLC,Utah 84116 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#2 Address Sidwe/l No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded' Comments 632 S. Glendale St. 15-02-383-013 Carl W. Barney,Jr. 2837 E. 100 North PRE 1986 No Permit 11/17 Layton, UT 84047 855 W. 800 South 15-11-252-007 Clifford White 1250 E. 3545 South May-97 No Permit 11/12 SLC, UT 84106-2437 1235 W Arapahoe Dr 15-11-102-005 Garth C. &Oral M. North 1071 N. Redwood Rd. Aug-99 Vacant/Secure Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 17 South 800 West 15-02-227-004 Sundowners Motorcycle CIi P.O. Box 511062 Jun-99 Closed to Occupancy_ Salt Lake City, Utah 84151 by FBI, Secured by 624 South 900 West 15-02-455-017 Ronald& Courtney 861 East 800 South Jan-00 Closed toinceden response Occ.by Lindsey Salt Lake City, ut 84102 health dept. 512 South 900 West 15-02-452-041 Kuldip Virk 14253 Brentwood Dr. Jul-00 Closed by Health Dept Salt Lake City,Ut 92392 PTB 06/26/00 15-02-452-042 Dave Bolinder PO Box 391 owns 6'of house Midvale, Ut 84047 938 South Washinton St.15-12-257-01 E Pearl Toki c/o Sione Toki 938 South Washington St. Oct-00 Closed by Health Deptf, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Owner unknown locat. 1380 S. W.Temple St 15-13-227-006 SNT Enterprises _1370 South West Temple St. 1-Jun c%Sattar N Tabriz Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Application For Demo Conditional use 1091 South Prospect S 15-10-403-012 Greg R. &Joni K. Bailey 1384 East Vinyard Drive 1-Jun Fire Damage _ Bountiful, Utah 84010 Boarded 1638 West Dalton Ave 15-10-401-004 Jon T Bugger 30 N 200 E 1-Jun Boarded, posted Centerville, Utah 84014 922 W.400 So. 15-02-402-017 GMAC Mort.Corp. 500 Enterprise Rd.4150 1-Nov Forclosure Horsham PA, 19044 Boarded 1205 S.Redwood Dr. 15-10-477-004 North American Mort.Co _400 Countrywide Way SV35A 3/7/2002 Boarded By Bank C/O Country Wide Home Simi Valley,CA 93065 1044 West 200 South 15-02-178-020 Latter Day Saints Church of Christ Mar-99 PTB Exp.3/17/2001 P.O.Box 65644 SLC, Utah 84165 956 W.200 South 15-02-251-023 Premier Roofing 1183 W 900 S _Spring 1997 SLC, UT 84104-2043 1076 So.Concord 15-11-302-030 Randy&Rena Hatch 1076 So.Concord Notice Sent 6/17/02 SLC,Utah CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#3 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 245 1/2 W.300 North 36-403-037-000 Gerald S.Fitzpatrick 51 Melrose St. #3b PRE 1990 No Permit Melrose,MA 02176 Lein 11/24/98 515 N.Arctic Ct. 08-36-205-027 RDA of SLC%Jones Wa 170 South Main Street Mar-98 PTB exp 05/02 Holbrook&MCDO SLC,UT 84101 322 S 1100 E 16-05-402-026 Paul Schaaf 1140 E Harrison Ave. 1-Sep Stay Granted Salt Lake City,Ut 84105 Going to B.O.A. 362 N Edmonds PI 08-36-154-034 Edward&Tonya Hayes 351 East 6310 South Mar-00 Boarded 3/00 NO ptb Salt Lake City,Utah 84107 574 North 300 West 08-36-205-001 RDA of Salt Lake City 451 South State St.#418 1-Jan Boarded Commercial Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 PTB expires 5/02 271 West 600 North 08-36-205-010 RDA of Salt Lake City 451 South State St.#418 Boarded Single Family Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 1-Jan PTB expires 5/02 527 N.300 W. 08-36-204-028 Redevelopent Agency of 451 South State St.Rm 418 Feb-00 Permit expires 5/02 _ Salt Lake Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 344 W.600 North 08-36-127-012 Brite Investments 140 E.Pioneer Ave. Sping 1996_ no permit Sandy,UT 84070-1031 226 N.600 West 08-36-305-010 Robert E.Sampson 605 K Street 1995 No permit 322-3101 SLC,UT 84103-3261 554-56 N 300 W 08-36-205-005 Redevelopment Agency 451 South State St.Rm 415_ Mar-98 _ permit expires 5/02 SLC,UT 84101 677 North 300 West 08-25-453-003 RDA Salt Lake City, 451 South State St.Rm 418 Mar-98 permit expires 5/02 C/O Danny Walz Salt Lake City,Ut 84111 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 _District 4 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 455 E.Sego Ave. 16-06-326-011 Richard K.Thomas 167 W.1300 North 1992 PTB Expires (801)773-4082 Sunset,UT 84015 26-Aug _ 2002 338 S.Shelmerdine 16-06-202-008 Richard B.Rogers 315 W.Hueneme Rd. Permit Expires Camarillo,CA 93012 1/8/2002 520 S.Windsor St 16-05-101-005 Peter&Patricia Sadoski 1630 Sunset Dr _ Sping 1997 Permit expires Logan,Utah 84321 12/02/02 46 S.700 East 16-05-353-007 Julie A.Imaizumi and _780 E.Northcliffe Dr. _ Sping 1997 Permit expires John K.Williams-560-8957 SLC,UT 84103-3339 Jul-01 634 South 700 East 16-06-283-008 Martha Daniels 1960 South 400 East Apr-99 No Permit CIO Janice Durham SLC, Utah 84115 558 E.300 South 16-05-154-003 Winthrop Court LC 860 East 4500 South #303 _ PRE 1992 Demo application SLC,UT 84102 Hist.Approval 666 East 300 South 16-06-454-019 William Bleazard 329 S.Vincent Court PRE 1998 No Permit 359-6553 SLC UT,84102-2109 427 E.600 South 16-06-477-027 LDS Church 363-9031 50 E.North Temple St. PRE 1992 _ PTB Exp 1/27/02 SLC,UT 84104 573 E.600 South 16-05-353-001 Patsy V.Kuronya 788 E.Shiloh Way PRE 1990 PTB Exp 2/10/02 288-2033 Murray,UT 84107-7654 652 E.600 South 16-07-276-028 M.S.Management Assoc 367 Trolley Square PRE 1990 _ Exp,10/09/02 521-9877 SLC UT,84102 501 E 900 South 16-08-101-006 Rentco PO BOX 57218 Spring 1997 I PTB Exp 3/01/01 Murray, UT 84157-0218 519 E 600 South 16-06-426-004 Pitts Investment Inc. 2429 E Granite Hills Dr. Aug-98 PTB Exp. 10/02/01 Sandy, UT 84092 517 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-005 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Aplying for Demo SLC, UT 84107 App. By Hist. 524 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-006 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo Corp. % Craig Nielsen#81C SLC, UT 84107 App by Hist. _ 527 E Vernier PI 16-06-427-010 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SIC, UT 84107 App. By Hist. 528 E Vernier PI 16-06-427-011 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 533 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-002 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 323-325 S 500 E 16-06-426-003 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 327-329 S 500 E 16-06-427-012 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 538 E.Vernier PI 16-06-427-018 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 334 S. 600 E 16-05-478-018 Winthrop Court 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 50 S 700 E Julie A. Imaizumi& 780 E. North Cliff Drive May-89 PTB Exp 7/01 John K.Williams SLC, Utah 84103-333980 326 South 600 East 16-06-427-036 Winthrop Court, LC 860 East 4500 South #303 May-99 Demo App. By Historic SLC, UT 84102 216 South 1100 East 16-05-252-029 Yasuyo&Hirofumi Miyoshi PO BOX 1013 Feb-00 Fire Damage Park City,Utah 84060 346 East 600 South 16-06-457-001 Clinton Chealey _PO Box 1150 Feb-00 Living in trailer in front _Grantsville,Utah 84029 _ yard, closed to Occ. Seeking judgement 559 East 800 South 16-07-231-034 Dora Gutierrez 418 N.1400 W. Oct-00 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 464 South 600 East 16-06-432-020 East Downtown LLC 181 Stewart St. #1111 Jul-00 Vacant/Secure Slat Lake City,Utah 98101 _ Econ.Hardship Hist. 632 S 700 E rear 16-05-353-014 TS1 Partnership LTD PO Box 6120 1-Aug Permit Exp 10/9/02 C/O Simon Property Tax Indianapolis In,462066 Dept. 46 S 700 E.rear 16-05-101-004 Audie Leventhal 1519 So.Devenshire Dr. 1-Sep Application for Stay Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 to correct HAAB Def. 822 So 500 E 16-07-253-029_Alzora Paros 822 So.500 E. 1-Oct Closed to Occ. Salt Lake City.Ut.84102 Structural Problems 851 So.Edison St. 16-07-176-012 L.Dale Mcallister 2807 South Clearbrook Dr. _ 1-Nov new No response ,Salt Lake City,utah 84119 from owner 777 So.700 East 16-08-106-017 Thomas Tingey P.O.Box 41 3/6/2002 boarded-No Permit Payson,UT 84651 615 West 800 South 15-12-151-001 Western Dry Mix and 4000 Browns Canyon Road 1-Mar Vacant Cement Plant Packaging Inc. Peoa,Utah 84061 Several Health Dept. C/O Stewart Grow issues. Operating Recycling Buisiness w/o License. Secured w/o boarding monitor for transient prblms. Arson fire 3/26/00 138 East 800 South 16-07-152-016 Jason Roundy 369 East 900 South#320 Oct-98 Fire in Single Family Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 W/rehab permits Paul&Carol Rubey 444 E. 12300 South#102 Illegal units in rear Draper, Ut 84020 req. demo or reconversion 179 West 500 South 15-01-476-001 Phillips Petrolium Co. PO Box 358 Jul-99 c/o PTR&C Borger,Texas 79008 442 West 300 South 15-01-179-011 Kantun, LLC 235 N. Eastcapitol Blvd Winter 1997 Stay of Boarding SLC, Utah 84103 600 W.200 South 15-01-501-002 D&RGW Railroad P. O. Box 5482 Sping 1997 Permit expiresl2/99 Denver, CO 80217-5482 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#5 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded" Comments 1856 South Edison St. 16-18-308-011 Douglas C.Bott 1863 S.State St. 1996 permit exp.11/30/2000 486-1691 SLC,UT 84115-2075 420 E.Redondo Ave. 16-18-460-004 FirmLand Investment,Inc. 425 E.2100 South 1990 PTB exp 3/01 SLC,UT 84115-2237 1247 S 1100 E. 16-08-477-064 Liberty Heights Properties PO Box 521494 Aug-00 Small Retail/Demo Salt Lake City,Utah permit active 915-17 So Jefferson St 15-12-279-004 Greg Anderson 958 South Washington Strs 6/4/1999 No Permit to board Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 1592 S.Major St. 16-18-156-010 Theron T.&Bonnie F. 40 W.9400 South 1995 No Permit Miller,255-6500 Sandy,UT 84070-2635 1144 S Foulger St 16-07-351-001 Marina Rendon 3220 Darwin Ave. Jul-99 Vacant/Secure Los Angeles,CA 90031 1145 S Foulger St 16-07-305-015 Marina Rendon 3220 Darwin Ave Jul-99 Vacant/Secure Los Angeles,Ca 90031 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#6 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded' Comments CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 7/11/2002 District#7 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 602 E 2100 S 16-19-232-001 Sinclair Oil Corp. PO BOX 30825 Feb-97 Vacant/Secure C/o Sinclair Oil/TXDPT SLC, UT 84130 HOUSING TRUST FUND LEDGER AND YEARLY REPORT 02-4th Q HTF HOUSING TRUST FUND LEDGER-June 30, 2002 72-17004-Federal INCOME CONTRACT EXPENSE OBJECT BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION ENCUMBER CODE Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,507,588.53 03/12/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Critchlow Loan Payment 50.00 I 013708 2,507,638.53 04/02/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,508,903.34 _ 04/11/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Critchlow Loan Payment 50.00 I 013708 2,508,953.34 04/30/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,510,218.15 05/09/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. City Front LLC 55,479.45 1890 2,565,697.60 05/14/2002 Interest on Benchmark loan. Critchlow Loan Payment 50.00 013708 2,565,747.60 05/30/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,567,012.41 06/11/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Move 1/2 Benchmark Int.to RDA 36,986.30 1830 2,567,012.41 06/18/2002 Move RDA portion of interest Additional interst from Benchmark 1,690.22 1830 2,568,702.63 06/25/2002 Balance of interest due on Benchmark Project HOPWA admin.Exp.CR 060002773 9,587.75 1370 2,578,290.38 06/25/2002 HOPWA admin expenses from State HOPWA grant Community Housing(Capital Villa Apts) 300,000.00 2590 2,578,290.38 06/26/2002 Capital Villa Apts-108 units Interest 7/1/01-6/30/02 87,648.86 1830 2,665,939.24 06/30/2002 Interest Allocation Page 1 PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM APPROVALS AND ACTIVITY REPORT QUARTERLY HOUSING REPORT-SUBDIVISION/CONDO RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT APRIL-JUNE 2002 Number of Lots Date Project Name Address Final Preliminary Type Preliminary Plats* 4-Apr-2002 Van Cott Bagley Minor 910 South Donner Way 6* Res. 10-Apr-2002 Warm Springs Minor 775 N.Warms Springs 2* Non.Res. 30-Apr-2002 Zenith Avenue Minor 1103&1115 E.Zenith 2* Res. 30-Apr-2002 Alfred Gardens Minor 1903 S.Edison 2* Res. 14-May-2002 Pratezk Ind.Minor 1894 S.5070 W. 2* Non.Res. 14-May-2002 Highland Park Minor 2720 S.1300 E. 3* Res. 16-May-2002 Ballet West Minor 1201 East Wilmington Ave. 1* Non.Res. 28-May-2002 Muscatine Place Amd. 934 West Freemont Ave. 1* Non.Res. 28-May-2002 Windsor Minor 516&520 S.Windsor 3* Res. 28-May-2002 Williams Lot-line Adj. 2973 S.1000 East&992 E.Hudson Ave 2* Res. 6-June-2002 KUNGA Minor 1500 S.Richards St. 2* Res. Minor Subdivisions Notice-Final 30-May-2002 Ford Minor Notice 435 West Fayette Ave 2 Non.Res. 6-June-2002 Williams Lot-line Adj. 2973 S.1000 East 2 Res. Subdivisions Final Plats 24-April-2002 Iron Rose 3840 W.650 S. 20 Non.Res. 25-June-2002 Margaret St.PUD 1805-1819 S.900 W. 6 Non.Res. Amended Final Plats 0 Quarter Total 30 26* *These projects will appear again on a future Quarterly Report,for a final plat approval of some kind. Do not add these numbers to the approved subdivision lot totals. Source: Salt Lake city Corp.,Community and Economic Development,Planning Division QUARTERLY HOUSING REPORT- SUBDIVISION/CONDO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT April - June 2002 Number of Units Date Project Name Address Final Preliminary Price Range/Unit Apartment Conversion Preliminary Final Conversion Non-Residential to Residential Preliminary* Final New Construction Residential Preliminary 04-10-02 Alphagraphics Condos. 268 S. State St. 9 $300K to$600K Final 06-26-02 Alphagraphics Condos. 268 S. State St. 9 $300K to$600K Quarter Total 9 9 *These projects will appear again on a future Quarterly Report,for a final plat approval. Do not add these numbers to the approved condominium unit totals. Source: Salt Lake City Corp.,Community Economic Development,Planning Division December 2000 ECONOMIC UPDATE THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMY: UPDATE July 2002 Total nonagricultural employment dipped in June in four of the six states in the region;only Montana and South Dakota posted gains. The job total for the region remained below its level of one year ago but the performance of individual states varied considerably. Job totals in Montana,South Dakota and Wyoming as of June 2002 were 1.1 percent above their levels of last June. In contrast,Colorado's June total was 2 percent below one year ago and Utah's was down by 1.7 percent. North Dakota posted a small(0.3 percent)loss for the same time period. Unemployment rates in Colorado and Utah are down from their peaks earlier in the year but remain well above the levels of last June. Labor markets remain tight in the Dakotas;South Dakota posted the lowest rate in the nation in June 2002. Rates in Montana and Wyoming are holding steady and have stayed below the national average in recent months. The employment level for the U.S.was up by only 36,000 jobs in June,following a small gain in May. These recent gains were modest but provided a welcome relief from a string of job losses that began in April 2001. Manufacturing losses continued to slow and the services and government sectors posted gains. The nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent was essentially unchanged from last month but remains considerably higher than the 4.6 rate of last year at this time. The advance estimate of the nation's Gross Domestic Product(GDP)indicated a tepid 1.1 percent gain in the second quarter of 2002, a sharp decline from the 5.0 percent gain of the first quarter. The real news came with release of revisions to previous estimates. These revisions indicate that the recession was deeper than originally thought. GDP growth was in negative territory for the first three quarters of last year,instead of just the third quarter as previously estimated. On a more positive note,these new estimates still show a milder recession than the previous 1990-1991 cycle. U.S.housing starts retreated in June but remain ahead of last year at this time. Multifamily starts are virtually equal to last year's level but single family starts are up over 4 percent. The U.S renter vacancy rate firmed up in the second quarter and was back down to 8.5 percent. This followed a record high of 9.1 percent in the first quarter. The renter vacancy rate in Denver continued its climb and was up to 9.3 percent in the second quarter. Rent increases have all but disappeared. The average rent in the second quarter 2002 was up from the first quarter but down 1 percent from the rent of one year ago. An analysis of rents by age of unit in this survey reveals that during 2001 the average rent for units built after 1995 actually declined. "Specials"abound in the local rental market. Existing home sales in the Denver metro area during the first half of 2002 are 2 percent ahead of the pace for the first half of last year. The inventory of listings is virtually equal to that of one year ago and is down from the surge in late-summer and fall of last year. The average sales prices for detached ($265,751)and attached($167,025)resales are both up just over 4 percent from the first half of 2001. Price increases continue but have definitely slowed from the double-digit gains of the late-1990s. The U.S.Consumer Price Index(CPI)was up by only 0.1 percent in June,the second month of very little change in the index. The annual rate of inflation fell back to a very tame 1.1 percent. Indexes for medical care and education are surging but the overall index has been held in check by declining energy and apparel costs. Mid summer brought another refinancing"window". The average 30-year fixed mortgage interest rate continued its steady decline during July and slid to 6.34 percent by the end of the month, below the low rates of last fall. Many analysts expect the Federal Reserve to begin increasing the Federal Funds rate by the end of the year but no action is expected at the upcoming meeting in August. The weak second quarter GDP,limited recent job gains and some potential for the housing market to stumble have made the Fed cautious about moving too early and stamping out this fragile recovery. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMIC INDICATORS 08-Aug-02 Change Data Most Recent Previous Last Year Indicator as of Mth./Qtr. Mth./Qtr. Year Aqo Mth/Qtr Aqo Nonagricultural Wage&Salary Employment(SA): Colorado June'02 2,195.4 2,197.2 2,239.5 -0.1% -2.0% Montana June'02 398.2 394.6 394.0 0.9% 1.1% North Dakota June'02 330.4 331.0 331.5 -0.2% -0.3% South Dakota June'02 382.5 381.1 378.2 0.4% 1.1% Utah June'02 1,065.2 1,069.0 1,083.1 -0.4% -1.7% Wyoming June'02 247.7 249.1 245.1 -0.6% 1.1% United States June'02 130,740.0 130,704.0 132,108.0 0.0% -1.0% Unemployment Rate (SA): Colorado June'02 5.0 5.2 3.4 -0.2 1.6 Montana June'02 4.5 4.2 4.5 0.3 0.0 North Dakota June'02 3.2 3.5 2.8 -0.3 0.4 South Dakota June'02 2.9 3.0 3.3 -0.1 -0.4 Utah June'02 4.7 5.1 4.1 -0.4 0.6 Wyoming June'02 4.3 4.3 4.0 0.0 0.3 United States June'02 5.9 5.8 4.6 0.1 1.3 GDP Growth Rate-US 2nd gtr'02 1.1 5.0 -1.6 na na Colorado Springs MSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-May'02 2,136 na 2,464 na -13.3% Multifamily YTD-May'02 925 na 852 na 8.6% Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-May'02 8,524 na 9,636 na -11.5% Multifamily YTD-May'02 3,089 na 4,097 na -24.6% Salt Lake-Ogden MSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-May'02 2,946 na 3,095 na -4.8% Multifamily YTD-May'02 948 na 977 na -3.0% U.S. Housing Starts (Annual rate) June'02 1,672,000 1,735,000 1,633,000 -3.6% 2.4% Apartment Vacancy Rates: Colorado Springs MSA 1st gtr'02 8.9 8.9 2.8 0.0 6.1 Denver-Boulder Area 2nd gtr'02 9.3 8.7 5.7 0.6 3.6 Salt Lake City MSA 1st gtr'02 6.7 5.1 3.9 1.6 2.8 United States 2nd gtr'02 8.5 9.1 8.3 -0.6 0.2 Existing Home Sales: Denver PMSA Active Listings June'02 14,371 14,173 14,208 1.4% 1.1% Number of Sales YTD-June'02 23,934 na 23,491 na 1.9% Average Price YTD-June'02 $241,649 na $231,253 na 4.5% Single Family Foreclosure Rate: Rocky Mountain 1st gtr'02 0.86 0.81 0.53 0.05 0.33 United States 1st gtr'02 1.10 1.04 0.90 0.06 0.20 Consumer Price Index-All Items: Denver-Boulder CMSA July-Dec.'01 181.8 na 175.1 na 3.8% United States June'02 179.9 179.8 178.0 0.1% 1.1% UTAH " Zta; ` ` i is`:s� CONSTRUCTION z= ACTIVITY DOWN IN ALL SECTORS - 0114 rj-c\ Diane S. Gillam Permit-aori construction activity in Utah—especiallyuth nonresidential construction ‘31 41‘‘°%%'91‘:).(‘) 0 S lik. 1 G —declined and 0 , March 2002.he Total permitof valuation wasFeb $767uary.1 million during the period,21.4 percent . . ,- less than in 2001 and the lowest first-quarter 1.11Ps_ li) , - valuation since 1997 (Table 1). onstruction activit was not The decline in c y unanticipated.The combined effects of the national , hd of tm buil boomrecess aniond littlete constructionen he actipre-Olyvitypic duringdi the Games, Uh ou industry2002Winter to pause a allfter led a decade-longthe ta cnstr , record breaking expansion. Residential building fared a bit better, with total units off 16.0 percent and valuation down 10.4 percent to $479.7 million. The number of single-family homes receiving permits dropped • �fi�i� -— " 10.4 percent, while multifamily units declined t significantly,down by 32.1 percent over the same i period of last year. Nonresidential permit valuation declined 31.5 s , ,1 pe• rcent from 2001, to $211.9 million, the lowest � _ _ _ level in five years. Many major projects were finished before the Olympics, and with several n bu , , � �: there arenonresidential few newbuildi majorg nonresidentialsectorsnowover projectsilt qu D t"t tt 71 ;. r t on the horizon. { The additions,alterations and repairs category also fell sharply during the quarter.Nonresidential ' � -- r projects d 47.5 percent from 2001 levels, and residential additiroppedons,alterations and repairs werealtera downio 26.d6 . tal val of s, 'YY a f - tns an repairs was To$75.4 millionueaddition ,well off the record pace of the past two years. :s; Table 1 Permit-Authorized Construction in Utah January-March 1993-2002 (values in thousands) Number of Residential Nonresidential Value of Additions,Alterations Total New Dwelling Construction Construction and Repairs Construction Year Units Value Value Residential Nonresidential Value 1993 2,971 $250,261.9 $80,876.8 $13,382.4 $29,110.2 $373,626.1 1994 4,446 390,134.7 139,938.8 17,880.3 52,321.7 600,275.5 1995 4,270 351,590.0 175,971.3 17,189.4 57,035.4 601,786.0 1996 4,911 424,792.9 170,883.5 20,464.4 55,129.0 671,269.8 1997 4,006 385,884.7 164,328.1 24,017.7 58,683.1 632,913.6 1998 4,216 ,413,895.8 322,991.8 24,812.2 89,701.4 851,401.2 1999 4,528 481,250.3 238,637.7 22,977.9 68,574.8 811,440.7 2000 4,062 468,958.1 304,677.1 24,668.0 95,723.7 894,026.9 2001 4,679 535,637.5 309,469.3 33,922.7 96,222.5 975,252.0 2002 3,929 479,720.6 211,942.2 24,896.9 50,509.3 767,406.2 Ten-year Average 4,202 $418,212.7 $211,971.7 $22,421.2 $65,301.1 $717,939.8 Figure 1 Dwelling Units Authorized by Quarter State of Utah, 1970-2002 25,000 20,000 = ® � 15,000 g —Am ks..4 : d! 13 I ;,. O ;',- L. 4-- .41 & :_4.,, ._:- ::4,1 \ ,;: .,\ ..1....4_,.,,, tgi? S.'; 1: 4 � _ \........L\) -----196 M : 1:: 1 ‘ 4 .4,-„: q .:.: ,, l'' VTO ii- 4i' lkir. iL.T "Vp., k ; (i - v- 1 - ilk; II :; -- 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 r 92 94 96 98 2000 1st Quarter \\. 2nd Quarttr J 3rd Quarter I 1 4m Quarter 2 Figure 2 Average Mortgage Interest Rates and - Single-family Units Authorized in Utah 1978-2002 16 6000 A — 15 iy'% — Mortgage Rates(%) IIININII=1 Single-family Units 5000 14 13 4000 At/ , t 12 �— — c , m 11 3000 E 10 s R ,. v — t \ 2000 9 r i l - - L., 8 ' . l000 '� � 7 �-- V- 6 111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111/111111f111111111111111/1111111111/1111111 r 0 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Residential Construction a 32.1 percent drop from last year. The projects The number of permits issued for single-family which housed Olympic media and officials were homes during the first quarter declined by 10.4 finished prior to the quarter. General economic percent from the same period of 2001. February sluggishness also may have prevented investors was a particularly slow month, with both the from beginning new apartment and condominium Olympics and cold weather likely contributing to projects. the slowdown.For the first three months of 2002, Condominiums accounted for nearly half(46%) 2,877 new single-family homes received building of new multifamily building.Low mortgage rates permits. and the tax advantages of home ownership continue The City of St.George continued to dominate to spur the condominium sector. Condominiums in the single-family sector, permitting 162 units. can be an affordable alternative for first-time and Other cities with more than 100 single-family lower-income home buyers,while still offering the homes during the period include West Valley City benefits of home ownership.Major condominium (122), Syracuse (120), Draper (113) and West projects receiving permits during the quarter Jordan (110). included a 66-unit, $11.9 million project in Salt Single-family home building should continue Lake County, and a 71 unit, $4.8 million project at levels below those of the past few years, as in- in Orem. migration is projected to be negligible and the Salt Lake City issued a permit for the 155-unit demand for move-up homes slows. However, the $11.5 million City Front apartments, the largest sector is currently the strongest in the Utah project started during the first quarter.A 72-unit, construction industry, and while mortgage rates $2.4 million apartment received a permit in South stay at historic lows,demand may begin to increase Ogden. Major residential projects are listed in during the remainder of the year. Table 2. A summary of residential construction As expected, construction of multifamily by county appears in Table 3. housing declined during the period to 919 units, 3 Table 3 Summary of Residential Construction by County January through March 2001 and 2002 Mobile/Manufactured Multifamily and Total New New Single-family Homes Homes and Cabins Condominium Units Dwelling Units Residential Value Percent Percent Percent Percent ($000) ($000) Percent County/City 2001 2002 Change 2001 2002 Change 2001 2002 Change 2001 2002 Change 2001 2002 Change Beaver County 3 2 -33.3 1 5 400.0 0 0 - 4 7 75.0 390.7 711.8 82.2 Box Elder County 52 36 -30.8 0 1 - 0 9 - 52 46 -11.5 4,696.6 3,625.1 -22.8 Cache County 88 85 -3.4 0 4 - 17 4 -76.5 105 93 -11.4 12,857.1 12,390.4 -3.6 Carbon County 6 2 -66.7 6 9 50.0 0 0 - 12 11 -8.3 852.7 460.4 -46.0 Daggett County 1 0 -100.0 3 1 -66.7 0 0 - 4 1 -75.0 368.6 60.0 -83.7 Davis County 515 483 -6.2 0 1 - 42 24 -42.9 557 508 -8.8 66,038.2 63,011.0 -4.6 Duchesne County 6 12 100.0 7 16 128.6 0 0 - 13 28 115.4 921.5 1,935.0 110.0 Emery County 2 4 100.0 3 3 0.0 0 0 - 5 7 40.0 354.6 478.9 35.1 Garfield County 1 6 500.0 4 5 25.0 0 0 - 5 11 120.0 471.5 1,495.0 217.1 Grand County 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0.0 0.0 - Iron County 28 40 42.9 4 4 0.0 8 20 150.0 40 64 60.0 4,124.6 6,014.1 45.8 Juab County 9 4 -55.6 0 0 - 4 0 -100.0 13 4 -69.2 1,516.9 460.3 -69.7 Kane County 7 8 14.3 16 6 -62.5 0 0 - 23 14 -39.1 1,413.0 1,329.6 -5.9 Millard County 5 4 -20.0 2 5 150.0 0 0 - 7 9 28.6 770.3 814.3 5.7 Morgan County 9 10 11.1 ' 1 0 -100.0 0 0 - 10 10 0.0 1,364.2 1,592.1 16.7 Piute County 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0.0 , 0.0 - Rich County 1 4 300.0 0 0 - 0 0 - 1 4 300.0 110.0 374.3 240.3 Salt Lake County 792 790 -0.3 20 9 -55.0 603 396 -34.3 1,415 1,195 -15.5 147,830.8 148,158.0 0.2 San Juan County 6 5 -16.7 2 6 200.0 0 0 - 8 11 37.5 636.3 761.7 19.7 Sanpete County 27 15 -44.4 5 5 0.0 2 18 800.0 34 38 11.8 2,863.3 2,612.1 -8.8 Sevier County 23 21 -8.7 3 7 133.3 2 0 -100.0 28 28 0.0 3,094.4 3,107.0 0.4 Summit County 84 81 -3.6 2 1 -50.0 253 0 -100.0 339 82 -75.8 44,413.1 14,711.9 -66.9 Tooele County 133 108 -18.8 4 1 -75.0 34 13 -61.8 171 122 -28.7 19,083.8 13,777.6 -27.8 Uintah County 12 15 25.0 14 21 50.0 4 0 -100.0 30 36 20.0 2,217.2 3,039.0 37.1 Utah County 797 634 -20.5 5 8 60.0 286 216 -24.5 1,088 858 -21.1 136,420.7 115,955.5 -15.0 Wasatch County 51 31 -39.2 0 0 - 0 0 - 51 31 -39.2 10,622.6 6,436.8 -39.4 Washington County 322 317 -1.6 10 8 -20.0 70 104 48.6 402 429 6.7 41,314.9 48,928.0 18.4 Wayne County 6 7 16.7 2 4 100.0 0 0 - 8 11 37.5 738.3 992.1 34.4 Weber County 223 153 -31.4 2 3 50.0 29 115 296.6 254 271 6.7 30,151.6 26,488.6 -12.1 State Total 3,209 2,877 -10.4 116 133 14.7 1354 919 -32.1 4,679 3,929 -16.0 535,637.5 479,720.6 -10.4 Table 2 Springville($8.5 million)and Salt Lake City($6.7 Major Residential Projects million)Permits issued for over$1 million are listed First Quarter 2002 in Table 4. Location Type Bldgs. Units Value Analysis of nonresidential building activity by sector shows that the valuation of just two Salt Lake City Apartments nary 1 155 $11,500,000 categories—churches and"other"—exceeded the five- West Jordan Condominiums 4 12 1,152,349 year average for the first quarter. Valuation of West Valley City Condominiums 8 24 2,080,426 public buildings dropped 76.8 percent, as public February building valuation reached only$9.0 million.Three Roy Apartments 5 29 $1,305,000 major sectors declined steeply, with industrial Provo Apartments 1 15 1,460,000 Orem Apartments 1 40 3,095,040 buildings off 51.1 percent,retail stores down 47.8 Orem Condominiums 3 71 4,750,533 percent and office buildings down 12.9 percent West Jordan Condominiums 4 12 1,190,580 (Table 6 and Figure 3). March The outlook for nonresidential construction Salt Lake City Single-family 1 1 $1,000,000 Salt Lake Co. Condominiums 2 66 11,873,214 is to remain at levels well below those of the past South Ogden Apartments 3 72 2.409.634 several years. Existing vacant industrial, retail and office space will put a damper on new construc- tion in those sectors. One major project that is Nonresidential Construction scheduled for late 2002 or early 2003 is the new Intermountain Health Care hospital campus in As expected,nonresidential construction slowed Murray.This significant project will have a permit considerably during the first quarter of 2002. In value of over $200 million, therefore will add anticipation of the 2002 Winter Olympics, many considerably to nonresidential valuation,whether major projects were finished during the past few late this year, or early next year. years and few projects began construction during the Games. Combined with the sluggish national economy and an over-supply in several areas of Additions, Alterations and Repairs nonresidential building,theses factors will likely After a record-breaking first quarter in 2001, keep construction activity in this sector at levels the additions,alterations and repairs sector began well below previous years. to slow.During the months of January,February This is nowhere more apparent than in Salt and March 2002, this sector posted the steepest Lake City and Salt Lake County.During the past year-over decline among all sectors,at 42.1 percent. 10 years, Salt Lake City has accounted for about The most significant project during the period was 25 percent of nonresidential construction valuation a$3.3 million addition to Gunnison Valley Hospital and the surrounding county for another 25 percent. (Table 5). For the months of January,February and March The additions, alterations and repairs sector 2002, nonresidential construction in Salt Lake is comprised Of two parts:residential and nonresi- County fell 65.6 percent. Incorporated Salt Lake dential. Nonresidential projects have been the City posted a decline of 86.6 percent in nonresiden- catalyst for the recent strength in the sector, and tial value during the same period. generally account for about 75 percent of the sector The largest project receiving a permit during total. During the first quarter, nonresidential the first quarter was the new Intermountain additions,alterations and repairs declined by 47.5 Health Care Hospital in St.George at$58 million percent.Residential projects declined less dramati- which alone accounted for more than a quarter cally,falling 26.6 percent from first quarter 2001. of nonresidential value for the period.Three office buildings valued at over $5 million also received permits, one each in Provo ($12.3 million), 5 Table 4 to differences in surveying and modeling methodol- Major New Nonresidential Projects ogies used by the Census, the statistics are not First Quarter 2002 strictly comparable to those reported by the Bureau Location Type Value of Economic and Business Research.Information January on nonresidential building is no longer available. American Fork Industrial Building $3,100,000 According to Census data,the Mountain States Carbon County Industrial Building 1,500,000 Region as a whole recorded a 13.4 percent decline Draper Retail Building 1,100,000 Draper Medical Offices 1,900,000 in new dwelling units over the first quarter of last Logan Nursing Home 4,000,000 year. Only Montana (up 49.0%) and New Mexico Murray Retail Building 2,173,500 (up 17.7%) had higher numbers of single-family Murray Office Building 1,532,499 home permits issued. Montana and Wyoming Orem Adult Care Facility 1,139,895 Provo Private School 2,000,000 showed significant gains in multifamily permits, Provo Office Building - 12,300,000 while Nevada posted a 1.0 percent increase in Saint George Hospital 58,000,000 multifamily units. All other Mountain States Salt Lake City Office Building 6,727,138 declined in new multifamily units authorized. Salt Lake City Warehouse 2,400,000 Syracuse Church 1,693,775 Residential valuation likewise declined in all Taylorsville Retail Building 1,900,000 Mountain States except Montana and Wyoming. Tooele Office Building 1,224,000 West Valley City Olympic Structures 2,140,000 Census data show Utah recording 4.4 percent fewer single-family homes than in 2001, and 2.4 February percent fewer multifamily units. Residential Logan Retail Building $4,066,000 South Salt Lake Retail Building 2,900,000 valuation declined in Utah by 6.5 percent according South Salt Lake Public Safety Bldg. 2,100,000 to the data. Census data for all states are shown Saratoga Springs Church 1,361,896 in Table 7. Orem Parking Garage 1,480,432 Orem Parking Garage 2,319,579 Orem Church 1,224,723 Table 5 Taylorsville Senior Center 1,117,000 Major Addition,Alteration,and Repair Projects West Jordan Pump Stations 3,500,000 First Quarter 2002 Sandy Alzheimers Center 1,213,000 Salt Lake City Office Building 3,140,000 Location Type Value March Cedar City Surgical Center $2,170,000 January Eagle Mountain Church 1,437,462 Payson Manuf.Remodel $1,300,000 Green River Motel 1,790,000 Salt Lake City Industrial Remodel 1,500,000 Milford Motel 1,169,822 Salt Lake City Office Building Remodel 1,200,000 Saint George Retail Building 1,102,000 Saint George Office Building 1,536,000 February Salt Lake City Office Building 1,280,000 Price Grocery Store Remodel $1,550,000 Salt Lake County Retail Building 1,342,439 Salt Lake City Office Building Remodel 1,500,000 Smithfield Church 1,680,000 Springville Office Building 8,545,187 March Woods Cross Church 1,342,223 Clearfield Commercial Remodel $1,137,154 Gunnison Hospital Addition 3,341,167 Layton Grocery Store Addition 1,490,000 Provo Retail Addition 1,500,000 Salt Lake City Office Building Remodel 1,100,000 Bureau of the Census Statistics Salt Lake City Retail Remodel 2,400,000 To determine how construction activity in Utah West Valley City Court Building Addition 1,500,000 compares with the Mountain, Pacific and other Census regions and the nation, the Bureau of . Economic and Business Research uses statistics compiled by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Due 6 SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT Please submit the following information within 30 DAYS following the end of each Quarter to: Capital Planning and Programming Division,451 S.State St.,Room 406,Salt Lake City,UT 84111. ORGANIZATION: SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING AWl) NE GHBORIIQOD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: TIME PERIOD COVERED: 04 01 02 TO 06 30 02 Month Day Year Month Day Year Total Number Non-homeless Ilouseholds/ 30% 50% 60% 80% White Black Indian/ Asian/ Female Persons with Persons Extremely Very Low Low Moderate not not Alaskan Pacific Head of Special Home Assisted li/F Low Income Income Income Income Hispanic Hispanic Native Hispanic Islander Household Needs Owner Renter Homeless CDBG 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 $30,442 HOME 1 2 5 5 2 1 3 8 $289,196 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUARTERLY REPORT FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT - CDBG/HOME-4th QUARTER Plpn S m.a bM kn.PleaseO - ORGANIZATION: SALT LAKE COMMUNITY 1XVELOPJ.IENT CORPORATOR PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: Adminiahallon/Own In Sall Lake/Construction Ac4vIlles TIME PERIOD COVERED: 4 1 02 TO 6 30 2002 Month Day Year Month Day Year .w Hwn.w 30% BM bel.nl 'I.,J Ml.Y.r 6m.m.ry 1e%wry ee%lar Moder.l. whe.nal 0I.dt not w..kw P.cMn Fontl.H..e Hem. us M.i HIP Law Income Low Imam. Worm Worm wq.nk lbpw.k Hart. Hkgwie kkn0.P etHr>hold 1..<W Ow.. Cramer P.M., Ibmd • CDBG 0 H HOME 10 H 1 1 2 6 6 1 3 5 N/A 10 RECAP 2 H 1 1 2 1 2 r - CD BO 8 H ' 3 2 3 j 7 1 4 NIA 8 HOME 47 _H t 1 12 12 22 1 32 2 1 11 1 19 N/A 47 I RECAP 12 H ' 1 1 5 5 1 I 6 4 2 3 N/A 12 i •lr rca n .. as .rr_ , l FEDERAL QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT-CITY CDBG ADMIN-4th QUARTER 200112002 Please wawa the rayoebg tCametlne regaling yeu protected and actual dame.Mean 30 days te3veR,g a,eend et each geaax. PROJECTED ACTUAL • July $7,500.00 July $13,708.26 August $7,500.00 August $9,419.37 1Me still continue to allocate monthly expenses. September $7,500.00 September $9,063.79 1st Ob.Total $22,500.00 1st OP.Total $32,191.42 October $7,500.00 October $10,620.62 November 47.600.00 November $10,937.63 December $7500.00 December $18,357.03 2nd Qtr.Total $22,509.00 2nd Cdr.Total $39,51528 January $7,500.00 January $3,414.10 February $7,500.00 February $3,740.00 March 37,500.00 March $3,233.62 3rd Qtr.Total $22,500.00 3rd Qtr.Total $10,387.72 Aptt $7,500.00 AyrN $2,604.92 May $7,500.00 May $2,140.68 June $7,500.00 Jane $2,759.90 401 Qtr.Total $22,590.00 4th Orr.Total $7,505.58 FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACCOMPLISHMENTS/STATUS REPORT OISL(Own In Sart Lake)—DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE ACINMES—4th Quarter(2001120021 DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT FUNDS - FUNDING AMOUNT I I OF GRANTS I Of GRANTS FUNDED I OF GRANTS AVAILABLE 0OF GRANTS FUNDED PERCENTAGE OF 0 OF GRANTS AVAILABLE SOURCE ALLOCATED TO BE FUNDED AS OF 711101 AS OF 711101 DURING 01102 GRANT SPENT AS OF 1130102 CD13G00/01 $50,000.00 25 17 8 8 100% 0 HOME 00101 $50,000.00 25 7 18 18 . 100% 0 HOME'01/02 $75,000.00 30 0 30 30 100% o ):. RECAPTURED FUNDS 2000/2001 9 of HOME Grants Recaptured R of COBG Grants Recaptured& 0 of Grants Funded with FUNDING QUARTER and Funds Returned to Cly available for funding Recaptured CDEG funds. 1'Quarter 4 5 5 2"0 Quarter 2 2 5 3'Quarter 3 2 0 4O1 Quarter 1 0 2 i TYPE OF HOMES PURCHASED WITH GRANT FUNDS 2000/2001 Single-Farmly Condo Townhanes TOTAL FUNDING Detached QUARTER ("Quarter 10 3 _ 3 16 Z Qua errt 23 f 24 3'Quarter 13 2 15 4'Quarter 11 1 0 12 AREA LQtA'IOL!P.F HOMES PURCHASED WITH GRANT FUNDS ' —2000/2001- ---OerrtaF--6e.-- Weeleide--.-East..__Glendale=-Rosep dc..Jackson Peopfp N011twesl_ Poplar Onequa Emerson Sugarhouse Fairmont West Guadalupe TOTAL FUNDING City Central Downtown Freeway Grove QUARTER - _ Ho 1"Quarter 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 _ 16 2""Quarter 4 I 5 4 1 1 3 4 1 _ 24 3'Quarter 3 1 1 1 1_ _ 4 1 1 1 1 15 4"Quarter 3 1 I 1 2 3 1 1 12 During the 4'quarter of 2001/2002 the CDC received 19 YID—(148 1 requests for applications from homebuyers interested in using the OISL grant to purchase homes in the Salt Lake City. area. NHO—CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES-4t°Quarter(2001120021 Pre-development -Approx.1500 West 500 North—large vacant tot evaluated for development—evaluating for possible project •250 North Chicago Street -large vacant lot evaluated ler development- " •256 West 500 North—negotiating purchase for rehab Planning phase -1962-64 West 400 North—Joint project with Utah Housing Corporation—CDC will build 5 homes -741 East 2700 South—Home to start In September Under Construction -Cannon Place Subdivision(1512 South 900 Weep—Lot 09—90%complete,Construction to begin on Lot 63 -1103&1115 E.Zenith Avenue—to he completed&ready for sale late August—90%complete -64 West Andrews Avenue(1500 South)-U of U Arch.Students designing&building new home Ready for sale -150D South Richards(50 West) Projects sold -tot at 223 North 900 West—sold to private owner for new construction of innovative narrow home design.(sold lot on 9126(01)—home Is now underconsboclion During the 4"quarter of 2001)2002 the CDC processed 16(YTD-71)application requests by interested homebuyers in frying within the Sall Lake City limits. See attached Activity Log Summary sheets for the 4"Quarter of 2001)2002. NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES QUARTLERY REPORT • • • FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT [lease submit the following information within 30 DAYS following the end of each Quarter to: Capital Planning and Programming Division,451 S.State St.,Room 406,Sait lake City,lIT 341 1 1. ORGANIZATION. Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services • PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: CMG • TIME PERIOD COVERED: Jolt 1, 2002 - . TO__June.30. 20D2 Month Day Year Month Day Year • Non-homeless Total Number I louseholds/ 30% 50% 60% 80% While Black Indian/ Asian/ Female Persons with rersons Fdrernely Very Low Low Moderate not not Alaskan Pacific Head of Special Home Assisted H/F Law Income Income Income Income Hispanic Hispanic Native Hispanic Islander Household Needs Owner Renter Homeless 11 1 6 2 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 10 • FEDERAL QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT Z CO I — z o r,-Z Please submit the following information regarding your projected and actual expenditure within 30 days following the end of each quarter. J'lOtECTEQ Please explain any differences between projected and actual expenditures: July 6,3t11.67 July 4210,01 • August y I le 7 August 7 45 .iim September lI.67 September 763%.20 1°Qtr.Total I9,025,11 t"Qtr.Total )1)301,°z October7 October 7 5.($ November c November 7,(a 1. Decenter N i re7 December 74 23.t 2""Qtr.Total lq 0z5 0l 2n°Qtr.Total 22400.b . January (03 I.4'1 January ZZI Z9 Marcary 41. February _.�A4arca .3 .b'/ Match o 2 3'"Qtr.Total 19,02,5•O 1 3".Qtr.7otal 17,227.5Z April April (co May May (o1a7...-3439 June !,b June 4843,44 4'Qtr.Total _19OZ4 G7 4"Q1rTotal 17i 10`}.72' FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACCOMPLISHMENfS/STATUSREPORT Please include the type of service or work performed m your grant,the unit of measure,and units compkted to date.For example,a public service grant activity should supply information such as: I. Description of service performed fie.,Emergency Home Repairs for low and moderate income households_,etc.). • 2. Number of clients served, s. Areas of the city served(Le.,Target Areas,Neighborhoods,Census Tracts,City Council Districts,etc.) 4. Percent of work completed(per City grant agreement scope of services),problems anticipated,technical assistance needed,projected completion date,etc. FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT Please submil the following information within SO PAYS following the end of each Quarter to:Capital Planning and Programming Division,451 S.Slate SI.,Room 406,Salt lake City,UT 84111. ORGANIZATION: 1laNr 11e. 11 iG 'hoca vie SeniC�.S PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: (I UI J�, TIME PERIOD COVERED: 1-I-OI -I ) TO L- 5O- Month Day Year Month Day Year • Total Number Non-homeless Ilonsnkolds/ 30% 50% 60% 80% •while Black Indian/ Asian/ Female Persons with Persons Extremely Very Low Low Moderate not not Alaskan Pacific Head of Special Home Assisted H/P Low Income Income Income Income Hispanic Hispanic Native Hispanic Islander Household Needs Owner Renter Homeless a a I a • • 1-tbr1E r t- /- C� f � (n.,?:1) • FEDERAL QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT Please submit the following information regarding your projected and actual expenditure within 30 days following the end of each quarter. PROD CFED. ACTUAL Please explain any differences between projected and actual expenditures: July July August August September September , 1"Qtr.Total 1"Qtr.Total Oo,:T Fa DO October October November November December December 2"Qtr.Total Zr°Qtr.Total (cal r January January February February March March 3"Qtr.Total 3r°Qtr.Total April April June Juney 4.9.18. 1.27- 4'Qtr.Total 4i6 Qtr Total FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACCOMPLISHMENTS/STATUS REPORT Please include the type of service or work performed in your grant,the unit of measure,and units completed to date. For example,a public service grant activity should supply information such as: 1. Description of service performed(i e.,Emergency Home Repairs for low and moderate income households.,etc.). 2. Number of clients served. 3. Areas of the city served(i.e.,Target Areas,Neighborhoods,Census Tracts,City Council Districts,etc.) 4. Percent of work completed(per City grant agreement scope of services),problems anticipated,technical assistance needed,projected completion date,etc. 71] . OW do Ni MARGARET HUNT SA i1 t° ��� GOR�P® ��� ®��� �� '�'� = ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ih TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 16, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt /-/a-/ -61', �i RE: A resolutikauthorizing the Mayor to accept the grant award provided to the Mayor's Office concerning environmental issues, from the U. S. Department of Energy. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: $50,000.00 of grant funding DISCUSSION: The Mayor's Office applied for and received $50,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Energy. This grant will be used to "partner"with two consultants to provide technical expertise in formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Service Commission, PacifiCorp, and other regulatory agencies, that demonstrates that partial utility funding of private rooftop PV systems is a cost-effective means for the utility to meet its public service obligation. During the 2002 legislative session, the Utah Legislature passed two bills, HB7 "Net Metering of Electricity" and SB 152,"Electric Energy Efficiency Conservation Tariff." The HB7 bill mandates that public utilities must provide a net metering tariff to its customers. This tariff has not yet been submitted for approval to the Utah Public Service Commission. The partnership will initiate a tariff filing and monitor process to insure the tariff is beneficial to PV systems and consistent with the legislative intent. SB152 allows a separate charge to be placed on a customer's bill to collect money for energy conservation measures. This benefit charge is envisioned as a source of revenue that will fund primarily demand-side programs. The partnership will participate in this process to show that PV solar units are equivalent to demand- side measures and should be included in the tariff. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: BO1-535-6005 �� aecrcEo PnPeR RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM U. S . DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WHEREAS, Title 11 , Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $50, 000 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the U. S . Department of Energy, to expend for the purposes of : Hiring consultants to provide technical expertise in formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Safety Commission as it pertains to removal of financial barriers associated with the installation of solar, rooftop photovoltaic systems in Salt Lake City. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Satt Lake City Attorneys Office Date- �� /j By /S_� eNT Op.6,4. D 2 2 2002 l5 i ¢P Department of Energy• ' i Golden Field Office ° 41 1617 Cole Boulevard ,. .r_ P`� Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 ThE t's°�ATEs. OFFICE OF ��,, July 19, 2002 Ms. Lisa Romney City of Salt Lake Office of the Mayor 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SUBJECT: PENDING MILLION SOLAR ROOF INITIATIVE (MSRI) GRANT, SOLICITATION NUMBER DE-PS36-02G092005 Dear Ms. Romney: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to negotiate and award the subject grant to the City of Salt Lake-Mayor's Office. As such, and in accordance with your correspondence dated July 18, 2002, this letter constitutes written approval to incur pre-award costs. Costs that are allowable and allocable under the terms of the agreement, and are incurred on or after July 19, 2002, will be eligible for DOE cost sharing. Therefore, the effective date of the Budget and Project Periods for the award are July 19, 2002. However, DOE does not guarantee or assume any obligation to reimburse costs incurred in the performance of the agreement if, for any reason, the agreement is not awarded or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs. Questions or comments concerning the above should be directed to me at (303) 275-4744. Sincerely, 7'yL ' �J_I7n : n ,.7� James Damm / Contracting Officer Federal Recycling Program , • Printed on Recycled Paper Million Solar Roofs Partnership Million Solar Roofs Initiative Small Grant Program for State and Local Partnerships Solicitation Number DE-PS36-02G092005 Volume 1 Certifications Business Contact: Lisa Romney, Environmental Affairs Coordinator Office of the Mayor 451 S. State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7939 Fax: (801) 535-6331 lisa.romney a,ci.slc.ut.us Technical Contact: Sarah Wright, Chair Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy (UE3) 917 East 2"d Ave Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 Phone: 801-673-7156 swrightutahAearthlink.net Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page lof 2 to .� GO-PF19 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (1/22/02) GOLDEN FIELD OFFICE TFNANCIAL.ASSISTANCE;PRE-AWARD:I.NFORMATION SHEET." - . , Applicant: Salt Lake City Corporation Award/Proposal No.: DE-PS36-02G092005 Amendment No.: A. TYPE OF BUSINESS The Applicant is a: n Individual n Partnership ❑ Small Business ❑ Large Business X State or Local Government or Indian Tribe If Non Profit— Select one below: ❑ A• university or other institution of higher education or an organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 501(a)); or ❑ An organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 501(a)); or ❑ A• n organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 501(a)); or n A nonprofit scientific or educational organization qualified under a State nonprofit organization statute. Please identify the statute below; or n Institution of Higher Education ❑ O• ther B. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY B.1. Applicants who have checked"Large Business" above have the right to request, in advance or within Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 2of 2 30 days after execution of the grant, in accordance with applicable statutes and DOE Patent Waiver Regulation (10 CFR 784), a waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States in Subject Inventions. If the Applicant intends to request a waiver to such invention rights pursuant to 10 CFR 784, please indicate: [1 I intend to request an advance waiver in accordance with 10 CFR 784. x I do not intend to request an advance waiver. B.2. RIGHTS IN PROPOSAL DATA It is DOE policy for a grant award based on a proposal that, in consideration of the award, the Government shall obtain unlimited rights in the technical data contained in the proposal unless the Applicant marks those portions of the technical information which he asserts as "proprietary data" or specifies those portions of such technical data which are not directly related to or will not be utilized in the work to be funded under the award. Accordingly, please indicate: X No restrictions on Government rights in the proposal technical data; or n The following identified technical data is proprietary or is not directly related to or will not be utilized in the work to be funded under the award: B.3. IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL DATA WHICH IS PROPRIETARY The Rights in Technical Data clause proposed to be used for this award may not permit the utilization of proprietary data in the performance of this award or, if the use of proprietary data is permitted, may not be adequate to meet programmatic requirements. Use of data which is proprietary may prevent you from meeting the data requirements of the award (including delivery of data). Your attention is particularly drawn to the use of LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE. Please indicate that you have reviewed the requirements in the technical scope of work and to the best of your knowledge: X No proprietary data will be utilized in the performance of this award. n Proprietary data as follows will be utilized in the performance of this award: X No LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE will be utilized in the performance of this award. [1 LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE as follows will be utilized in the performance of this award: Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 3of 2 C. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (SSN) r If the Applicant does not have an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assigned Employer Identification Number (EIN), Applicant SSN is (See block 5 of Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424.) D. DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS NUMBER) Applicant DUNS Number is 072957822 . For assistance in obtaining a DUNS Number, call Dunn &Bradstreet at 1-800-333-0505. The Applicant should be prepared to provide the following information to Dunn &Bradstreet: (1) Company name. (2) Company address. (3) Company telephone number. (4) Line of business. (5) Chief executive officer/key manager. (6) Date the company was started. (7)Number of people employed by the company. (8) Company affiliation. E. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS In accordance with 10 CFR 1040, the Applicant is required to appoint a person as the Affirmative Action Officer to be responsible for Civil Rights matters. The person you appoint should be knowledgeable of 10 CFR 1040,Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. You are also responsible for prominently displaying reasonable numbers of Civil Rights posters at your facility. A copy of 10 CFR 1040 can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 00/10cfr1040 00.htrnl and the poster(DOE F 1600.4) at http://www.golden.doe.gov/businessopportunities.html Copies can also be obtained from your awarding DOE office. Brenda Hancock has been appointed as the Affirmative Action Officer and has familiarized himself/herself with 10 CFR 1040. DOE Civil Rights posters have been displayed prominently and in reasonable numbers at our facility. F. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION 1. Has applicant had prior Federal awards? X Yes n No 2. If yes, was applicant required to submit an audit per OMB A-133 circular? ❑ Yes l No 3. Applicant's fiscal year end date is June 30, 2002 4. Identify Cognizant Federal Agency(agency providing the preponderance of Federal funding if not DOE), and provide Agency name, a point of contact, and phone number. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 4of 2 5. If applicant has other DOE awards, identify the DOE office providing the preponderance of Federal funding, if not the Golden Field Office, and a point of contact and phone number FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM To qualify for Financial Assistance, financial management system compliance with 10 CFR 600.121 or 10 CFR 600.220 is required. Accounting System Survey Requirements for Financial Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education,Hospitals,Non Profit Organizations and Commercial Organizations. Mark in Appropriate Column Yes No NA 1. Is your Accounting System in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles X ❑ ❑ applicable to the circumstances? 2. Accounting System provides for: a. Segregation of direct costs from indirect costs. X n ❑ b. Identification and accumulation of direct costs by project. X ❑ n c. A logical and consistent method for the allocation of indirect costs to intermediate and X ❑ ❑ final cost objectives. (Project is final cost objective) d. Accumulation of costs under general ledger control. X n n e. A timekeeping system that identifies employees' labor by intermediate and final cost X objectives. f. A labor distribution system that charges direct and indirect labor to appropriate cost ❑ X objectives. g. Interim(at least monthly)determination of costs charged to a project through routine X n posting of books of account. h. Excluding costs charged to Government projects which are not allowable in terms of ❑ ❑ X FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures,or other provisions. i. Identification of costs by project line item and by units (as if each unit or line item were X ❑ U a separate project)if required by the proposed award. 3. Does the Accounting System provide Financial Information: a. As required by agreements, addressing cost or payment limitations? X ❑ n b. To support requests for advance payments? X ❑ 4. Is the Accounting System designed, and are the records maintained in such a manner that ❑ ❑ adequate,reliable data are developed for use in developing cost proposals? Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 5of 2 5. Is the Accounting System currently in full operation? X ❑ n Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 6of 2 DOE F 1600.5 U.S. Department of Energy OMB Control No. (06-94) Assurance of Compliance 1910-0400 All Other Editions Are Obsolete Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs OMB Burden Disclosure Statement Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response,including the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden,to Office of Information Resources Management Policy,Plans,and Oversight, Records Management Division,HR-422-GTN,Paperwork Reduction Project(1910-0400),U.S.Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,S.W.,Washington, DC 20585;and to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB),Paperwork Reduction Project(1910-0400),Washington,DC 20503. Salt Lake City Corporation (Hereinafter called the"Applicant") HEREBY AGREES to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Pub. L. 88-352),Section 16 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974(Pub.L.93-275),Section 401 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974(Pub. L. 93-438),Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,as amended,(Pub.L.92-318,Pub. L. 93-568,and Pub. L.94-482),Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(Pub.L.93-112),the Age Discrimination Act of 1977(Pub.L.94-135),Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968(Pub. L.90-284),the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977(Pub.L.95-91),the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976,as amended,(Pub. L.94-385)and Title 10,Code of Federal Regulations,Part 1040. In accordance with the above laws and regulations issued pursuant thereto,the Applicant agrees to assure that no person in the United States shall,on the ground of race,color,national origin,sex,age,or disability,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be otherwise subjected do discrimination under any program or activity in which the Applicant receives Federal assistance from the Department of Energy. Applicability and Period of Obligation In the case of any service,financial aid,covered employment,equipment,property,or structure provided,leased,or improved with Federal assistance extended to the Applicant by the Department of Energy,this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which Federal assistance is extended. In the case of any transfer of such service,financial aid,equipment,property,or structure,this assurance obligates the transferee for the period during which Federal assistance is extended. If any personal property is so provided. this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases,this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which the Federal assistance is extended to the Applicant by the Department of Energy. Employment Practices Where a primary objective of the Federal assistance is to provide employment or where the Applicant's employment practices affect the delivery of services in programs or activities resulting from Federal assistance extended by the Department,the Applicant agrees not to discriminate on the ground of race,color,national origin,sex,age,or disability,in its employment practices. Such employment practices may include,but are not limited to,recruitment,advertising,hiring,layoff or termination,promotion,demotion,transfer,rates of pay,training and participation in upward mobility programs;or other forms of compensation and use of facilities. Subrecipient Assurance The Applicant shall require any individual,organization,or other entity with whom it subcontracts,subgrants,or subleases for the purpose of providing any service,financial aid,equipment,property,or structure to comply with laws and regulations cited above. To this end,the subrecipient shall be required to sign a written assurance form;however,the obligation of both recipient and subrecipient to ensure compliance is not relieved by the collection or submission of written assurance forms. Data Collection and Access to Records The Applicant agrees to compile and maintain information pertaining to programs or activities developed as a result of the Applicant's receipt of Federal assistance from the Department of Energy. Such information shall include,but is not limited to the following:(1)the manner in which services are or will be provided and related data necessary for determining whether any persons are or will be denied such services on the basis of prohibited discrimination;(2)the population eligible to be served by race,color,national origin,sex,and disability;(3)data regarding covered employment including use or planned use of bilingual public contact employees serving beneficiaries of the program where necessary to permit effective participation by beneficiaries unable to speak or understand English;(4)the location of existing or proposed facilities connected with the program and related information adequate for determining whether the location has or will have the effect of unnecessarily denying access to any person on the basis of prohibited discrimination;(5)the present or proposed membership by race,color,national origin,sex,age and disability in any planning or advisory body which is an integral part of the program;and(6)any additional written data determined by the Department of Energy to be relevant to the obligation to assure compliance by recipients with laws cited in the first paragraph of this assurance. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 7of 2 DOE F 1600.5 OMB Control No. (06-94) 1910-0400 All Other Editions Are Obsolete The Applicant agrees to submit requested data to the Department of Energy regarding programs and activities developed by the Applicant from the use of Federal assistance funds extended by the Department of Energy. Facilities of the Applicant(including the physical plants,buildings,or other structures)and all records,books,accounts,and other sources of information pertinent to the Applicant's compliance with the civil rights laws shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours of request of an officer or employee of the Department of Energy specifically authorized to make such inspections. Instructions in this regard will be provided by the Director,Office of Civil Rights,U.S. Department of Energy. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants,loans,contracts(excluding procurement contracts),property,discounts or other Federal assistance extended after the date hereof,to the Applicants by the Department of Energy,including installment payments on account after such data of application for Federal assistance which are approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in reliance upon the representations and agreements made in this assurance,and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant,the successors, transferees,and assignees,as well as the person(s)whose signatures appear below and who are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the Applicant. Applicant Certification The Applicant certifies that it has complied,or that,within 90 days of the date of the grant,it will comply with all applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R.3 1040.5(a copy will be furnished to the Applicant upon written request to DOE). Designated Responsible Employee Lisa Romney,Environmental Advisor to the Mayor (801)535-7704 Name and title(Printed or Typed) Telephone Number April 11,2002 Signature Date Salt Lake City Corporation (801)535-7704 Applicant's Name Telephone Number 451 South State,Room 306 4/11/02 Address Date Authorized Official: President,Chief Executive Officer or Authorized Designee Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Salt Lake City (801)535-7704 Name and title(Printed or Typed) Telephone Number April 11,2002 Signature Date Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 8of 2 CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT,SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS Applicants should refer to the regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they are required to attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form. Signature of this form provides for compliance with certification requirements under 34 CFR Part 82, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and 34 CFR Part 85, "Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace(Grants)." The certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be *laced when the De.artment of Energy determines to award the covered transaction,grant,or cooperative agreement. - - - - • . 11y charged by a government entity(Federal, State or local) with The undersigned certifies,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph that: (1)(b)of this certification;and x No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or application/proposal had one or more public transactions attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a (Federal,State or local)terminated for cause or default. Member of Congress,an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the (2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any awarding of any Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant, of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant the making of any Federal loan,the entering into of any cooperative shall attach an explanation to this proposal. agreement,and the extension,continuation,renewal,amendment, or modification of any Federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative 3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE agreement. Standard Form-LLL not required This certification is required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 ❑ Funds than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D) and is implemented through paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an additions to the Debarment and Suspension regulations,published in the officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an Federal Register on January 31,1989,and May 25, 1990. officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,grant,loan,or ALTERNATE I cooperative agreement. If checked,the undersigned shall complete (GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS) and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"in accordance with its instructions. (1) The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful at all tiers(including subcontracts,subgrants,and contracts under manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. violation of such prohibition; This certification is a material representation of fact upon which (b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. employees about: Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352,title 31,U.S.Code. Any (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; each such failure. (3) Any available drug counseling,rehabilitation,and employee 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RE- assistance programs;and SPONSIBILITY MATTERS (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug (1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its abuse violations occurring in the workplace; knowledge and belief,that it and its principals: (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from required by paragraph(a); covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (b) Have not within a three-year period receding this proposal (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against employee will: them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,attempting to obtain,or (1) Abide by the terms of the statement;and performing a public(Federal,State,or local)transaction under a public transaction;violation of Federal or State (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement,theft, for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the forgery,bribery,falsification or destruction of records, work-place not later than five calendar days after such making false statements,or receiving stolen property; conviction. FA/CERTS(10/01) Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 9of 2 4. LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995,SIMPSON-CRAIG (e) Notifying the agency,in writing,within ten calendar days AMENDMENT after receiving notice under subparagraph(d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual Applicant organizations which are described in section 501(c)(4)of the notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and engage in lobbying activities after employees must provide notice,including position December 31,1995,shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds title,to energy grant officer or other designee on constituting an award,grant,or loan. Section 501(c)(4)of the Internal whose grant activity the convicted employee was Revenue Code of 1986 covers: working,unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated shall include the identification number(s)of each exclusivelyfor the promotion ofsocial welfare,or local associations affected grant; ofemployees,the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality,and the (f) Taking one of the following actions,within 30 calendar days net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, of receiving notice under subparagraph(d)(2),with respect to educational,or recreational purposes. any employee who is so convicted: As set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995(Public Law 104-65, (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, December 19, 1995), as amended ["Simpson-Craig Amendment,"see up to and including termination, consistent with the Section 129 of The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act,I(Public Law requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended;or 104-99,January 26, 1996)),lobbying activities is defined broadly. (See section 3 of the Act.) (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such The undersigned certifies,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, purposes by a Federal,State,or local health,law enforcement, that: it IS NOT an organization described in section 50I(c)(4)of the or other appropriate agency; Internal Revenue Code of 1986;OR that it IS an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which, after (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free December 31, 1995,HAS NOT engaged in any lobbying activities as workplace through implementation of paragraphs(a),(b),(c), defined in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,as amended. (d),(e),and(f). ALTERNATE H(GRANTEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS) (2) The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the (1) The grantee certifies that,as a condition of the grant,he or she specific grant: will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substances in Place of Performance: conducting any activity with the grant. (Street address,city,county,state,zip code) (2) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity,he or she will report the conviction,in writing,within 10 calendar days of the conviction,to every grant officer or other designee,unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of such notices. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include the identification number(s)of each affected grant. ❑Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant,I hereby certify that the applicant will comply with the above certifications. NAME OF APPLICANT PR/AWARD NUMBER AND/OR PROJECT NAME Salt Lake City Corporation DE-PS36-02G092005 PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Salt Lake City SIGNATURE DATE April 11,2002 FA/CERTS(10/01) Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page lOof 2 DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES Approved by OMB Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 0348-0046 (See reverse for public burden disclosure.) 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type: ❑ a. contract X a. bid/offer/application X a. initial filing x b. grant ❑ b. initial award ❑ b. material change ❑ c. cooperative agreement ❑ c. post-award For Material Change Only: ❑ d. loan year quarter ❑ e. loan guarantee date of last report D f. loan insurance 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: 5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee,Enter Name and Address of Prime: X Prime ❑ Subawardee Tier,if known: Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State,Room 306 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Congressional District,if known: Congressional District,if known: 6. Federal Department/Agency: 7. Federal Program Name/Description: U.S.Department of Energy CFDA Number,if applicable: 8. Federal Action Number,if known: 9. Award Amount,if known: 10.a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant b. Individuals Performing Services(including address if (if individual,last name,first name,Ml): different from No. 10A) (last name,first name,Ml): (attach Continuation Sheet(S)SF-LLL-A,if necessary) 11. 13. 12. 14. 15. 16. Information requested through this form is authorized by title 31 Signature: U.S.C.section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed Print Name: Lisa Romney by the tier above when this transaction was made or entered Titl: Administrative Assistant to the Mayor into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C.1352. This information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually Telephone No.: (801)535-7939 Date: and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each. yy, Authorized for Local Reproduction �, , '� ,{ � � �� � Standard Form-LLL Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Vniump 1 Ceritifeations. Page 1 lof 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF SF-LLL,DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES This disclosure f