Loading...
08/24/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION August 24,2021 Tuesday 3:30 PM This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination. SLCCouncil.com 3:30 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting 7:00 pm Formal Meeting (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated:07:57:26 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination. As Salt Lake City Council Chair,I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present,and that the City and County building has been ordered closed to the public for health and safety reasons. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on the following platforms: •Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ •YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ •SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: •24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654 •council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda- related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council Virtual Meeting Comments page. Work Session Items 1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~3:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects, including but not limited to: •COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm; •Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; •Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and •Other projects or updates. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~4:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies, procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include: •An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and •Other project updates or discussion. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 3.Resolution:Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-up ~4:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures.Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,June 1,2021;Tuesday,July 13,2021;Tuesday,July 20,2021;Tuesday, August 17,2021;and Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,June 8,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,July 13,2021 at 7 p.m.and Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 4.Informational:Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Update ~4:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update about the Northpoint Small Area Plan.The Planning division is providing this update early in the planning process so the Council has a good understanding of the scope of work,the project budget,project timeline,and any barriers.Additionally,this is the opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders,and provide other information to the consultants that may help improve the outcome of the planning process. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 5.Ordinance:Renaming of People's Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground ~5:05 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a request that the People’s Freeway Park,located at 1560 South West Temple,be renamed the Ballpark Playground.The Public Utilities Department owns the property,and it is managed by the Public Services Department,Parks Division.Both departments support the name change. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,September 7,2021 6.Resolution:Public Benefits Analysis -Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge ~5:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize a waiver of lease fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport to facilitate the operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge operated by United Service Organizations (USO),a nonprofit corporation.The USO lounge would feature comfortable furniture,donated snacks,beverages,entertainment,and free Wi-Fi to active duty,Reserve,and Guard service members and their families at no charge,365 days per year.The Council will discuss and consider the proposal,which would exempt the group from paying for the space at the airport. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,September 21,2021 7.Informational:Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application ~5:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion and consider obtaining a $7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB)to finance a neighborhood parking structure,a 926 stall garage, located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South.The loan would be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD 8.Informational:Public Utilities Update ~5:50 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update from the Department of Public Utilities about the City’s water shortage contingency planning,including the stages of water use restrictions related to drought circumstances.The Department will also discuss the recently-adopted Water Conservation Master Plan and the status of its implementation. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 9.Advice and Consent:Director of 911 Dispatch Department -Stephen Meyer ~6:20 p.m. 10 min. The Council will interview Stephen Meyer prior to considering appointment as Director of the 911 Dispatch Department. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 11.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. 12.Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600,or relay service 711. Administrative updates August 24, 2021 K-12 mask requirement COVID-19 update •On Friday I issued an executive order requiring students in grades K through 12, as well as teachers, visitors, and staff to wear a life-saving face covering in SLC Schools. •This order came after I received direct support from a majority of the Salt Lake City School District Board of Education. Legal basis: •Any mayor may declare a state of emergency related to a disaster that has or will imminently occur. •The provisions of HB294 were automatically repealed on July 1 and SB195 does not apply to city executives Current metrics COVID-19 update Salt Lake County is in the "high transmission" level, along with 26 out of 29 counties. Today statewide: •1,140 cases statewide, up 177 from last Tuesday •7-day average: 1,108 cases per day (up from 950 last week and where we were on Feb. 8, 2021) •Referral ICUs at 84.3% capacity •Covid ICU Utilization: 34% as of 8/23 •Total ICU Utilization: 84% as of 8/23 Child metrics COVID-19 update •246 children ages 5 -18 tested positive since Monday •147 of those are ages 5 -13 •In the past week, 963 children ages 5 -13 tested positive, compared to 136 during the same period last year (7x higher) * graph courtesy of Robert Gehrke/SLTribune West Side vaccination rates COVID-19 update June 8 July 13 July 20 August 17 August 24 84101 60.80%full 13.11partial 68.5%full 11.66%partial 69.23% full 11.76% partial 72.08% full 12.18% partial 72.81% full 12.52% partial 84104 31.82% full 8.03%partial 37.72% full 6.19%partial 38.52% full 6.12% partial 40.88% full 7.47% partial 41.81% full 7.65 % partial 84116 35.07%full 8.01%partial 41.26%full 5.96%partial 41.09% full 6.01% partial 44.21% full 7.39% partial 44.99% full 7.53 % partial Citywide average = 60% fully vaccinated Countywide vaccination demographics COVID-19 update June 8 July 13 July 20 August 17 August 24 Asian 46.14%53.24%54.00%70%70% White 43.58%49.07%49.66%64%65% Black or African American 28.58%36.30%37.37%51%52% American Indian or Alaska Native 31.27%37.70%38.80%52%60% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 24.74%30.09%30.84%42%43% Hispanic ethnicity 27.70%34.59%35.51%38%39% Other race 40%41% Vaccination events Event Hosting Organization Date Location # of People Vaccinated Neighborhood House Summer Celebration Neighborhood House August 19 – rescheduled to 8/26 due to rain Neighborhood House Campus Back to School event SLC School District August 20 Glendale Middle School 45 total doses (6 second doses) Operation Warm clothing and vaccination event SLCSD, SLC, and Operation Warm September, TBD Update on people experiencing homelessness Previous: August 9, 2021 –August 13, 2021 Current: August 16, 2021 –August 20, 2021 Men’s HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700 Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Avg. number of beds occupied each night 244 246 192 189 182 183 619 618 Avg number of beds unoccupied each night 56 54 8 11 18 17 81 82 Avg % of beds occupied each night 81.3%82.1%96.2%94.5%91.1%91.7%88%89% Avg % of beds unoccupied each night 18.7%17.9%3.8%5.5%8.9%8.3%12%11% Resource Fairs Kayak Court was scheduled for last Friday but had to shift gears due to heavy rainfall that made the river trickier to paddle. The courts pivoted to a stationary outreach court event held at Cottonwood Park. The HEART team is working on scheduling for September resource fair and kayak court events. Cleaning and Abatement •HEART is seeking input on potential portable restroom locations and will be engaging outreach groups for feedback on where this resource could be best used. •Last week’s abatements were put on hold due to inclement weather. Those locations that were scheduled to be addressed last week will be addressed this week instead. Homelessness update City Council Update –Aug. 23, 2021 Chief Mike Brown SLCPD Traffic Safety Efforts •Education •Enforcement •Engineering Capitol Hill Vehicle Nosie Reduction Efforts •Education and enforcement efforts launched Friday, Aug. 13 •Increased messaging w/ media and on social media •SLCPD Motors will conduct proactive outreach to car clubs @SLCPD Twitter –Video graphic announcing education campaign Excessive Vehicle Noise Stats Primary Unit: SLCPD Motors Squad Street Racing Reduction Efforts •Ongoing efforts started earlier this summer •History: In April of 2021, a 25-year-old was killed at a street racing event on 900 South near 3000 West in Dist. 2 •The young adult killed was not associated with the race •Street racing is occurring in industrial neighborhoods because of long, open streets, and lack of nearby pedestrian and vehicle traffic •Community safety is our number one concern Street Racing Reduction Efforts •Prevention and enforcement efforts are occurring in three primary locations: •700 South in between 4800 –5600 West; •800 South in between Gladiola Street and Pioneer Street; •900 South in between Gladiola Street and Pioneer Street. 700 South in between 4800 –5600 West •Since our prevention and enforcement efforts started, there has been no street racing event at this location •2 plates and a jersey barriers in place •Glenn Borders, Plant Manager of Airgas, is appreciative of SLCPD efforts •Utility trucks can get in and out of the plant •Plates on the roadway not impacting the trucks Example of plate and jersey barrier 800 & 900 S in between Gladiola Street and Pioneer Street •Signs have been posted into the ground; signs go up this week •800 S –Plates expected later today (8/24) •800 S –Considering jersey barriers •800 S –SLCPD recently prevented a street race involving up to 150 vehicles •900 S –Another set of plates expected toady (8/24) •900 S –Street racing impacting Rocky Mountain Power (Utah Power & Light) 24-hour service center Recruitment Class 154 First day of academy –Aug. 23, 2021 Recruitment Class 154 Race: Two or More Races 4 Recruits Asian 1 Recruit Caucasian 12 Recruits Hispanic/Latino 1 Recruit Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2 Recruits Gender: Female 2 Recruits Male 18 Recruits Age: 21-29 16 Recruits 30+4 Recruits Diversity Percentage is 50% Questions rachel otto (Aug 20, 2021 15:20 MDT) 08/20/2021 Phase One Report June 2021 Prepared by: The Langdon Group with subconsultants The Gemini Group and Kearns & West i PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Contents From the Core Commissioners ................................................................................................................ 1 Members of the Commission ................................................................................................................... 2 Core Commissioners .............................................................................................................................. 2 Commissioners ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Commission Staff and Liaisons ............................................................................................................ 2 Salt Lake City Policy Department ......................................................................................................... 2 Library Staff, Tech Support ................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose Statement of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission ............................... 3 Organizational Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3 Consultants ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Early Work of the Facilitation Team ..................................................................................................... 3 Subcommittees ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Community Voice and Communication .................................................................................................. 7 Website .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Community Listening Sessions and Overall Approach ..................................................................... 7 Challenges ................................................................................................................................................. 10 The Online Environment ..................................................................................................................... 10 Time ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Open Meeting Requirements ............................................................................................................. 11 Experience ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Volume of Material to Review ............................................................................................................. 11 Late Addition of Facilitators ................................................................................................................ 11 Role of SLCPD ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Overall Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 12 FTO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 13 CIT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 14 TRAINING ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 15 RECRUITING RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 15 ii PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 INTERVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 16 CANDIDATE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 16 POLICY AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 21 Continuing Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 28 Appendices Appendix 1 Small group listening sessions (Part I) a. SLCPD Officers b. SLCPD Chiefs c. School Resource Officers d. Utahns with Traumatic Brain Injuries/Intellectual Disabilities Appendix 2 Public Listening Session I (January 28) a. Polls/text comments b. Comments/themes FAQ Appendix 3 Public Listening Session II (May 19) a. Polls/text comments b. Graphs c. Comments Appendix 4 Small Group Listening Sessions (Part II) a. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander b. LGBTQ c. African-American/Black Community Groups d. Utah Black Chamber of Commerce e. Latinx and Hispanic Groups f. Native American and Indigenous Appendix 5 Social Pinpoint Comments/Data a. Survey data b. Forum Comments Appendix 6 Text Message Survey Comments/Data a. Polls b. Comments 1 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 From the Core Commissioners The Core Commissioners, on behalf of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission Commissioners, wish to acknowledge and offer our gratitude to all of the Commissioners for their tireless work to make Salt Lake City a better place for their communities. Their engagement, strength, voice, and willingness to “speak truth to power” have allowed the Commission to take advantage of its unique opportunity to improve or change the culture of policing in Salt Lake City. This Commission’s work is to address structural and institutional issues within SLCPD that can and do create detrimental outcomes for Communities of Color. Our work is not to allege or suggest that any one officer is desiring to harm our communities. Our focus is on addressing programs, policies, and practices that may be creating or maintaining harm to Communities of Color, or to offer recommendations that may improve police interactions and engagement with our communities. We wish to thank Mayor Erin Mendenhall, and members of the City Council for the important and necessary opportunity that recognizes the need to improve the outcomes for Communities of Color in their everyday engagement with police officers. The Commission deeply appreciates the engagement of Chief Mike Brown, his command staff, and the officers and staff of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) and their responsiveness to the many requests for information and personal engagement. Further, this work would not have been as efficient or effective without the excellent support of city staff, specifically Mayoral and City Council staff, who have been the behind-the-scenes support to ensure the administration of the Commission’s work is as efficient and effective as possible. 2 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Members of the Commission Core Commissioners Moisés Prospero Rev. France Davis Nicole Salazar-Hall Darlene McDonald Verona Sagato Mauga Kamaal Ahmad Commissioners Aaran Afalava Abdullah Mberwa Aden Batar Alaimaluloa Tokotaha Anapesi Ka’ili Carol Shifflett Davina Smith Desange Kuenihira Dhati Oommen Ephraim Kum Lazayda Afameta Luna Banuri Mahider Tadesse Mariana Suarez MJ Powell Olosaa Solovi Jr. Rogelio Romero Samantha Eldrige Steve Anjewierden Steven Johnson Tanya Hawkins Tiffany Flores Commission Staff and Liaisons Kaletta Lynch Chief Equity Officer David Litvack Former Senior Policy Advisor Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder Lauren Shafer Assistant City Recorder Lindsey Nikola Director of Communication Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director, City Council Office Lehua Weaver Associate Deputy Director, City Council Office Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst, City Council Office Kira Luke Policy Analyst/Public Engagement, City Council Office Weston Clark Director of Community Outreach Jessi Eagan Executive Assistant to the Chief Equity Officer & Director of Community Outreach Sven Karabegovic Mayor’s Office Intern Hailey Keller Mayor’s Office Intern Hassan Abdi City Council Intern Salt Lake City Policy Department Laura Nygaard Executive Assistant to the Chief of Police Officer Robert Norgaard Officer Jose Munoz Officer Ricardo Franco Officer Mason Givens Officer Nathan Groves Officer Brendyn Scott Library Staff, Tech Support Aleko Campos Audio-Visual Specialist Patrick Hutchings Event Associate Elizabeth King Events Services Manager 3 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Purpose Statement of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission The Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission (Commission) is made up of clergy, lay leaders, and community members with a wide array of professional and life-experience relevant to the topic area who have engaged in dozens of meetings, and research actions, to identify solutions to ensure community safety and a stronger relationship specifically between Communities of Color and the Salt Lake City Police Department. The Commission’s work is to examine the current policies, programs, culture, and budget of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD). The Commission is dedicated to making recommendations for meaningful and sustainable change. Organizational Methodology The Commission was empaneled in August 2020. Core Commissioners were selected by the Mayor and City Council to assist and support the essence of the work and be a liaison to the Mayor’s Office and City Council as needed. These Core Commissioners also were subsequently involved in the selection of the remaining Commissioners. The focus was on finding passionate, skilled, and engaged individuals that best represent Salt Lake City’s Communities of Color. Consultants The Langdon Group, (TLG) a Salt Lake City consulting firm, was awarded the contract in September 2020 to be the facilitators for the Commission. Siobhan Locke and Joshua King, Esq., represented TLG. Kearns West, a Dallas, TX based firm represented by Dr. Larry Schooler, and The Gemini Group, a Denver based firm represented by Dante J. James, Esq., were subconsultants to support the work. All references to TLG include the work of the subconsultants. Early Work of the Facilitation Team Initial interviews of all Commissioners were conducted by TLG at the beginning of its engagement in order to develop an understanding of what the Commission had already decided on as its focus and to better ensure that the facilitators entered the already established Commission in a way that served to support the work already underway instead of disrupting it. Further, these interviews sought to find the elements of the 4 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Commission structure that were working well and those that were proving less successful at the outset of the work. One of the key findings of these discussions was that the full commission was operating using Roberts Rules of Order which, while a great structure in some cases, was not a great model for this group. The Commission moved to a consensus model for decision-making. This has proven to be an efficient and effective model for the group. The facilitators further suggested moving into a full commission and subcommittee structure to provide for deeper engagement with the decided-upon focus areas – listed below: Subcommittees The following four subcommittees were empaneled to better focus the work of the Commission. Commissioners were invited to join a subcommittee, making sure that no subcommittee made up a quorum of Commissioners. The subcommittees each developed recommendations within their areas of focus, and these were brought back to the full Commission for review and approval. Once approved, the recommendations were presented to the Mayor and City Council. This allowed city leadership to begin to address issues and recommendations in real time, as opposed to wait until all work had been completed by the Commission and submitted in a final Phase One Report. Policies and Practices Subcommittee Facilitated by Josh King ◼ The recommendations of the Policies and Practices Subcommittee were developed over a period of several months. The Subcommittee’s primary objective was to make informed decisions in developing recommendations that could address community issues at the root. The subcommittee sought to develop recommendations that are feasible, viable, and sustainable. To meet these objectives, the Subcommittee engaged in significant collaboration and dialogue with community partners, the Salt Lake City Police Department, and Salt Lake City staff. The subcommittee also conducted research of national best practices and collaborated with experts around the country. ◼ The Subcommittee submitted five (5) recommendations to the full Commission. The Commission supported all five (5) recommendations, which were then presented to the City Council. 5 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 School Safety Subcommittee Facilitated by Siobhan Locke This group of dedicated Commission members worked diligently to understand all perspectives in the school safety conversation before proceeding to make any recommendations. The subcommittee conducted one-on-one interviews, attended meetings and had guest speakers come into their meetings from all of the following categories and is still working to have additional conversations beyond even these: ◼ Salt Lake City School Board ◼ Sat Lake City School District (SLCSD) Interim Superintendent ◼ Students who have interacted with School Resource Officers (youth subcommittee, more to come in phase 2) ◼ Data analysts at SLCPD and SLCSD ◼ School Resource Officers (SROs) ◼ Administrators ◼ Oversite Committee for the SRO program ◼ A number of groups that are bringing “wraparound services” in for students, especially to support students of color. In addition to these interviews, the subcommittee conducted literature revie ws and referred to several documents in exploring this subject. Including: ◼ The Memorandum of Understanding between SLCPD, SLC and SLCSD ◼ Voices of Utah Children Report ◼ Data provided by the SLCPD on citations given by SROs Training Subcommittee Facilitated by Dante J. James The recommendations of the Training Subcommittee were based upon a vast amount of information and data presented to the Training Subcommittee by SLCPD, as well as information obtained and considered on its own. A foundational document for the subcommittee’s work was the President’s Report on 21st Century Policing, dated May 2015. Examples of data and information reviewed are: 6 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ◼ President’s Report on 21st Century Policing, May 2015, specifically Pillar 5: Training and Education ◼ Curricula from the SLCPD Training Academy, Course of Instruction – 2020- 2021 ◼ Curricula from the CIT Academy, Session #10 September 17-20 ◼ Demographic data  Crisis Intervention Team  Field Training Officer Program  Overall SLCPD employees ◼ Budget Development Report by Cost Center and Object Code ◼ Subcommittee discussions with Captain S. Mourtgos, Head of SLCPD Training Division, and memo to the subcommittee dated December 11, 2020 ◼ Subcommittee discussions with Sgt. Scott Stuck and Director Jessica Watters of the Crisis Intervention Team ◼ Numerous discussions with, and feedback provided by, Chief Mike Brown, Asst. Chief Tim Doubt, and Lt. Yvette Zayas, and other members of SLCPD Youth Subcommittee Self-facilitated by youth members of the Commission. The Youth Commission was representative of both high school and college youth. The youth Commissioners met on a regular basis and held the same decision- making authority as any Commissioner. Police Engagement Led by Chief Michael Brown, SLCPD was initially represented by Command Staff and the Chief’s Executive Officer. There were initially no patrol officers engaged with the Commission. At the urging of the facilitators, patrol officers were added to the work of the subcommittees to ensure that the voices of the officers who would or could be most impacted by the Commission’s work would be heard. 7 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Community Voice and Communication Website Created by Larry Schooler and The Langdon Group Staff Community Listening Sessions and Overall Approach Designed and led by Dr. Larry Schooler ◼ Listening Sessions – Citywide ◼ Listening Sessions – Targeted Communities In any project that affects the public, those charged with making recommendations or decisions are expected to seek the input of those affected by those recommendations and decisions. In the case of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, the significance of community input cannot be understated. Indeed, the Commission itself is primarily comprised of community leaders who were (and are) steeped in the communities they represent. That said, the Commission championed a multilateral, multi-step community engagement process that ensured their work would reflect the will of the community and many of its “sub- communities”—including communities of color, residents with traumatic brain injuries and disabilities, and the law enforcement community. The Commission hosted private and public listening sessions that enabled a wide array of stakeholders to provide input at the beginning, middle, and end of the initial phase of the Commission’s work. Private listening sessions involved officers in the Salt Lake City Police Department and (separately) the Chief of Police and Deputy/Assistant chiefs; School Resource Officers; leaders in the Black, Latinx, and Middle Eastern communities; leaders in the LGBTQ+ community; and members of the community who have dealt with mental illness, traumatic brain injuries, and/or disabilities. The Commission also hosted two public listening sessions that were televised live on SLCTV; simulcast in English and Spanish initially and then in Arabic and Mandarin as well during the second broadcast; and available for comments via phone, text message, and online posting. More than 1,500 residents participated in these public sessions. The Commission also hosted resources for the public to use for engagement at their own convenience, namely a comment line (phone), a text message-based survey, and an online portal (slcrepcommission.com). 8 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 The complete records of all listening sessions and asynchronous resources (phone line, text message survey, and online portal) are available as an appendix to this report, but the following points summarize the findings:  The Commission and the Salt Lake City Police Department worked extensively to understand each other’s perspectives better (see below report on private listening sessions).  Members of the Salt Lake City community are hoping to see changes to the relationship between SLCPD and schools, with a renegotiation of an existing Memorandum of Understanding between the School District and Police Department for School Resource Officers.  The community hopes for better training across the department to ensure officers understand how to respond to people from all communities, whether they be communities of color, immigrant and refugee populations, and those dealing with mental illness or other crises, particular around de- escalation.  The community wants to see the Department conduct its work consistently across Salt Lake City and with independent monitoring, for response time, body camera usage, treatment during stops, and other aspects of procedural justice in recruiting for new officers, the community wants to ensure potential recruits are evaluated for red-flag behaviors, such as support for or involvement in extremist groups, a history of violent behavior, and so on.  The community wants SLCPD to improve its citizens academy and other community educational programs, with an eye towards eliminating stereotypes. ◼ Police Specific Listening Sessions Separately, the Commission conducted four private listening sessions with SLCPD in the late spring of 2021. After working for months on the details of how to revise SLCPD policies and other issues on the transactional side of policing, it became clear to all parties that some work was needed to address the relational side of the conversation. Different perspectives and experiences and even wording emphasized the need for a less formal conversation to address these differences. To that end, the Commission’s facilitators convened a total of four conversations over two evenings with members of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission and personnel 9 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 from the Salt Lake City Police Department. Facilitators conducted the meetings without live broadcast or recording to maximize the potential for participants to share their perspectives with complete candor. Approximately ten members of the Police Department and a dozen Commissioners participated across the sessions. While the personal details shared within these conversations will be kept anonymous, a few key takeaways from the conversations are shared here from the perspective of the facilitators: ▪ The conversations heavily focused on helping both Commissioners and officers understand one another better. Commissioners used their own lived experiences, as well as those of their family, friends, and communities, to explain why they have felt fear, anger, frustration, and confusion in some interactions with the SLCPD. Several Commissioners also commended officers for their service and, in some cases, their performance in specific incidents. ▪ For their part, Police Department attendees shared their own experiences both with encountering other officers and with encountering civilians. Participating SLCPD personnel (particularly those from communities of color) shared their experiences being stopped by other officers, in part to connect with some of the stories shared by Commissioners. They also spoke of their pride in their work and in the calls they field that go well, which often go unnoticed by the public, along with a desire for more of the public to understand the complexities of each stop, interrogation, or arrest. ▪ In both sessions, participants from SLCPD questioned why Commissioners feared SLCPD or worried about riding along with SLCPD officers. Commissioners offered numerous examples where they themselves, or their loved ones, had traumatic encounters with SLCPD and/or other police departments, experiences that greatly impact their feelings towards SLCPD today. While SLCPD participants sought to reassure Commissioners that the public could easily engage with officers in healthy, productive ways, Commissioners frequently suggested that SLCPD itself should do more proactive outreach to the community to help assuage fears. ▪ By the end of the sessions, participants seemed to possess a deeper understanding of how each other approaches encounters between police and civilians, as well as the significance of reducing or eliminating the fear 10 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 many communities of color feel when an officer approaches them. Some participants also expressed interest in sharing reading and viewing recommendations to understand the lens through which they view policing. They also expressed interest in finding ways to continue with this type of conversation as the Commission’s work continues, acknowledging that this is as important a part of the work as the policy changes will be. ▪ Additionally, the participants all seemed aware that changes in the culture of policing matter as much or more as changes in the policies, procedures, training, and school safety protocols of police. Finally, the participants all seemed to acknowledge that they may continue to view concepts of public safety differently but will still commit themselves to making policing work for those in law enforcement and those in the Salt Lake City community. Challenges The Online Environment As a Commission, working in an environment of COVID 19, being completely in an online environment, initially created challenges. Many of the Commissioners did not know each other. The opportunities to bond, develop trust, develop relationships individually and collectively, were difficult. It took months for the Commission to find its comfort level of interaction; being able to question each other, being able to find laughter in the difficult conversations, being able to comfortably engage with officers on a Zoom call, are examples of some of the challenges of the online environment. This also created challenges with community engagement. Holding Listening Sessions and hearing from community in an online, text, email environment was new and unusual for many. It is more difficult to “spread the word” about the process of how to engage than asking people to come to their community center or place of worship to offer their thoughts or experiences. Several of the police members of the Commission were only able to join during their actual work-time which required them to usually join by their phone, and they were often unable to turn on their cameras if they were driving. Connectivity issues were often the case with Commissioners due to broadband issues. 11 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Time All of the Commissioners participated in this work by giving of their “non-work” or “non- school” time in the evenings, almost every week, for months. The level of commitment needed was significant. Additionally, the amount of meeting time per week limited the amount of material that could be considered and addressed. Had there been an opportunity for a “retreat” type of engagement once or twice, it could have made the understanding and engagement by the full Commission more beneficial. Open Meeting Requirements Given the requirements for the Commission to operate as a public body, this created some challenges for engagement. The Commission was unable to engage by email as a whole. There could not be more than a quorum on any subcommittee, so care had to be taken if Commissioners wanted to attend more than one subcommittee. The requirements for notice of any meeting where a quorum was present added to the challenges for staff and Commissioners and made any quick or spontaneous response to a current issue difficult. Experience The mix of experience levels among the Commissioners was an initial challenge. Many Commissioners had not had specific experience with the type of work this Commission was undertaking. Reviewing, evaluating, and making recommendations on police training, procedure, or policy, was a new experience. The passion and commitment of the Commissioners helped to ease this and the trust of those Commissioners that did have this experience also helped to alleviate this challenge. Volume of Material to Review The total amount of material that could be reviewed was voluminous. The SLCPD policy manual itself is over 800 pages. The types of training conducted, the demographics of the departments, the unwritten but everyday practices that impact police work and accountably, are all examples of the significant amount of material that could not all be reviewed during this phase one period. The Commission approached the work from the most pressing and impactful components of this material. Late Addition of Facilitators The Commission had been selected, empaneled, and begun work prior to the selection of the facilitators. This created the need for the facilitators to build a relationship of trust in how they work and their level of expertise. This took time and may have slowed down the work some as Commissioners were still working on their relationships with each other and then needed to find their trust in the facilitators. 12 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Role of SLCPD It was initially difficult to find the most appropriate role of not only the Command Staff (Chief, Deputy and Assistant Chiefs) but also patrol officers once they became a regular part of the Commission. The engagements required trust. There seemed to be more or easier trust from both the Command Staff and Commissioners with each other. The Command Staff attended both the full Commission meetings as well as often attended the various subcommittee meetings. Patrol officers were invited to both the full Commission meetings as well as the subcommittee meetings, but only attended the subcommittee meetings when they could. The comfort level for the officers to speak was challenging for some. A special session was held in each subcommittee for the purpose of engaging patrol officers and Commissioners in an open, honest way that was not specifically about the Commission’s work, but about the police’s relationship in general with the communities represented by the Commissioners. It could not be done in a full meeting because of the desire to not be recorded or have it as an open meeting. The conversations improved each other’s understanding, but were often difficult, with a clear sense that there was often a disconnect in perceptions between officers and Commissioners. Overall Recommendations Training Subcommittee The following recommendations are in four specific areas: 1. Field Training Officers (FTO) Program 2. The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) 3. The Training Academy and In-Service Training Curriculum 4. Recruitment and Hiring 1. The FTO Program is a vital component of the SLCPD for the Commission to consider because, as stated in the Salt Lake City Police Department Field Training Officer Manual, (6/1/2016) Field training has a significant impact on the individual trainee in terms of imprinting department culture, attitudes, values, and ethics in carrying out the duties of policing that will remain with the officer throughout a career. 13 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Ensuring the broadest demographics possible within those officers who are FTO’s sends an unconscious message to the new recruits that diversity is an important factor for SLCPD, that it is not essentially a White-only police department, and officers and Communities of Color are important in the fabric of SLCPD. 2. The CIT Program is important given the difficult work of engaging with those who may be in the midst of a mental health crisis, the intersectionality of race and mental health, and recent engagements with People of Color who were having mental health issues that led to unfortunate and often deadly outcomes. 3. The Training Academy Curriculum is important because it is this initial and foundational training that propels an officer thru their career. In-service curriculum ensures officers are up to date on current practices and is a means to emphasize the priorities of the City and the Department. How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. They are the main building-blocks for an officer’s performance of their duties. How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. It is a main building-block for an officer’s performance of their duties. 4. Recruitment and Hiring is what creates the make-up of the officer and staff of SLCPD. Diversity by itself does not change culture, but lack of diversity is a picture to the community, a perceived statement of who the department is, and a representation of culture ISSUE: Demographic concern related to the Field Training Officers (FTO) Out of the 67 current FTO’s, there are only six (6) People of Color:  Two (2) are Hawai’ian/Pacific Islander  Four (4) are Latino or LatinX There are currently no targeted outreach efforts to ensure or improve the diversity of the program. It is designed for self-selection to apply for the program. FTO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION ◼ Create a process for targeted outreach to officers of color to increase the diversity of the program 14 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ISSUE: Training concerns related to the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)  Training is not prioritized, nor data specifically captured, for Lateral Hires  Re-Certification is voluntary once certification from the Academy expires after two years  There is insufficient budget to enlarge the program  Currently the program is limited to four (4) detectives to rotate work with eight (8) social workers for one shift (day shift) Currently:  189 officers have chosen to re-certify  272 have chosen not to re-certify CIT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Require CIT re-certification for all officers ◼ Require CIT certification for all lateral hires ◼ Increase or re-allocate budget to complete this priority (with an emphasis on re- allocation) and consider zero based budgeting in the long-term budgeting process ◼ Reprioritize budget to core responder model unit to provide for more detectives to cover more than one shift and have sufficient staffing to cover when detectives are unable to work their shift ◼ Prioritize and fill these detective positions (over other police specialty unit positions) and civilian mental health professional positions, to ensure quality response, and to add additional expertise and relief to emergency mental health calls ISSUE: Training concerns related to equity, implicit bias, and community policy curriculum in the Academy and In-Service Training.  There are no Salt Lake City community-based facilitators of color in the Academy or In-Service Training  There is no component of the Academy that provides the history of Salt Lake City and its communities of color  The current number of hours dedicated to Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Implicit Bias training in the Academy (four during Fair and Impartial Policing) is insufficient to embed an equity lens and consciousness throughout the organization. 15 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 TRAINING ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Require Salt Lake City community-based trainers of color to be part of the academy and in-service training team, selected in partnership with police civilian advisory board ◼ Require equity curriculum that is best practice and that is co-created with a community-based trainer ◼ Require that recruits learn the history of the diverse communities in salt lake city ◼ Require increased budget allocation to provide additional professional diversity, equity, and inclusion training ISSUE: There is no full-time recruiter for SLCPD  Given the difficulty in recruiting generally, and recruiting for People of Color specifically, there needs to be a full-time recruiter.  There is currently insufficient ability to create targeted outreach efforts to ensure or improve the diversity of SLCPD and support cultural change. RECRUITING RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Full Time Recruiter: Create a position that provides for a full-time recruiter, tracking and keeping individuals within the application process up to date on timing. If fruitful, it should be able to support its existence by the new recruits that are hired. ◼ Recruiting Budget: Ensure that there is a budget that allows in-state and out-of- state recruiting. ◼ Communication Strategy development of inclusive strategy, including a new video with inclusive language with emphasis on recruiting Candidates of Color, social media platforms to attract the very best officers and candidates to SLCPD; Provide specific funding for a new recruitment video that is a more up to date approach to recruiting, highlighting the continual hiring process opportunities. 16 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ISSUE: The current oral interview process has no strategic approach to including community or civilian members on oral interview panels for SLCPD applicants  A diverse hiring panel, to include community members, creates opportunities for multiple perspectives and a better evaluation for well-rounded and diverse candidates.  If the goal is to ensure the best applicant is hired who brings overall professionalism and compassion to the position, multiple perspectives can only add to this possibility.  There is no legal, HR, or policy reason that non-sworn community members cannot sit on a hiring panel. Non-sworn evaluators would not be evaluating police strategic or tactical thinking which will be taught in the Academy, but evaluating the individual and what they bring to interpersonal engagements with community members. INTERVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Require community members to be a part of the oral interview process, sitting on any oral interview panel, with the same decision-making authority as officers on the panels. ◼ Define Specific Characteristics desired to become an SLCPD officer e.g.,: Compassion, Empathy, Integrity, Eagerness to Learn, Mental Agility, Cultural Humility, Awareness, Sensitivity, Communication Skills ISSUE: There are not a specific set of questions which allow for identification of the ideal characteristics of the ideal candidates.  There is a need to formalize the process to evaluate the candidates from a human-centric perspective. A structured approach would allow for the best evaluation of candidates and how they will interact with the various communities within Salt Lake City.  There is no mandatory requirement for panel members to understand how implicit bias may impact their decision-making. CANDIDATE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Create and use questions which help the candidate identify their place in the world and describe their level of cultural understanding outside of their own. Recognize that this is an on-going process of question creation for multiple panels. ◼ Mandatory training on a regular schedule with Chief’s office representative and Human Resource representative to ensure substantive discussion for panel 17 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 members prior to the oral interview of entry level and lateral applicants, with the goals of: 1. Addressing interview questions 2. Discussing the intent of character desired based on the questions 3. Creating awareness of implicit biases that may impact decision-making School Safety ISSUE: Continued Racial Disparity in the Students who are interacting with School Resource Officers (SROs) Salt Lake City has experiences a large decrease in the overall number of citations given to students by SROs and reduction in racial disparity in these citations (due to recent juvenile justice reform efforts, the 2018 MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD, and School-Based Law Enforcement Training for both SROs and school administrators), there is still remaining disparity in the number of citations given to Hispanic students in some schools. For example, high school citations for 2013-2014 were 125 White Hispanics v 18 White Non- Hispanic students. For 2019-2020, 20 White Hispanics versus 2 White Non-Hispanic were cited. This reveals significant reductions in the amount of citations and disparity as well, but disparity is still present in 2019-2020. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS ◼ Early in the work of this subcommittee we were made aware of the impending expiration of the current Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) that governs the work of the School Resource Officers (“SROs”) as it expires at the end of 2020-21 school year. However, it has since been communicated to the subcommittee that the expiration date will be extended until the REP recommendations are complete. This subcommittee wants to commend this adjustment and appreciates this recognition of the process underway.  Additionally, two commissioners were invited to participate in the “SRO Oversight Committee”, which brings together Salt Lake City School District and Police Department personnel to review the SRO program twice a year. ◼ UPDATED RECOMMENDATION (JUNE 2021) Second extension of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on School Resource Officers (SROs) 18 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021  We recommend extending the expiration date MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD. Currently, the MOU expires July 2021 and we would like negotiations to commence immediately with an extension of the current MOU remaining in place for an additional 6 months or until renegotiated.  This will allow time for the new superintendent to become familiar with the program, its efficacy and needs.  The School Safety Subcommittee has amassed a number of recommendations for adjustments that could apply to a future MOU and will share those with both parties.  This will further allow sufficient time to ensure that changes to the MOU are meaningful and substantial and are not simply wording adjustments.  We expect this will include some language from bills introduced in the last session that didn’t pass at the state level. ISSUE: Concerns about barriers to services for at-risk youth & the contributions to the School to Prison Pipeline The Promising Youth Project (PYP) - is a comprehensive crime, violence, and gang reduction program. The purpose of the Promising Youth Project is to provide youth with the opportunities and support needed to unlock their promising potential. The project achieves this by utilizing evidence-based practices and program to assess, case-manage, and connect youth to community resources. In order to be successful, the Promising Youth Project designed a program dedicated to serving the needs of Salt Lake City and its residents. The Promising Youth Project contains two program components in order to meet the needs of our community. The Promising Youth Project contains a (1) School-based Violence, Crime, & Gang Reduction Program and (2) the Promising Youth Summer Opportunity an adventure, life skills, leadership program. ◼ PYP is currently housed within the SLCPD ◼ The hiring protocols at the SLCPD hinder the ability to attract and onboard youth/community advocates (practices within the backgrounds investigation portion of hiring is off-putting to potential new-hires for several reasons including, but not limited to long hold periods due to background checks before employment (average 30-60 days), home-visit inspections done by an officer in the home of the candidate (which is off-putting to candidates, especially those who identify as people of color), 19 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 and a myriad of disqualifiers that prove to weed out highly qualified candidates at high rates. AT-RISK STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONS In order to strengthen the resources available to at-risk students we recommend the following shifts to existing programming: The REP School Safety subcommittee recommends that the PYP program be moved from the SLCPD and into the City's Youth and Family Services division. This move is intended to allow the program to: ◼ Improve PYP’s ability to recruit qualified and passionate staff who can most effectively bond with the students. ◼ Reduce barriers for youth participation who require a safe space to meet with their advocates or receive mental health services. Youth coming into Police Department offices is a barrier. ◼ In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that moving the program to the City would threaten current funding sources (i.e. COPS grant) and they asked to have more time to allow this fledgling program to flourish under their oversight. ◼ We therefore recommend that this be revisited in one year to determine if a move might still be needed or if adjustments described here and below were sufficient to ensure that this important program can most effectively deliver services. ◼ We recommend that this program be given adequate space and resources (computers, cell phones, desks, curricula, risk assessments, etc.) to more effectively meet the needs of the youth they are currently serving and to expand their program to serve more youth. ◼ In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that funding for supplies as described above has been found. We were also informed that PYP staff will now share offices with SROs in the schools to improve ability to meet with students and to further improve coordination between the two programs. ◼ We recommend increased funding to this program to ensure continued service to the community and to allow increased collaboration with other City and private programs for the benefit of the program’s targeted population. ◼ While current grant funding is in place for the coming year, it is still the recommendation of this committee that secure, long-term funding for this program be found be adding it as a line item in the SLCPD budget when current funding expires. 20 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ◼ We further recommend that all (10) SROs be allowed to work with the PYP Summer program throughout the summer. ◼ Currently, only a few of the SROs are allowed to participate in the summer program and selection is based on seniority. This results in a breakdown of any rapport and relationships that SROs have developed with at-risk youth during the school year. ◼ This adjustment would allow continued coordination between the youth and the SROs to reduce the number of youth who drop out of the program for this reason, which places youth at increased risk of involvement in delinquent behavior and referral to the juvenile justice system. Therefore, the positive improvements that youth have gained throughout the school year may be lost during the summer. ◼ This adjustment would allow School Resource Officers to continue learning, training, and collaborating with Youth Support Advocates while engaging with youth in pro- social, healthy, and positive environments. In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that the funding for the SRO program is now going to be 12 months a year, allowing the SROs to stay involved in PYP through the summer months ◼ Peer Court - A restorative justice program working to combat the disproportionate involvement of marginalized youth in the juvenile justice system by providing all youth who commit minor offenses an alternative opportunity to be held accountable for their actions.  We recommend that the peer court program, the promising youth project, and the explorers program work closely together to maximize resources and outcomes.  We recommend ongoing and increased funding to these programs where needed to ensure they can work together to continue helping at-risk youth to avoid the juvenile justice system and building better outcomes for these students overall Mayor’s Office needs to hire dedicated FTE to address equity in education. ◼ To track the MOU, develop programming needed to make SROs (or other programs as determined) more effective and/or phase them out of schools, maintain a good working relationship between the school district and the City. ◼ The subcommittee is aware of the new Chief Equity Officer and that there are others on staff with responsibilities in this realm. The feeling is that mixing this with other responsibilities does not allow the focus needed to make meaningful progress on these issues. 21 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ◼ The job description for such a position should be determined in collaboration with SLCSD and SLCPD to ensure the position is set up for success and is empowered to make meaningful change. OTHER ITEMS DEVELOPED BY THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADVANCE AND IMPROVE SCHOOL SAFETY There were a number of other items developed by this subcommittee that should be outlined clearly in this report. 1. Suggestions for the SRO oversight committee on how the efficacy of the current program could be measured. These are attached here in draft form and should be transmitted to Dr. Sandra Buendia at the Salt Lake City School District on behalf of the School Safety Subcommittee when the subcommittee feels they are complete. This has been an ongoing effort over the life of the subcommittee. 2. List of Potential Recommendations. The subcommittee has been tracking the work they have been doing in a Google Document – many of the items in that spreadsheet should be used to inform a future MOU, should it be negotiated in the future. The subcommittee also reserves the right to advance any of them as official REP recommendations should it become appropriate as the work of this subcommittee continues in the future. Policies and Practices POLICY AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS The Subcommittee presented five recommendations to the City Council. The five recommendations covered the following: 1. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras 2. Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD 3. Community-Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color 4. Co-Response (Mental Health) 5. Call Diversion and Dispatch 1. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras (revised and approved 6/2/2021) 22 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Utah Code sets minimum standards for activation, storage, notifications, and other body worn camera procedures. Body-worn camera use in the Salt Lake City Police Department is outlined in Policy 422 (Portable Audio / Video Recorders), which is largely dictated by Utah Code 77-7a (Law Enforcement Use of Body-worn Cameras) and adopted in 2016. Additionally, the City Council adopted Ordinance 54 on December 1, 2020 for the Police Department’s use of body-worn cameras that formalizes recent policies and executive orders guiding body-worn camera use, data, records, and reporting (2.10.200). The Racial Equity in Policing Commission believes the current policy and ordinance is part of a multifaceted approach the City is taking to examine internal systems and identify paths toward better accountability, transparency, and equity. SLCPD’s related policies and Ordinance 54 match or exceed state law requirements with their use. Additionally, the Commission found that SLCPD is progressive in the use of their cameras by incorporating additional accountability and transparency beyond what state law requires. Examples include internal auditing and outside auditing, two levels of reports, and random audits of footage. This Commission supports the current body-worn camera policies and ordinance and recommends SLCPD continue to strive to be the “gold standard” of best practices nationwide. Additional recommendations to achieve “gold standard” include making the following modifications to policy and Ordinance 54: ◼ Ordinance 54 requires a qualified individual outside of SLCPD designated by the Mayor to randomly review and audit body worn camera videos. The Commission recommends that this position be identified and provided the necessary support and funding to perform these responsibilities. Furthermore, the Mayor’s designation of this qualified individual shall require approval and support from the City’s Chief Equity Officer. ◼ Pursuant to current policy, standards, and ordinance multiple body-worn camera reviews and audits are required, including those by the SLCPD audit and inspection unit, the qualified individual designated by the Mayor, and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA®). In furtherance of efficiency, transparency, accountability, and sustainability the Commission recommends the City specify, develop, and establish criteria regarding how body-worn camera reviews and audits are to be conducted and define uniform and consistent performance metrics and language. This should be done collaboratively with the current audit and inspection unit within SLCPD (Sgt. Mason Givens) and the 23 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 designated qualified outside body-worn camera auditor. Strongly consider including:  Audit all use of force reviews to determine if the reviews were conducted appropriately and if the outcomes are within policy. This includes K-9 incidents involving use of force.  Increasing the random reviews of videos by the outside qualified individual from 5 to 20 per month and include random sampling of officer videos as well as completed supervisor reviews and allow for direct selection.  As required by Ordinance 54, a record and report will be provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. The Commission recommends that the SLCPD audit and inspection unit also provide a record and report on the department’s internal audit to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis.  The Commission recommends these quarterly reports be provided to the Commission at the same time.  SLCPD should inform the Commission of any incidents reported to Internal Affairs.  Pursuant to Ordinance 54, any findings of material non-compliance with state law, City Code and Police Department policy will be referred to the Chief of Police, the City Attorney, the Council Chair, the Mayor and the Mayor's Chief of Staff. These findings should also be reported to the Commission.  SLCPD is required to provide an annual report to CALEA and such report should also be shared with the Commission. ◼ SLCPD is currently nationally accredited by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®). This requires compliance with 162 standards and only 4% of law enforcement agencies nationwide are accredited. SLCPD should strive for an advanced accreditation (462 standards) and explore the costs, resources and benefits of doing so. 2. Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD Leverage the planned cultural assessment mentioned in the Police Department’s Crime Control Plan to incorporate an implicit bias survey. The survey shall be 24 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 developed, administered, analyzed, and disseminated by a third-party as agreed to by the Commission and funded by the City. The results shall be shared with the Chief Equity Officer, Commission, City Council, Mayor’s Office, SLCPD and the public. The survey shall be modeled after the Pew Research Center 2016 national Survey of Law Enforcement Officers*. The results shall be shared with the Commission to inform next steps. *References: See the PEW survey here as example and template: https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/3/2017/08/29155639/2016-Law-Enforcement- Topline_Final-1.pdf *Related article: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10- things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/ 3. Community-Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color The Commission recommends the funding, development, and delivery of community-based training on the history of policing of people of color. The session(s) is not just about the history of SLC and its communities of color, but of the United States and its history with People of Color and how that history impacts, and is still a part of, the present. It should be co-facilitated with a qualified community member (of color) knowledgeable and involved in equity work, and an officer Sgt./Lt. or above (of any race or ethnicity). The training shall be incorporated into the SLCPD onboarding process and provided to new employees within the first 30 days of employment. This should also become a part of in-service training since only focusing on the Academy and new officers misses the majority of officers and would indicate that this is not a check-the-box, nor a one and done. Content would be different after all officers have gone through an initial session(s). The session(s) should be a mix of history/present day examples of legal and social impacts based on race and ethnicity, understanding institutional bias and racism presented with no blame but as a description of what is. It should include an understanding of personal bias and examples of the impacts of both personal and institutional bias. 25 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 There should be an opportunity and the space and climate created for officers to speak candidly. If there is not a sharing of perspectives, with the ability to be open to hearing alternative perspectives, there will be no real chance for “AH HA moments”. Space must be created to be comfortable having uncomfortable conversations. The Commission and SLCPD estimate the following scope: ◼ 700 officers to be trained. ◼ 25 officers per training group. ◼ 28 sessions (budget 30 sessions for makeup dates and/or new employees). ◼ Two hours each session (totals 60 hours). It is recommended that this training be funded and developed as soon as reasonably possible, and all officers complete the training within a reasonable time. Additionally, it is recommended that Council provide any necessary additional funding for voluntary overtime pay to ensure regular staffing needs can still be met while officers take time to attend the training within this timeline. 4. Co-Response (Mental Health) The Community Connections Center and SLCPD CIT Co-Response model is needed and should be expanded. It should be the prioritized approach to mental health crisis response. Mental health access disproportionately impacts minority communities. According to recent data, 25% of calls to law enforcement from African Americans are mental health related – this highlights the importance of the initial moments and how to best respond. Therefore, we recommend expansion and prioritization of the current co-response model with the following: ◼ Focus on communities of color. Reach out to those communities and provide more community policing in these areas and build trust. Understand their needs and educate them on SLCPD’s response and assess if it is accessible to them. ◼ Expand the co-response program to provide co-response during hours that are at a higher risk for use of force situations – late afternoon and evening. 26 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ◼ Provide co-response during virtually all hours and days where mental health crisis calls most frequently occur: Short-term/Immediate:  Two officers should be redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-0030, or 2:30 PM to 12:30 AM).  One CIT/HOST officer on each shift should work a staggered schedule that covers Saturday and Sunday.  Two clinicians from the Community Connection Center should be redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-0030, or 2:30 PM to 12:30 AM).  One clinician on each shift should work a staggered schedule that covers Saturday and Sunday.  The CIT/HOST Sergeant should vary, and stagger hours as needed to provide additional coverage to both sets of assignments.  The department should consider offering pay incentives for both officers and clinicians working afternoon shift hours and weekends to be able to consistently fill these assignments. Mid-term/6-12 months:  As staffing permits, build up this program by increasing the number of officers from 4 to 10 to match the number of social workers. There are currently 10 social workers and 4 officers, which means only 4 teams are available at a time. This increase in officers would allow for 10 teams. ◼ Assess and evaluate a Civilian EMS Response (like Denver’s STAR) with an outside agency when time is appropriate. 5. Call Diversion and Dispatch Engage in a dispute system design process to develop the best/most appropriate model/system for incoming calls, diversion and dispatch coordination and response. This process should consider and/or include the following: ◼ Collaboration with public safety to understand how 9-1-1 calls are being taken and directed. 27 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 ◼ Understanding how communities are being policed and how they want to be policed. Engage each of the City’s community councils and its communities. ◼ Add a mental health question to the 911 dispatch script “Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health, police, or mental health emergency?” ◼ Establishing a civilian force response team to handle certain calls for service related to low level investigative crimes and low-level disputes. (Matrix Call Diversion Opportunities). 28 PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Continuing Opportunities It is the desire of Commission to continue its work after the completion of this Phase One component. The work of building trust and understanding, and creating meaningful change takes time. The Commission believes they have offered meaningful ways to improve outcomes for communities and people of color in their engagements with SLCPD. Further, the Commission believes that to profoundly change culture and understanding is an on- going process of engagement. The difficulties of the past year for both Communities of Color and police are apparent to all. It will take both to work to improve outcomes and the Commission believes in its work and the accomplishments to date. It will take the continued support of the elected leaders of this city to ensure expectations for police are clear, and accountability for poor, unprofessional, or unacceptable behavior is expected, consistent, and swift. The Commission hopes to continue to provide methodologies that support the creation of the best outcomes for all residents of Salt Lake City, and specifically its Communities of Color. Additionally, the Commission hopes that it can be involved in a meaningful way in the monitoring and oversight of its recommendations. PHASE ONE REPORT  June 2021 Appendices Appendix 1 Small group listening sessions (Part I) a. SLCPD officers b. SLCPD chiefs c. School Resource Officers d. Utahns with Traumatic Brain Injuries/Intellectual Disabilities Appendix 2 Public Listening Session I (January 28) a. Polls/text comments b. Comments/Themes FAQ Appendix 3 Public Listening Session II (May 19) a. Polls/text comments b. Graphs c. Comments Appendix 4 Small Group Listening Sessions (Part II) a. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander b. LGBTQ c. African-American/Black Community Groups d. Utah Black Chamber of Commerce e. Latinx and Hispanic Groups f. Native American and Indigenous Appendix 5 Social Pinpoint Comments/Data a. Survey data b. Forum Comments Appendix 6 Text Message Survey Comments/Data a. Polls b. Comments Listening Session – SLCPD (Officers/Beat Patrol) Attendees: 5 participants, two people with the rank of officer, patrol sergeant, and others have some rank or supervisory responsibilities. Larry – Thank you for all those that can attend this morning. The profession of policing has been through a lot in the last 6 to 12 months. The primary session of this meeting is to hear from you. It is not to discuss community concerns – its to hear from your perspectives about your jobs. We are here to listen and to report back to the commission. This is meant to be a judgement free zone. All comments are equally welcomed. This meeting will not be recorded. No name attribution in the notes. Why are you here and what do you hope to get out? • There has been a lot of discussion about racial bias. I have not seen it in my job. I am frustrated that people see us as bias. We have done a lot to train to ensure a decrease in bias. We work for a great department and we want to show that to the public. • With this committee forming right on the heels of the unrest this summer, my feeling was that it was formed on assumptions about our department. The commission was formed as a reaction to mob violence and political pressure. Our patrol staff feels really defensive about our department. With that frustration, I need to have understanding [of what this commission thinks and what their intent is]. That is what I am here for – what is being discussed and how can I gain from those perspectives. • I am here because I want to hear what everyone is discussing. I am not sure what to expect. I agree with the other comments. I just don’t see what people are accusing us of. I haven’t experienced racial motivation and I haven’t heard anything. So I am interested to see where this all goes. • My interest is multi-faceted. I am intrigued to see where this goes in Salt Lake City. I work on the west-side, I am very interested because of that perspective. The west side is (is what? I don’t remember, either) • I would like to help contribute to the process – scrutiny is not undue. We have a lot of power and I think it is important to have scrutiny. The way this process came about was through an assault on our characters. I was hit my protestors and they threatened horrible things to us and our families. We started this whole thing by being hit in the face. This is a hard place to come from. I would like to learn what the commission is doing to learn from police practitioners. Often times people go to police chiefs for a perspective, but it is important to have boots on the ground staff. You need the perspectives of the actual staff on the ground. The human costs of this work – I would like the commissioners to understand that I think about leaving the police force every day. When you hear the phrase “racial equity in policing” in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? • Accusatory – the term I hear is that it suggests it doesn’t exist. (<- That’s unclear) I feel like it does exist in our department (can’t speak for others). I would like to be open-minded. I am not saying it might not exist, but I haven’t seen it yet. o What does it look like when there is racial equity? ▪ Equal distribution of employment. Internally on how we employ – is there equity or balance in those we employ. There is equal opportunity for any one to come work for us. ▪ No bias in policing. We don’t employ those that are racially motivated. ▪ Citizens feel safe and equally policed • Defensive – I don’t see it in our profession. I would like to know where people think we are being biased. When I police the West vs the East side, I never think about the difference in race or belief system. I just address each situation the same way. I don’t think I am doing anything wrong – I don’t see other police that way. Where is that notion that our police are mistreating the public? o I would love to have examples of bias and racial discrimination. Based on percentages, it likely has happened. However, I haven’t seen it widespread. I feel like it is a political hot button to accuse us of misconduct. o My hope is that this commission was created so they could see there is no bias in SLCPD. We would like the commission to investigate us. We are under the impression that the commission have chips on their shoulder and something against the police department. So we would like to know what they have against us. There are commission members who have publicly expressed anti-police sentiments. What are their biases? Is it even possible for them to be objective in this endeavor? • I think a lot of officers feel the same way, as already stated. I hope the finding from this study is that we are not biased. We do not look at how people look when how we respond. I, personally, choose to work on the west side of the city because I appreciate the people on that side of the city. They are God-fearing, family oriented, hard-working people. We don’t act upon a anyone’s appearance. We act according to their actions, regardless of color. • I grew up in Glendale and I still live on the West side. When I hear the racial equity and go back to that side of the city – it brings up a question of what? I felt blindsided by that – show me where we don’t treat people equally? I am looking for a pattern in traffic stops – it never has anything to do with race. We don’t know the race involved. o Vehicles pattern of behavior – prostitution is high in the area I work. You are looking for patterns. Vehicles traveling late at night or early morning. Looking for vehicles circling the block, appearing unaware of where they are driving. o People on the commission came after me, following a police shooting, and that was difficult. • I believe equity is extremely important to this department. Before this all came to the forefront, the department trained its cops on equity. At the beginning of this, I put forth examples of systemic racism that I have seen in the department. No one has reached out to me about these examples. I brought it up to management and to the mayor – no one has reached out. o Juvenile Shoplifting – the parent doesn’t speak English and we [the private security officers] encourage the parent to take out a credit with the store. This doesn’t feel equitable. ▪ Retail theft is shoplifting. The $2,500 fine mentioned by Mike is the civil side. It's what the State of Utah allows by statute. It allows the security officer company to levy "treble damages" against a person they detained. [I wonder if Sandra would be willing to address the legislature about this. None of us officers think it’s fair, especially to the poor who steal something worth a few dollars, but then get levied a civil fine that can be over $100. I’m guessing on that $100, but I’ve actually seen it higher] o Most of the time, when I initiate a traffic stop, I do not know people’s race. ▪ Patterns of behavior – you can’t gain perspective on our profession from notes or an hour-long session. • Patrol staff – most people are of the opinion that it doesn’t matter what we say – SLC is going to do what its going to do. They don’t want to attend because it feels futile. I had a discussion with a few people – they said there are mountains and valleys. We are just going to ride this time period out – keep our mouth shut. I don’t see us coming back up or out of this negative perception. How would you characterize the culture and climate internally within the department on race and relationships with communities of color in SLC? • A source of pride – Before all this stuff, many people outside of law enforcement have said that I am a good person that is committed to the people. I work with other outstanding people. Going to work now is demoralizing – there is a deep human cost, as part of this job. o What is the relationship with communities of color – a very small group of the population have had the opportunity to taint the perception of our work. My interactions with the public have been positive. • We have factual evidence. Things have become worse after May 30th. The large group who showed up to our city were not from SLC. The way our Mayor and Admin treated us were not great. We have a 93% favoritism with the public and a very high level of approachability. o Because a few outliers have thrown things at us, now we have a bad name, despite our record. o We have examples on our SLCPD positive interactions – we don’t have examples of negative interactions. • There is zero trust between officers and anyone above the rank of Captain. There is zero trust in the Mayor and City Council and District Attorney. We were crucified by them publicly. It is all about appearance for them – there is no concern about us. This commission was established by the very people who threw us under the bus to protect their own image and careers. • I think our relationships with communities of color are excellent. Our officers do so much for these communities. They have very good hearts. • My perception is that our relationships with our citizens of color WAS a source of pride. That has been stripped away. Instead of having our practices appropriately and productively scrutinized to improve address issues of systemic racism. Our profession has been subjected to libel and slander to the extent that I don’t know how much more I can do this. • Most people on the West Side would like the cops to be in the area. There are gangs that rule some of these areas and the normal people in these areas are scared of supporting us publicly. Much attention has been paid to the department’s use of force policy. What’s your perspective on that policy? • I worked on the committee that revised the use of force policy. The mayor’s press conference that said they were going to redo the policies was a slap in the face. I am not debating being scrutinized and having policy revised. The fact of the matter is our use of force policy is not the problem. When I first got to this department, I thought the policy was incredible. Now policy has no purpose, other than to switch liability on to the individual officer. Policy doesn’t drive cultural change – inspiration does. The cultural impact is that officers are afraid to address issues and use force. • Officers are absolutely afraid to use force • Why are officers afraid to use force? o I don’t want to use force because I don’t want to be thrown under the bus publicly. It may cost us our jobs. [We may also be charged criminally by this hostile administration] o The Mayor and City Council have no problem throwing us under the bus publicly. • The use of force policies now include a clause that allows threatens termination. officers to be fired and terminated. Officers can be investigated without knowledge or representation. We are afraid to use force because our leaders will crucify us. The Audit Unit has become an extension of Internal Affairs. “Random” audits of body worn camera compliance are sent to sergeants, who are ordered to review up to 30 days of recordings for one or two of their officers. Even when no policy violation is found, the officer is required to sign a letter which basically says, “You have been investigated for violation of a policy. Even though you weren’t aware of it and had no representation, you have been exonerated. You are required to sign this document that acknowledges you are under our microscope, and that future violations may result in your termination. (I have 3 officers who are leaving, based solely upon this procedure.) There are much bigger issues at play at our communities that are causing these issues. Why are we not addressing having fathers in the home? Why are we not teaching our children morality and personal responsibility? When you put a band aid on an arterial bleed, why are you critiquing the band aid for failing to stop the bleeding? The police are a band aid for all of our culture’s problems. You need to look at the causes that lead to police encounters. (I have no doubt this perspective will be summarily dismissed. It just doesn’t fit the narrative) • The policy for use of force is overbearing and the only thing that matters [to the mayor, CC, and the chief] now. The commission needs to understand that they are were established and endorsed by those that have no support for us. We feel betrayed and do not trust the Mayor or City Council or the Chief or the Assistant Chief or the D.A. And we certainly don’t trust the media. The more dramatic the story, the more money the media earns. • The policy isn’t the problem – the crazy swing in how it is being enforced. All of my patrol videos are going to be audited at any time. My camera has to be on but then I have to document it a bunch of different ways. Someone will watch my camera but then the city is hiring someone to randomly look at cameras. No one believes this will be random. It feels like a fishing expedition. When you take an officer with more video – it makes them not want to do the job. It feels like people are looking at us and trying to find fault. I was receiving phone calls from the city privately that were supporting me but then publicly they were bashing me. How can I trust my superiors after that? They will throw you under the bus for a news story. Put yourself in the shoes of the Mayor and Police chief, what would you do? There are high low levels of distrust and you are getting calls from some in the community asking for changes – what would you do? • Asking the police department what changes could be made – you are our experts on this subject. • When they announced the executive order there was huge backlash from officers because they did not ask for our input, when they did finally get officer input the officers made the police something workable. why not do that more. We have been ignored, absolutely. that is why only 5 of us are here today at this meeting. • One of our core values – courage. I don’t see a lot of that. You have to be courageous enough to speak the truth. I think we are falling down as an agency. When we are accused, I want to see examples. We had to take on the mistakes of Minneapolis. We don’t want to be accused for what happened across the country. No one is courageous enough to stand up for us. • I think the chief needs communication – remove politics from his position. Being political has changed how this profession is run right now. If I was the chief, I would be focusing on the officers. I think we may need change – but I don’t think changes need to be changed by the small vocal minority. They need to be thoughtful and methodical changes. When the executive order was made, the officers gave a lot of great input. We need to keep up those processes – it makes the officers feel like their voices actually matter. No one thinks this matters and no one cares. If I was the chief, I would communicate more regularly with the officers. No one is listening to the patrol officers. (I will add to this: The chief has a long history of making a show of listening, but our comments have always been ignored. He’ll go through the motions of “listening,” but we all know it doesn’t mean anything to him) • Would you all be willing to ask others to participate? o If you came to a line up – officers would be willing to talk. They will be defensive in the beginning. o People will not engage and it’s too late. We need to see action by our leaders. I don’t want to ask others to engage. o On May 30th, standing on the front lines and I saw my friends get carted away with injuries. I got hit by a commercial firework. When it was safe and all was secure, the chief came out and knelt with the protestors. This was an ultimate betrayal to our department. ▪ The two people in power - one has no courage and the other has no conscience. conscious ▪ There is nothing the Chief can do to have our trust. o I would like to meet with the commission – I want to understand them. o We are the dumping ground for everything wrong in society – the police are portrayed as the problem. No one wants to take accountability. We are banging our heads on the wall. No one listens. It is hard when people ask us to come and talk again. o This is the last chance I am giving the department to make things right. effort I will make to be part of a discussion with our administration. Witnessing this for 30 years, I have little faith anything will come of this, other than anti-police results. 1.11.21 Beat Cops Monday, January 11, 2021 8:06 AM Larry conducted a kickoff statement - talking about the goals for today, gathering feedback for the commission Interested in learning from the public and stakeholders about interactions with PD, specifically communities of color and regarding communities of color Attendance - 5 participants, only two people with the rank of officer, the others have some supervisory responsibilities What brought you here Officer 1 - Has never seen instances of racial bias and is frustrated at the perception that this bias exists. How can we better communicate the steps we've taken to address this and the realities that he sees? Officer 2 - Officers are feeling undue scrutiny, he feels that the best way to deal with this is to better understand the other perspective Officer 3 - works graveyards no previous experience before PD - wants to hear some of the conversation first hand so that he doesn't just hear it indirectly - had a company for 15 years before this. He doesn't see the things that he feels people are accusing the PD of and wants to see where all of this is going Officer 4 - This issue is at the forefront of policing today everywhere - he works in Pioneer precinct where a majority of the minority community resides Officer 5 - Doesn't feel that scrutiny is undue - we have the power to take people's freedoms away - so scrutiny is in order. He wants to be a part of the process. Before the protests - he would've been wide open to the conversation about reform. Post protests - came personal attacks and physical assaults - making the conversation a bit more difficult to participate in. It's common to go to the leadership - he's pleased to see that the cops that are on the street are being included in this conversation as well. The human cost of this work - he wants the commission to understand why he considers leaving police work most days. Larry provided an explanation of the Commission and its work (the same explanation provided on the website) What do you think of when you think about racial equity in policing? • The word "Accusatory" comes to mind - because it implies that it doesn't exist. He's worked a lot of different assignments and feels he's seen a lot of different parts of the department. What does it look like when we have racial equity? Those we employ in the organization, is the opportunity there? Are we employing tactics or individuals that are bringing racial bias into their work. Do people feel they are being treated equally without regard to any factor? • Makes him feel defensive. Shows up to the call, handles the call and then moves on to the next call. Where is the evidence that we are doing anything wrong? He doesn't see it. Wants to see an example of how SLCPD has done something biased or discriminatory. Wants concrete examples - so its hard to understand. Maybe he's not attune to it? He hopes he would recognize it and put a stop to it. Feels its just a political hot button that is being used as an excuse to levy accusations at the PD. o Follow up comment on this from another officer - they hope that there is a finding that the SLCPD is better than other departments and that we find that there are no problems of racism in this department. They feel that if you look at everything • There are feelings that the members of this Commission is made of up people who have a "chip on their shoulder" and an axe to grind. They would like to hear the specific of examples they have of this racism. The same people on the Commission are people who lobbied against him personally, who don't know him or his values and followed him home. Feels that those things were done just based on the fact that he is white. • Officer that is from the West Side, hears from neighbors about this issue and is frustrated at the accusation. He looks for a pattern - looking at vehicles that fit a pattern of behavior - he usually can't see inside the vehicle most of the time. State Street is a great example - there are vehicles that drive certain streets, pull over in certain areas, or near the seedy motels. Two rights - Main St to Major St looking for drugs or a hooker • This officer has offered up some examples of systemic racism examples o How this department handles retail theft - someone who is ESL and maybe doesn't understand the PD system - a uniformed officer issues the ticket to the parent of a youth offender - then they have a $2500 ticket hanging over them issued by the loss control officer [from a private security company] too and they have to set up a line of credit to pay that off? Doesn't seem fair. • He has had those examples ready to share for a year and no one has taken him up on that officer, including the mayor herself • A ride along is insufficient to help them gain perspective, an hour long zoom meeting is insufficient • There is an assumption that it doesn't matter what the officers say - what's going to happen is going to happen. Some people want to just put their heads down and keep moving without saying anything. • How would you characterize the culture and climate internally within the department on race and relationships with the communities of color in SLC? • Prior to this, it would've been characterized as "a point of pride" - now its demoralizing - we felt we were doing well. There is a human cost to this job that is huge - traumatic incidents stay with each officer - and putting this on top of it has people wanting to quit. o Copied from the chat "Point of clarification, for the purpose of notes: My perception is that our relationships with our citizens of color WAS a source of pride. That has been stripped away. Instead of having our practices appropriately and productively scrutinized to improve address issues of systemic racism. Out profession has been subjected to libel and slander to the extent that I don’t know how much more I can do this." • A small portion of the population has had the opportunity to paint the entire department with this brush - one on one they say "thank you for your service" or "I know its not you". There were a small group of known felons that perpetrated the violence during the riots - they have a pattern of that type of behavior. The large group of people who protested aren't from our City. We have a 93% favoritism and 96% approachability - from our five year plan. This is undoing a ton of work and effort to improve things with SLCPD and this "defunding" brand has overshadowed that. • The fear is that we have factual evidence of the bad behavior during the riots and the positive track record. • There is zero trust between beat cops and the chief, mayor and city council right now - as well as the district attorney. They are making decisions to protect their reputations and their careers, not based on the facts. • Communities of color and PD relationships are fine - officers are going above and beyond to show compassion and they aren't asking for recognition - these officers have good hearts • Militant organizations like the Brown Berets are assaulting officers and are personally attacking them. Where is this coming from? We don't see any issues in our day-to-day work. Much attention has been paid to the department’s use of force policy. What’s your perspective on that policy? • Officers were asked to be included in the process to revise this policy. The policy was not the problem - policy does not drive culture. Inspiration and leadership drive culture change. He liked the policies when he arrived. Policy has no purpose but to shift the liability on to the individual officer. The cultural impact of the changes in policy are functionally - people are afraid to do their jobs o He'd be hesitant because he doesn't want to be crucified in front of the community for doing his job. o The leadership of the city will not hesitate for one second to ruin us publicly before knowing any details o Violation of policy can result in termination - if there is no violation of policy, they have to give a letter that says they are exonerated. Please sign here. This means, you've been investigated without your knowledge or representation o Why are we looking so far downstream and scrutinizing on the enforcement end, when we know the causes of much criminal and undesirable behavior comes from childhood adversity, poverty and what we teach our children? SPECIFICALLY, no fathers in the home and the disintegration of the nuclear family. o The Commission needs to understand that they are endorsed and established by the people who DO NOT support us, they have betrayed us. o The swing of how the policy is being enforced. He does 400+ stops per year, that’s 400+ videos that he has to add comments to and do other things for. They are all being reviewed, etc. They are hiring an auditor - no one believes this will be random - they think it will be a fishing expedition. It makes the officers not want to do the job - more videos = more fodder for the auditors. o Distrust is bred when leadership comes to you and tells you you've done nothing wrong and then crucify you in the media - this won't lead to positive culture change If you were in charge, chief, mayor, city council and you were faced with this situation - what would you do? • Ask us….unless you have stood in a situation where someone who is not complying with your lawful order and have had to use force. You can't possibly make effective change. • They feel like they've been asked an ignored. • They spent hundreds of hours giving feedback on the change in policy and were effectively ignored. • Copied from the chat "When they announced the executive order there was huge backlash from officers because they did not ask for our input, When they did finally get officer input the officers made the police something workable. why not do that more? We have been ignored, absolutely. that is why only 5 of us are here today at this meeting" • In addition to courage - the chief needs to communicate. He needs to remove himself from politics. He needs to be focused on his officers and his department. Slow and methodical changes, with input from those doing the work. They have a lot to share and contribute. We need more voices from the PD but trust is broken - and when they have been asked to participate in things - they can't endorse any more withdraws from the energy bank with no promise that it will make any difference. Officers stood and were hit with bricks, metal and frozen water bottles. Once it was safe and secured - then the leadership came out and knelt with those protestors who just assaulted us. There is no hope for those leaders - we have no faith in them. They say one thing to us and then they say the direct opposite to the media. They allow societies issues to be hung on individual officers, that’s too heavy a weight to bear. This is the last chance many are giving the department - they will leave. Those that can easily leave, already have. There are those who would participate, names attached, in a true conversation with the Commission. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - SLCPD Chiefs January 11, 2021 Attendees:We had one Deputy Chief, one Assistant Chief, one Chief of Police, one Investigations Commander, and one Police Lieutenant attend the meeting. Objectives: ● Understand the concerns and aspirations of those who have had interactions with the Salt Lake City Police Department, particularly communities of color, and key stakeholders interested in the work of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. ● Provide and hold space for an honest dialogue and candid feedback for the Commission. ● Solicit advice and innovation from the community in formulating solutions. ● Ensure that Commission recommendations reflect community values and dynamics. Discussion Agreements: ● Open-mindedness: Listen to all points of view ● Acceptance: Suspend judgment as best you can ● Curiosity: Seek to understand rather than persuade ● Discovery: Question old assumptions, look for new insights ● Sincerity: Speak for yourself about what has personal heart and meaning ● Brevity: Go for honesty and depth but don’t go on and on ● Respect: Focus on issues rather than individuals. Who you are and what are you hoping to get out of tonight’s experience? ● I really appreciate the SLC REP (we refer to you all as REP). We appreciate what you are bringing to the community. It is a place where we can ask hard questions and have a safe place to do so. It is to help us be a better department. We want to be a good department. We are one of the oldest in the country. You get out what you put in - there is always more we can do to serve the community. We want to be the best in the country. The number one tool we have is the community - the more trust we have the better our department will be. I hope to have the community and our department come together so we can serve better. ● My main role is to translate vision into action. We were shocked on May 30th - the shock was because we thought we were doing great. We had done surveys that told us we were doing a good job. We had meetings with the community and received feedback - no one showed up. We thought we were doing fine. It was shocking on May 30th. We think this is helpful and are excited to have this feedback. If people stop calling the police, then our statistics look better. With communities of color, they have stopped talking with us. I am excited to start talking to them and to implement the changes that come from the commission. ● We came into this, last summer, under the impression that we were on top of our game. That is our perspective in the world we were functioning in. It is interesting to hear other perspectives - they can be hard to hear. But we live in an echo chamber - other perspectives can be surprising. Oftentimes the other opinions feel like an attack. I am interested in having an honest opinion and to hear that feedback. ● Violent crimes get reported but we do face obstacles with cooperation with facets of the community. I want to find ways to build better trust and build cooperation. This will help crime across the city - especially poor communities. ● I think the REP commission is a good thing. It will help us open our minds and be ahead of the game. When you hear the phrase “racial equity in policing” in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? ● Fair, compassionate, unbiased policing, for everyone - races, socioeconomic status, all communities. It comes down to compassion for the communities that we serve with unbiased representation. ● Misunderstanding - we had a discussion with a police officer union meeting. It turned into a shouting match. When the officers hear structural racism, they hear “you are racist.” They don’t understand the difference between outright racism and implicit racism. This is a stumbling block moving forward discussing with our officers. It will be hard for them to see that the system is racist. A lot of them have never been taught that. We want to have racial equity in policing but it will be a stumbling block with our officers. ● When we say “Racial Equity in Policing,” one could infer that there is no racial equity in policing, and what we’re trying to do is create something that doesn’t exist. Calling someone from the millennial generation racist - this is very offensive. They immediately become defensive. We have been taught about implicit bias - it is not intentional racism. Once you get people to realize we aren’t calling them a name (racist), then we can work with them. But we have the challenge of helping people seeing past those labels. This is about learning about our implicit bias. ● SLCPD is a very progressive police department. It is composed of some of the most compassionate, professional officers with a very high level of integrity. We provide some of the best training. Racial Equity in Policing insinuates on its face that the officers are racist, uncaring, and unprofessional. This is directly opposite of how they perceive themselves. That’s how it’s been taken by many officers, or the general attitude that is being picked up. ○ What does progressive mean to you? ■ SLCPD is part of IACP and all of the best practices in policing organizations. There is good research behind this. We follow best practice and we put them into our policies. We hold our officers to this standard and they take to those trainings and expectations. We have some of the most professional and best-trained officers in the nation. ■ We have been able to rub shoulders on President Obama’s commission on policing. Our classes had many leaders throughout the country - out of that organization, we have been able to talk and learn from leaders around the country. ■ Our Police Department brought in Fair and Impartial Policing and the Arbinger Institute. We were one of the first agencies to have CIT training. We were one of the first to have social workers. We formed a group of the community to help reform things. ● You talk to many citizens that they would rather be stopped by SLCPD than any other police department. ● We formed CAG and spoke to anti-police activists to hear what their main concerns were. What might it look like if your department achieved racial equity in policing? How might you want that measured? ● If our demographics of our officers matched the demographics of our communities. This may be one way to measure. It is a revolving circle of trust. If our community trusts us, we can have more officers that represent these communities. ○ Some things that could help this: we need to meet the community where they’re at. COVID has been hard and we haven’t been able to go out on the streets, but if the community trusts us, we will get more people in our department. Part of Racial Equity in Policing is to work towards this. We want all communities to trust us and get to know our communities. A lot of people don’t want to be cops and it doesn’t appeal to a lot of people. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is distrust. ● I think the greatest measurement is from the community we serve. There are so many things we can do, best training, best policies...etc. if we don’t involve the community, then the trust is never built. After Ferguson, I went and called Pastor Davis and asked to meet with him. I walked in and said this is what we want to do - we want to build these in roads and build trust. He paused and lowered his glasses and said - we have been here for 42 years - where have you been? ○ You have to do it with the community and in the community. The community wants to help us - they want to participate in the policies. This is the SLC police department - this is the communities department. We have a lot of work to do to make them feel like our police force is for them. This is the most rewarding work we can do to build trust. ● It is important for the communities to tell us what to do. We have never really asked the community what they want us to focus on. I think it would be good for them to be involved in what we are focusing on work on. ○ Are there certain communities you hear from that you don’t have to go out and talk to? Are there communities that are much less likely to reach out and you don’t have to make the first move with? ■ Yes, that definitely happens. You have to be completely engaged in outreach to the communities - some are very fearful of the police department. We have to do a lot to bring them in. ● To add - I think keeping SROs at schools is really important. When I worked at West High School, I built relationships with those kids. SROs build relationships with the communities and this is really helpful to building trust. Reaching out to specific communities, such as the Latino Coalition, and asking what we can do better, could result in progress. ● Doing surveys is also really helpful - it helped us to know how the community was feeling. ● What might some of the indicators be that the department could use to indicate that they have achieved REP? What could show this? What is currently inequitable and needs to be addressed? ○ That is really hard to measure. I still think it comes from the community. I have been to church at the Calgary Baptist church a lot. You see people come up and say they really want to be a police officer - that is a huge win. As we do more of this deliberate outreach, more people will want to be a part of the police department. After May 30th, can you describe some things that you did differently to demonstrate that you needed to do something different? ● I heard that the community wanted change in our policies. The chiefs wrote the executive orders - we used the Mayor’s pulpit to put forth that change. We need to meet the expectations of all of our communities. I always ask the officers - we all went to CJ 101 that covered the errors of law enforcement and the different eras. We get to live through a reform period. It’s exciting to live through this time and to create change. A lot of the cops feel like everyone is their enemy - I keep reminding them to lower their guard and to keep making small changes to meet the needs of the entire community. Change is coming, let’s embrace it. ● Two things cops hate the most: the way things are, and change. To the previous point, these conversations have been happening. We’re all about serving our communities, but sometimes we get very black and white and forget that it’s all about change. We had over 270 protests over the summer, and a lot of our time was spent dealing with those protests. The next 2 weeks are going to be a fiasco as well. I don’t think the officers/communities are scared of change, but it’s going to take time. The community only wants to be “us,” and they don’t want “us vs. them.” Pushing people together results in people seeing each other as people. Much attention has been paid to the department’s use of force policy. What’s your perspective on that policy? ● This department is a best practice department. The Use of Force policy isn’t just one thing; it’s a conglomerate including deescalation, [guidelines about] when you should [use force], when you shouldn’t. Married to any UOF policy is training, and you have to drive that training home. Our UOF policy and the tweaks we’ve made to it recently are moving in the right direction. Our officers embrace and understand that we need to have these UOF policies. SLC is not having chokeholds, etc. It’s not in our policy; it’s forbidden. So after some explanation and involvement of officers, it was looked at differently and not as some scary thing in the corner. ● As a part of Internal Affairs, I learned a lot about use of force. Historically, these have been based on case law. Our analysis of force was always analytical. What I learned when I explained those things to the community, is that they were more based on intuition. Community’s perception on the use of force is very different from how we perceive how we are making those decisions. There are policies, like use of force, that are going to be difficult for the community to understand. Our new policies have moved us well beyond the standards of case law and more to a community stand. We have to be in the middle here. ● The community standard is different than what the law demands. When we wrote the new policies, we wanted to raise our standards. We still have a ways to go but the policy we do have is really good. ●Graham v. Connor -https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571: this is a baseline and we wanted to be better than the baseline. What training do you feel either needs improvement or needs to be introduced that officers don’t currently get? ● We’re very excited to hear about REP and what training we bring back for SLCPD. You can go to training, and sit there for 8-10 hours and learn the policies, but until you actually practice them, nothing will happen. Scenario-based training (where officers are given an opportunity to try out what they’ve learned and emulate that into their communities) will be really good for our department and putting into practice the things we’re learning. Training usually is everyone reading something and signing off that they read it. We want to give hands on training to reinforce the learning. ● With scenario-based training, it will allow us to provide a variety of responses to situations. It will create muscle memory for situations and help them respond well. It will help them think through scenarios. ● I think it is important we train a lot more than we do now - right now it is 36 hours for things we get sued for. Just the application of shooting the gun or shooting the taser instead of going through the scenarios and thinking about when force should be used and why. All of these things are just checking a box right now, and we should be spending more time on de-escalation and de-escalation without using force or deadly force. It’s not so much the topics, but the issue of more training, because we’re just doing the items so we are not sued. ● Officers want more training - they suggested 200 hours of training. It came at their suggestion. ● Walking out of the Police Academy, thinking you know everything, is due to some respected members saying that “this is everything.” The reality is, the things that were taught 30-40 years ago as the basics, would be laughed at today. The reality is also that the people we have on the street right now believe in what the policies were before because they were taught by those they trusted. So if we modify policies, we need to modify how we teach them and there needs to be a consensus that “this is the right way to do things.” We need buy-in from informal leaders of the organization to support these changes. The people the officers know and trust need to point to these modifications and say “yes, this is the way to move forward.” ● US Holocaust Museum - Policing in a Democratic Society - this was the best course I have ever taken. It teaches you to see people as humans. I would love to bring it here. Guidelines for notes 1. Maintain anonymity - do not capture people’s names 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the google drive and one in our project folder: \\jub.com\Central\Clients\UT\SaltLakeCity\Projects\83-20-045_FacilitatorRacialE quity\PubInv\ListeningSessions_FocusGroups\Listening Session Notes - the notes from previous sessions are saved here too if you would like further guidance on formatting 4. Contact Larry Schooler (lschooler@kearnswest.com) ahead of meeting, if agenda hasn’t been shared - so you can have a preview of what questions he plans to cover in each meeting (this will vary slightly - meeting to meeting Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - SLCPD SROs January 19, 2021 Attendees:8 student resource officers attended from a few of the high schools and elementary schools. What do you hope to get out of this experience? ● Get a side you won’t see from anyone else. We have a different perspective from working in the schools. ● General understanding of what is happening in the schools in comparison to what is really going on in the schools. ● Get on the same page. Why some people think one way and others think the other way. ● I want it to be productive. I don’t want it to be a waste of time. ● I want this to be a productive meeting. I hope to learn different perspectives. ● Hoping to get other perspectives on police in schools. I am hoping they will be able to see our perspectives. Half the squad is minority races and we want to get a feel for what they think of us. ● See where the commission is headed and see what the opinions are What is the most misunderstanding about the work you do? ● That we arrest anyone and we keep taking kids to jail ● People overestimate what an arrest can have on people’s life in the future. The difference in how visible those records are as an adult. I knew gang members at a high school and one kid stopped after he was 18, and all of that is invisible after 18. When arrests are made, the consequences are not as dire as we think. People think that once you get a couple arrests that it will be seen on a background check and that’s not true. It’s the false narrative from the school to prison pipeline. That’s not actually the case when action is taken, it's not as severe as everyone thinks. ● General perspective of cops - we are racist. We are the most diverse squad in the whole department and even for my caucasian or white colleagues, they treat everyone the same but when you break the law, you have to face the consequences. We have the discretion of giving verbal warnings or pressing charges. Most of us understand that kids' brains are developing and sometimes they make poor choices. ● The studies that come out that have numbers saying - disproportionally colored people being arrested at higher rates of caucasians. We take the situations that come to us - we aren’t seeking out specific races or picking out someone because of this or that. We don’t get to choose what we respond to in the schools. I don’t think it’s a fair thing that offices are being looked at like that. ● There is a lot of disparity and disparity can come out as racist. The end result is what is seen and we don't’ have any control over this. What you are seeing in our numbers are results of a lot of other issues long before they get to us. The symptom with the police is the end of a long chain of other experiences - parent drug use, family issues...etc. When you hear the phrase “racial equity in policing” in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? ● Obviously, are our policies being applied equally on the basis of socioeconomic status and race. Am I conducting myself the same on the eastside as I am on the west side? ● When I hear that, it is not a thought that comes to mind as to what my peers think. I think about what others on the outside - how do people perceive us doing our job? It is how we are perceived that affects our work. ● Socioeconomics - the eastside versus the westside - people can get treated differently because of socio economics, it happens. I have been on the receiving end. All the guys I work with (SRO’s), I can’t put my finger on anything where they have treated anyone differently. It is more on what crimes they have committed and their behavior. This determines how they are going to be treated and dealt with. It boils down to the crime and the reason for the contact. We are a bit more reactive than proactive in trying to find things. It is not like patrol where we go looking for stuff. We don’t go chasing kids down. ● I have been called a race traitor - People think I am hispanic and they call me a traitor. I don’t let it affect me. I chose this profession because I wanted to help people. ● I have had a lot of experiences - I am hispanic, we have a bunch of schools on the westside. I have had a lot of administration and teachers call me on my day off and I refer them to my partner. They respond, no, we want you to come. We don’t want your partner because he is a white male. Schools specifically want a minority officer and because of that I am favored because of the color of my skin. They voiced their opinion and they still chose this officer because of their race. I don’t see other officers being racist, I feel more accepted there and the discrimination I experience is outside of the department. This primarily comes from admin and staff. They prefer the minority cops over the white cop. ● What does the public think because of the badge we wear? ● As a white male officer, I can have good interactions with minority people. I want to change the perception that I can’t have good interactions because of my race. What do you see as your role within a school community? ● A lot of us know that, in the current climate, that we serve as a protector. There have been a lot of school shootings. Having us in the schools is a big deterrent. You wear a lot of hats in the school - you become a teacher. I help a lot of students with their homework. You become a therapist for students dealing with things and they confide in us. We deal with staff, faculty, admin. We deal with the neighboring community as well. ● We have several times with students dealing with home issues, suicides, runaways. We act as counselors and therapists but we are necessarily trained for that. Kids respect our opinions. I have been working patrol and I run into parents. I have been thanked for the advice I gave their kids. We are more than cops in a school. ● I have worked to connect families to resources - social worker aspect. We have social workers at our disposal and I try to use them. ● Media wants you to believe that this white cop comes in and x,y,z happens and I want to show up and be kind and change that perception. Do you want to be doing all the other roles (counselors, teachers,...etc)? ● I think that is the job of an SRO. We are here to be mediators, cops, counselors. It helps build a relationship of trust. ● What used to be ideal and gets overlooked is the best cops knew the area, he knew the families, he could mediate. In the last few decades, we have moved away from that. The SROs are the last bastion of that form of policing. All the kids know my names at the school and the parents know me. I think cops used to do more of that. We get the chance to do that type of work. ● We are in a unique position as an SRO. We bridge the gap between the kids and the force. We see them day in and day out. A lot of them will come to us with problems that are not police related. It is a big facet of our jobs. A lot of these kids feel helpless. Some kids don't know how to ask for help. I have ingrained myself in the school. I coach at the school. Sometimes that has more of an impact than my role as a police officer. ○ Given the side of the law of what we can and cannot do - We can’t do anything to hold them accountable outside of the law. We aren’t going to be hands on to stop a student from being truant. We have our hands tied. We can’t force a person to go back to school. The administrators are also overrun. ○ If a kid starts running, it escalates. We disengage and we can’t do anything to use force. House Bill 239 took away our ability to enforce truancy. SLC does not enforce truancy or take students to court over it. Children can drop out of school and no one will do anything. ○ When kids drop out of school in Middle School, we have no way to enforce that they attend school. We know there is no recourse. It is hard to watch them fail. ○ Courts don’t hold the parents accountable - we have no one to hold them accountable to their children not attending school. ● Are you the accountability force in the school? ○ The way things are, the administrators get to their wits end and come to the law enforcement to fill the gaps in enforcement. It is pretty easy to educate them on what we can and cannot do. Do you feel you have the training and support to fulfill those additional roles? ● We don’t have a ton of training - basically none. We don’t have resources to offer them. Everything I can offer are additional resources offered in the school. The SRO training is very little. ● I worked at a different city as an SRO. The training in the other city was way better than in SLC. I was told this was the premier agency. But the other city offered out of state training for SROs and it was incredible. There were break out sessions to talk about school shootings and lots of other topics. Everything you could think of, they addressed. I have relied on previous experience coming to the SLC department. With the mental health issues, you just use your own personal experience. ● You are given a little bit of mental health training at the academy. We are not trained to be therapists. We are given a small level of training until someone else can step in to help. ● Our squad is pretty good. When we hire on, we vet the names and ask for people to fit the mold of an SRO. You have to have a certain level of patience. What should we be on the lookout for in our session with students? ● Make sure they are sharing first hand accounts - they can get stories from a third party and don't actually know what happened. ● When the kids come, ask them before their interaction with the SROs - did they have any interaction with an SRO prior to the incident? If they have had a prior interaction, was it a better experience because they already knew the SRO? ○ Try and find out their perception of law enforcement before an interaction with an SRO ■ How did that change after they met the SRO? A lot of times they have a different perception of an SRO. ○ The school wants us to be a shield when something bad happens (a shooting,...etc). We have a responsibility to protect the school - we would put ourselves in harm's way for them. We are willing to protect them even if they don’t like us. ○ I have a few kids that have run from the administration to my office to take a break. It shows their comfort levels with us. ○ Ask the students where they learned their perception of police - a lot of times parents have set a hard perception of police for their children. School to Prison Pipeline - What are your perceptions of that? ● On a local basis - there are some places that have zero tolerance. Even in SLC, ten years ago, this was the case. But this has changed significantly. The interactions with the cops in the schools is a symptom of the issues at home. ○ Example - a student with parents in prison - they tend to have more interactions with SRO’s then others. It seems to others we are the ones putting them on this path but they have had years of abuse, neglect, and trauma and usually multiple run ins with the cops. We have to have a way to address the trauma and neglect. Even if we stopped arresting them in the schools, they will stay on that trajectory. ● I don’t think people understand after a student gets cited ○ Example: 14 and 16 year olds - they were in a young new gang. I charged these kids numerous times for assaulting teachers. The administrators were chasing down these kids and couldn’t even do their jobs. I reached out to the prosecutors on their previous charges. Some of these students had very serious charges - beating, robbings,...etc. A lot of these charges were dismissed because they were younger than 18. They were not going before a judge. People think you are ruining a kids life by charging them. It is not ruining their lives because the juvenile history does get hidden at the age of 18. ● There are students that have a slew of violent felonies and it is not being addressed because they are juvenile. Repeated offences need to be addressed and not just be a slap on the hand. Kids need to have consequences for their actions. Dismissal of cases solves nothing. ● Kids not learning in their youth of the consequences will lead to a bad outcome once they are ● By not holding them accountable - they don't’ learn the consequences. They aren’t protected anymore. They are held at a higher standard. The pipeline is created by not punishing students when they are juveniles. ● School staff are the ones that build walls and spread the misperceptions. I think law-makers could learn a lot by spending a month in a school. Drive around the neighborhoods and see how the policing is happening. slcrepcommission.com Text "EQUITY" to (801) 575-7755 (801) 708-0935 Guidelines for notes 1. Maintain anonymity - do not capture people’s names 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the google drive and one in our project folder: \\jub.com\Central\Clients\UT\SaltLakeCity\Projects\83-20-045_FacilitatorRacialE quity\PubInv\ListeningSessions_FocusGroups\Listening Session Notes - the notes from previous sessions are saved here too if you would like further guidance on formatting 4. Contact Larry Schooler (lschooler@kearnswest.com) ahead of meeting, if agenda hasn’t been shared - so you can have a preview of what questions he plans to cover in each meeting (this will vary slightly - meeting to meeting Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - People with Intellectual Disabilities/Traumatic Brain Injuries January 28, 2021 Attendees:Give general notes of the types of people that attended. For example - 5 participants, only two people with the rank of officer, the others have some supervisory responsibilities. Write down the questions that the facilitator asks in Bold ● Capture the responses and follow-up here below in bullet points ● If comments are sent in via the chat - call out that they were sent in via the chat and copied and pasted Introductions/Attendance There were 9 registrants for the meeting. There were 5 attendees and 3 staff members. What brought you here today? ● I know very little about this organization. I come from a perspective of traumatic brain injury. I would like to understand what we are talking about here today. I have had multiple brain tumors and have my own brain shortcomings. I am in a unique position as a neurologist that is unable to actually practice. My interactions with the police are more from an observer perspective. I want to understand how policing is applied with those in my condition. ● I am a program administrator for brain injuries programs. If we want to make a difference in people’s lives, we need to understand their lives. This applies to racial equity and justice. ● I have had a number of Traumatic Brain Injuries in my life. My cognitive abilities were not severely compromised. I have had many migraines and I have brain scarring. I experience vertigo and have vestibular migraines. I stopped driving for a number of years. I became a medical assistant to a neurologist. Because of my vertigo, I have thought about how to interact with a police officer. I couldn’t pass a sobriety test when I am experiencing vertigo. I know that this can create real experiences for others. ● I am autistic and on the spectrum. I work for a local tech company. My spouse is an immigrant from Brazil. She has experienced harassment from police. My mother-in-law has disabilities and we have to be constantly with her. She can’t communicate very well and it could spiral out of control. A lot of autistic people will exhibit behaviors that are [akin to someone] on drugs. Autistic people have had tragic interactions with police officers because of sensory overload from sirens, noise, lights commands, etc. The police officers were not trained to respond to someone with Autism. They do not know how to discern between autistic people and people on drugs. We had a tragic incident in SLC last year. As a white male, I have never had one of those experiences. I haven’t experienced something like that. I can’t speak for those experiences. But I can speak as an advocate for those people. We would like to work with dispatchers to know how to respond and evaluate intellectual disabilities and how those play into the response. ● From the chat - The Utah Brain Injury Council (UBIC) used to offer 101 training to first responders such as police officers to bring awareness about brain injury. Those trainings can still be offered. What sorts of actions have you experienced or observed from SLCPD? ● One is personal interaction. This is something that has been echoed by other Latinx members of Salt Lake County. My wife was pulled over for something like expired tags, something very mundane, but the state trooper insisted that she resolve it immediately. She got out, got a screwdriver, and unscrewed her license plate at the side of the road. Words were exchanged and she threw the license plate at the feet of the officer, and she was charged with battery of an officer. Overzealous reporting/charging is not uncommon. The DOJ struck a deal with the South Salt Lake PD ~10 years ago and her case was expunged as a part of that deal. The Bishops in Brazilian wards in Utah have had to warn their members with interactions with police officers. With those on the Autism spectrum, there have been interactions where the common theme is how quickly an anodyne interaction can be escalated stemming from a lack of verbal responses, or even something that is pulled out and misinterpreted as a threat and has led to arrests/guns being drawn. There was another incident in Woods Cross where a black 11 year old playing in his yard had a firearm drawn on him because something he did was perceived as threatening to an officer. The person with autism or disability doesn't think they are doing anything wrong and the officer misinterprets it. Sometimes people will also use their phones to communicate non-verbally, but this can also be viewed as a threat/some unknown. These would be the two things I’ve heard the most--how quickly things can escalate. -When I think about this, I think of a case 3-4 years ago when a gentleman was walking with headphones and was chased by police telling him to get down. The POs didn’t realize he had headphones on and he ended up being shot and killed. What if someone was deaf? How do you initiate these issues with police officers? I was at the ‘riot’ where people with disabilities were pushed down by police, even those with physical and invisible disabilities. How do we initiate/implement something potentially so subtle into a police force? They don’t even respect skin color, and now we’re trying to move on to invisible disabilities and other problems.” ● We had friends involved in the protests and they were shoved and hurt by police officers. They were attacked and ended up with a TBI. It took over a year to heal. Healthcare access was a problem for them with their autism.” ○What was the interaction like? ■ It was during a protest where the police kettled protestors. This friend was protecting another friend who had been pushed to the ground (visibly disabled). The friend was trying to help their friend, who was physically disabled, up and was hit by police in the head. Both of these people are petite and white. The friend who is recovering now had a history of TBIs and they are finding now that they are dealing with long-term effects and cognitive disabilities. They were advised by their attorney not to pursue charges against the police due to participating and being charged in the protest. ■ I remember being pushed against a wall so hard by a police officer’s backside, who then turned to me and said ‘what, are you trying to steal my wallet?’ ● The other thing, from a program administrative perspective--we have quite a few patients with mental health issues and disabilities. Depending on where the brain injury occurred, it elicits certain behaviors. Behaviors include criminal acts that lead to arrests. Sometimes we are able to convince the court that the person is in a program to counter these behaviors with replacement behaviors. We have to work with the courts with these people. We have our own attorneys. We have some people in jail and then they get released - they have to talk to us once the release date is set. But often, they get released without telling us. Then there is a Catch-22 where we are not notified until the next criminal act occurs. We then get a call from an attorney asking how to break the habitual offender--we say you have to be a partner with us and not just look at the court docket. We need to make sure they are healthy and safe and get back in the program after release. There is a lot of miscommunication between the courts, the jail, and us and it needs to be resolved in order to break this cycle. The Police Department is supposed to reach out and tell us about release dates, but we only see the court docket, and sometimes it is hard to tell exactly when people are being released. ○ Does the police department do this type of outreach? ■ Yes, they know when people are released and they are supposed to communicate with us to show when people are going to be released. We have to find an open spot for people so they don’t end up back on the street. ■ It is setting them up for failure. ● I work for a University in Utah. I am a speaker with developmental challenges. I came on the call because I wanted to hear from the others on this call. I come from a perspective of how can we better educate police officers, correction facilities, community members, etc. What can we do to better help these people? I have a friend who has some reading, processing issues who was being seen by UNI for some of his mental health issues/medication issues. When he found himself in jail, it was hard to get any of those mechanisms going again, and even expressing that this individual may need some additional support. It was really frustrating and though it wasn’t a one-way street; he didn’t want to disclose that he had a disability out of fear of being put in solitary confinement. How do we educate people on these issues? What do you think additional training for SLCPD officers should look like? What training would be beneficial to the police? ● The training should be very basic. We don’t really know what an average PD education looks like or what the training curriculum looks like. We need to start 1:1--what is the brain? What is the body language of someone with a TBI/mentally disability? They need to think, regardless of race, might this be someone who has a brain injury/is psychotic? Other mechanisms need to kick in that tell the officers ‘I need to be careful, I need to stay back.’ If you see your 4-year-old having a meltdown, you don’t escalate the situation further. This is the kind of interaction that needs to take place for police officers. -On reactions to protests--I have been involved in multiple protests/marches. I am not a criminologist, but the responses from PD officers were very different depending on the content of the protests. This isn’t a wild conjecture--CNN did a study on the content of the protests influencing reactions of PD officers. For BLM protests, I looked very heteronormative in a shirt and tie and could look very neutral when facing a police officer. I acted as a go-between/‘straight man’ for the autistic protestors. I know how to pass as neurotypical and come across as neurotypical as a late-diagnosed person on the Autism spectrum. On more than a couple occasions I was able to talk a police officer down. The police officers would get agitated, shout commands more, look like they’re going to arm themselves. I have learned how to de-escalate officers. ○It sounds as if you’ve acquired the vocabulary that can get through even in a high stress situation that can get through to an officer who is misreading someone with a disability. ■ Yes--I keep my voice level, say that this person isn’t a threat. I looked goofy wearing a shirt and tie with a backpack of medical supplies, but it worked. When we talk about training, taking a step back--we don’t have a lot of transparency for what training is. It’s surprising this isn’t public record. The other thing is something my brother (who is a veteran) said: he said ‘if I did half of the things these officers did, I’d be pounding rocks in Leavenworth (in a max prison where U.S. war criminals are sent).’ If you look at the rules of engagement, before even the rules are stated, the rationale is stated. ‘Maintain peace and order,’ ok, but through what means? Through a show of force? Or does this mean a community acting in a civil way? On a definitional level, what are the police trying to do? The Navy’s rules of engagement/the very top of the rationale will say if you violate these rules, you threaten the mission. You jeopardize the mission and the civilians. This is something missing from a lot of police training materials. On training--what is striking is the Marines/ROE lay out that if you mess up, the civilians’ reactions are deemed justifiable. You don’t respond to that with more force. I see that sorely lacking in a lot of our police materials today. There seems to be a disconnect--even after Breonna Taylor was killed--that officers don’t understand why locals would be mad. Follow the NYPD Twitter feed and you’ll see the same thing. This is something that has to be resolved--what are you trying to do? I would love to see this from the top--transparency. ● I alway wonder what is the best way to approach this - we need better communication. How do we communicate from the perspective from someone with a disability? How do we get the police department to understand that it comes down to communication? Is communication better taught in an educational setting or through stories? Maybe we need to communicate through stories. Maybe this is the way to get into these people in the system? Sometimes, educationally, there are programs out there--was there a training about Autism after the shooting of Mr. Cameron? I know they’ve done some training but it’s been difficult to find out what that actually looks like. Maybe we need to approach it in a different way.” ● I love everything that’s being said--there are a couple things I’ve been thinking of especially that we are all white people here. I’m from New England and I didn’t know I had a skin color until I moved here. Strangers will ask me where I’m from and even in work situations. It really depends on where I am and who I’m with for how white I get treated. I get to experience flavors of racism in tiny ways and I get to spend time with people who have different issues with police that I don’t. You can’t train police out of being racist. But what happens when they get trained that everyone around them is a threat, their training is implicitly racist from the get-go, from the academy. Even if they’re not, their instructors are racist and telling students ‘this is what and who you have to watch out for,’ and it is implicitly racist. ○ From the chat: my wife felt EXACTLY the same way when she immigrated from Brazil to America. She basically said it wasn’t until she moved here that she became Brown. ● The people who come into policing couldn’t cut it as big dogs (militaristic) in other things, and this is the way they get their muscle in. These are the picked-on kids. I was taught to interact with police as a kid, inappropriately, that the way to make sheriffs go away is to yell at them because they were picked on kids in high school who did this as their revenge. I recall being 16 and coming home from a church dance at 2 a.m. and getting stopped at a checkpoint and having the officer ask me if I’ve had anything to drink tonight. I looked at the officer and asked him if it looked like I had anything to drink tonight, and then he just waved me off. This is what can get people shot. This is not how to deal with police, and that is a disgusting fact. You can’t teach people how to deal with disabilities kindly if police are already out to get people. If police are already walking around looking for bad stuff instead of being a presence in the community to protect and serve, that’s your first problem. The summer that young autistic man was shot, a woman whose son is an autistic teen posted about this, and how he is also larger, which makes him a target. I can’t imagine being her and wondering every time he leaves the house what is going to happen. How do you teach people not to see ‘large black man’ but instead ‘person with autism.’ These stories need to come from people of color and from their families, and the families who have been affected. ● I’m a neurologist, and neurology/psychiatry has a huge overlap. Are there any mental health liaisons that can be sent out to the police? ○ Part of the problem of Linden Cameron was that the mother requested a mental health care team, and she was sent a crew of armed police officers. SLCPD has offered a different explanation every time. Do they even deploy the mental health liaisons when they’re supposed to? ○ I’ve heard this from friends who have had mental health issues/suicidal tendencies who have called for help, and they’ve said no mental health workers have shown up, only cops. ○ I think it would be helpful for the police department to hear stories about people’s own circumstances, their disabilities, their psychiatric issues, and this should be taught. ● There is a very basic issue with people going into policing, people supervising police, that they’re more comfortable with someone who is as least different as possible. Maybe it’s exposure. ● There are also cities who have gotten lots and lots of exposure who aren’t doing well, however, too. ● Somehow the education needs to include anti-racism, unlearning racism. ● I’m bipolar, and sometimes my moods affect my speech and levels of aggression. I’m fortunate that I’ve never gotten to the extreme end of mania. I’m fairly well-controlled but sometimes there are situations that my impulse control isn’t great. This could definitely influence my experiences with cops. ● I don’t want police officers to become neurologists, but there are enough general red flags that can be taught that tells someone that you need to do something other than put them in handcuffs/shoot.” January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? African Stronger outreach C,What has the commission been working on since last smer?,Please include social media history in background checks for police. Please do this quarterly. You can tell a lot by what people post online or their gro Black or African American Cultural competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach Black or African American Black or African American Bad Cultural competency/implicit bias Black or African American Okay Cultural competency/implicit bias Other Policy- end qualified immunity, 8 can't wait, etc.. Training- barriers to transparency and convictions, school safety- resources and holistic approach to serving children and families, have them watch pushout and learn more about the school to prison pipeline, recruitment- let them know there are safe ways to report bad police officers and that they can change the structure of their department, make it real. Rosepark/NW Quadrant Hispanic, Latino, Chicano Okay Other Other Understanding that studies show that personal bias trainings actually can further entrench biases, what is the city's position on pursuing comprehensivel,I am a westside, Latina citizen... while most of the comments have been valuable... but, I do not feel as though issues of RACIAL equity have been considered Hispanic, Latino, Chicano Bad Cultural competency/implicit bias Other I don't live in Salt Lake City Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Haven't had any interactions with police Cultural competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Haven't had any interactions with police Cultural competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach Can we get the polls that were given at the beginning to the end of this meeting for latecomers Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Cultural competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach Text Comments 1 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? Avenues/University/East Bench Other Race, Ethnicity Haven't had any interactions with police Cultural competency/implicit bias Other I think they have been great Southeast Asian Avenues/University/East Bench White Okay Crisis intervention More welcoming culture Engage with the Center for Policing Equity Downtown/Central City White Great Downtown/Central City White Okay Other Other Downtown/Central City White Haven't had any interactions with police I don't live in Salt Lake City White Haven't had any interactions with police More welcoming culture Liberty Wells White Great Crisis intervention More welcoming culture Liberty Wells White Okay Crisis intervention Stronger outreach NA Rosepark/NW Quadrant White Great Crisis intervention Stronger outreach Rosepark/NW Quadrant White Sugarhouse White Haven't had any interactions with police Community interaction Sugarhouse White Great Crisis intervention B Sugarhouse White White Great Crisis intervention Better pay, benefits White Great Crisis intervention Stronger outreach When officers have time to respond to calls, my experience has been great! But in the past 6 months, officers have seemed totally demoralized and understandably less motivated, like they're fighting a battle with crime and public safety that they can't win. White Haven't had any interactions with police Crisis intervention More welcoming culture Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to u Text Comments 2 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? White Okay Cultural competency/implicit bias Better pay, benefits I called for assistance at 3:00am, because a man was trying to get into my house. Dispatch told me the SLCPD was not in the area, and they would be at my address in about 20-30 minutes, then disconnected. I was distressed and scare, and not happy with my personal safety being dismissed. When the police arrived 30 minutes later, they reluctantly walked around my house, found a slashed screen on my door, but did not make a report as the man was no longer on my property. Another interaction was at the State Fair, talking to members of the SLCPD wearing riot gear, and asked if they were expecting issues. Was informed by an officer that the "union" couldn't endorse a mayoral candidate because of a perceived alignment with the Brown Berets and Black Lives Matter movements. My question was why weren't they?,SLCPD has an opportunity to build community relations by integration into the neighborhoods. There is a difference between law enforcement and not inflicting personal bias and agenda into the job.,Psychological vetting for all police, to be sure how they are able to do their jobs, without harming the community is very important. Downtown/Central City Okay Crisis intervention Stronger outreach Downtown/Central City I don't live in Salt Lake City Community interaction Sugarhouse Sugarhouse Bad Cultural competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture I would like to ask a Question.,0 Crisis intervention How can the.police on their job when they are being told they are racist yest they are dealing with criminals.that have guns and dont compy.. and how do 2 Cultural competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Text Comments 3 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? I would like this to be presented to the Police chief. I used to live in a dangerous area of midvale. I lived in an apartment complex that had a drug dea,How are you going to take these calls more seriously? I am interested what these comments are going to be put toward? I remember being in a similar call with Chief Brown in 2016/2017 at the city library. Mos Text Comments 4 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There,How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There's a diverse room of commissioners but how many are Salt Lake residents??? I feel lik Black lives matter,Defund the police is the same as re-invest with police in DV specialists, substance use specialists, harm reductionists, social workers, and social safet Great Crisis intervention Stronger outreach Okay Crisis intervention More welcoming culture The resignation of officers after the mayor's police reform executive order this smer indicates a culture that avoids accountability for officer actions. This should be addressed by holding the department accountable through increased power for our independent civilian review board Bad Okay Okay Cultural competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Crisis intervention More welcoming culture More welcoming culture Crisis intervention Stronger outreach If police insist on carrying lethal weapons around many different types of people and in many situations they are not properly trained for than they should have a decent amount of actual training in de-escalation, mental health mediation, implicit bias and cultural training. More welcoming culture It has been mostly okay, however I have had interactions with SLCPD that made me question whether their intent was driven by policy or implicit bias. Their efforts didn't make it better and thus I wondered what the intent was as the stated reason for their actions didn't really add up. I'd like to see police trainings / school look more like a 4 year degree, like other professional jobs. It would help weed out the i Text Comments 5 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?What is your race or ethnicity? In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? What can you share about your experiences with SLCPD and recommendations for changes in policy, training, school safety, and/or officer recruitment? Why is the Standard Operating Procedure SOP) of the police not easily accessible? Or how do I gain access to it?,What kind of training do the police get for dealing with people who are on doctor prescribed drugs? Text Comments 6 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date of Comment In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? Do you have a story to share about your experiences with police in SLC? It is most important that SLCPD officers get better training in which of the following (cultural competency/implicit bias, crisis intervention, community interaction, firearms, other)? What other kinds of training should SLCPD officers get that they may not get now? What's one critical change in policy or procedure that SLCPD should implement that would help the SLCPD do their What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds stronger pay, better What other things should SLCPD do to recruit a diverse police force? How do you think school resource officers should improve school safety? What else would you like the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to know? Name 1/28/2021 Okay "This morning, police were called for a Black, homeless man looking through the trash in my neighborhood. I had given the homeless man some clothes and books a few days ago which he had in his possession at the time. The officers accused the man of stealing the clothes and books, and said "we're not going to arrest you, but we could." I was walking my dog and happened to walk by, and worry about what would have happened if I were not there." Community interaction, crisis intervention, cultural competency/implicit bias I don't think training is going to fix the problem. Defund the police and reallocate the resources into housing, addiction treatment, and social services." Defund the police. I think this is a critical change that would improve the city and the role of the police. This is not a personal attack on the officers, but they are being stretched too thin by responding to too many issues." Other "There are three problems here. First, primarily white men are attracted to the PD as a position of power and a method of enforcing whiteness, misogyny, and colonization. So you're going to get a largely white and masculine police force. Second, police on the whole are not just discriminating against but actively harming BIPOC, trans and queer folks, and poor and homeless people. That means that anyone from those populations is risking a lot by joining that group. Third, police in the United States are charged with protecting property, not people. Whiteness is one of the most precious forms of property we have. As long as police exist as an institution, that will be true and will not change by trying to recruit a more diverse police force.'" I have a master's degree in education. I do not think police belong in schools." This commission feels like a half- measure towards what we spent all smer asking for. Someone probably told you that it was a good compromise. I don't think there's going to be any real change, but I'm open to a conversation." Benjamin Petrie Survey Responses 7 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date of Comment In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? Do you have a story to share about your experiences with police in SLC? It is most important that SLCPD officers get better training in which of the following (cultural competency/implicit bias, crisis intervention, community interaction, firearms, other)? What other kinds of training should SLCPD officers get that they may not get now? What's one critical change in policy or procedure that SLCPD should implement that would help the SLCPD do their What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds stronger pay, better What other things should SLCPD do to recruit a diverse police force? How do you think school resource officers should improve school safety? What else would you like the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to know? Name 1/28/2021 Okay "In 2002 i was stopped for driving while brown. The cop couldn’t find anything wrong with my car or driving and was nervous when I called him out on it. This is real, and I under they are doing their best, however, that’s no longer good enough. Therefore, I don’t always feel safe when I see police." Firearms, community interaction, crisis intervention, cultural competency/implicit bias Mindfulness, emotional intelligence, crisis management, confidence with respect for self and others, cultural experience, grounding, listening skills." Become part of the community. They need better pay and mandatory counseling at least once a month." Better pay, benefits Have the ability to see the person and not the color. The color is there regardless, you the white cop are just as flawed as a person of color, you are not better or smarter. We are equals with different life experiences. Be han and don’t dehanize. If you don’t know that’s ok, own it, and be kind." They should teach and help develop afterschool programs where cops become the mentors. Include your family. In minority cultures family is everything, so be willing to integrate, once you can master the skill of acceptance you will have a family for life. The community will help keep the community safe. Share your values and don’t be afraid to adopt a few new ones. We are all one body, in one world, let’s take care of each Racism is real. But we are afraid of calling for what it is. Racism is wrong, but we let people get away with it. It should be a crime. White people need to know that it’s ok to call someone out in it even if that person looks like them. Bring back classes like sociology, ethics and philosophy to schools." Moni Candia Survey Responses 8 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date of Comment In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? Do you have a story to share about your experiences with police in SLC? It is most important that SLCPD officers get better training in which of the following (cultural competency/implicit bias, crisis intervention, community interaction, firearms, other)? What other kinds of training should SLCPD officers get that they may not get now? What's one critical change in policy or procedure that SLCPD should implement that would help the SLCPD do their What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds stronger pay, better What other things should SLCPD do to recruit a diverse police force? How do you think school resource officers should improve school safety? What else would you like the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to know? Name 1/28/2021 Great "I have witnessed nerous school officials request the minority officers over white officers. When I am in crisis I don’t care what your skin color is, I only want someone who will help." Other, Firearms "Job specific training for specialty positions and more tactical and defensive tactics training to help limit use of force and confidence in individual skills." Less restrictions on what they can do. The more our city puts restrictions on our officers, the less safe we are in this city." I don’t believe we should be racist in who we hire. I believe it should be the most qualified people not the most colorful people. We will see corruption and terrible people if we continue to lower the standards." I pulled my kids out of SLCSD schools because the SROs can not enforce many crimes and if we do not support our SROs I do not feel confident my child is safe." Think about the long term consequences of what you are doing. We should not seek officers for their skin color but for their abilities to be a great officer. I am Hispanic and the most racist people have been colored people. I have seen more discrimination against whites than anyone else but no one wants to talk about it. I also think you need to link into what the SROs role is within the school, familiarize yourself with the MOU and how it’s failed because tying their hands only makes the problems worse. Talk to the administrators at the high schools who have to deal with these issues on a Jon Chu Survey Responses 9 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 1:42:35 How can you get young kids engaged in being proactive in their community without hating the police. Some kids are taught to hate police by family, peers and others in the community?.2 Shellie G McKissick 1/28 / 1:32:09 SROs in schools decrease graduation and higher GPAs. Remove SROs 3 Rae James Duckworth 1/28 / 1:34:01 I think it's pretty problematic that police departments are often in charge of evidence that incriminates them. My lawyer requested dash cam footage of an incident only to be told that it had been "lost."1 Tanya Platt 1/28 / 1:31:21 I’m appreciative of this commission who is here to address the issues of racism and equality in policing. I hope they are given proficient time and resources to make changes. Thank you for leading the way. This work is vital to our existence!4 Lita Sagato 1/28 / 1:25:57 Thank you! There are plenty of professionals out there deescalating similar situations without excessive force. I would also like to see ONGOING training for officers if they expect to continue carrying lethal weapons around our community members."2 Kalolaine Palei Facebook Comments 10 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 1:14:34 This is a racially diverse commission (and it's great). How does it compare with the diversity and leadership in the police departments? city leadership? mayor's office?7 @user good point. If only the police departments were as diverse as the commission Bobby N Belinda Saltiban 1/28 / 1:06:44 Why did the officer who knocked down the elderly man in SLC last year get to keep his job? What was the reasoning on that?4 Cheynne Nimes 1/28 / 59:11 I'd like to hear more about the role police unions have in addressing these obvious community concerns. I understand they represent police officers but where is the alignment of representations, policy, and accountability as well as training to mitigate the issues and concerns shared by the community. Seems a bit lopsided when it comes to the actions and the perceived mission of community service.4 Charles Henderson 1/28 / 36:20 Han resources that focuses on Diversity & Inclusion. User), I have reached out to people in the city about that issue and they have expressed interest in working on that.Ralph Misa 1/28 / 0:00 The labor of BIPOC community members shouldn't always be free. Bobby N Belinda Saltiban 1/28 / 1: 48:14 Props for the for and listening ears.Daela Taeoalii-Higgs Facebook Comments January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 1:47:46 The Commission needs a stipend!!!Bobby N Belinda Saltiban 1/28 / 1:46:55 Mendenhall and Brown, are you still keeping your commitment with CAG tonight?2 Kalolaine Palei 1/28 / 1:45:44 I want to hear from you mike brown Natasha Cadet 1/28 / 1:45:07 Where will these questions be answered? I’d like to see the responses 4 Lita Sagato 1/28 / 1:43:46 Yes Lisa!1 Heilala Fu'itahi Potesio 1/28 / 1:41:44 FTP 1 Natasha Cadet 1/28 / 1:40:32 REFORM SLCPD OR BE ABOLISHED BY COMMUNITY 3 Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:40:11 Jme Cee 1/28 / 1:39:57 Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:39:26 Who's this Michael speaker? Hmu Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:39:17 They used tax payer money to take away the shelter and necessities of people 1 Natasha Cadet 1/28 / 1:38:18 What is the point of having them in this meeting if they are not going to respond to the people.. they are getting paid to sit and look uninterested 2 Natasha Cadet 1/28 / 1:39:06 That gear is NOT returned! It is thrown away.1 Kalolaine Palei 1/28 / 1:37:54 Great questions Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:37:52 It goes to the dpster Jme Cee 1/28 / 1:37:02 Police are bullies asf.2 Rae James Ducksworth Facebook Comments 12 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 1:36:29 It is obvious that when racial representation is intentional, you can find qualified folks who are excellent. Hence, this commission. So, how is the city and its departments) actively and intentionally diversifying their departments outside of this commission? Finding excellent professionals of color should not solely be isolated to a commission, like this. Walk the talk...1 Bobby N Belinda Saltiban 1/28 / 1:35:14 Brown and Mendenhall, WHY AREN'T THE OFFICERS IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES. why are you openly dodging an important security concern question Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:34:14 Answer her questions now. There is time. Where is transparency Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:33:03 Code 3b Rae James Ducksworth 1/28 / 1:27:35 I agree! I feel like there is much more understanding between officers and their community if those officers are from the community they serve in.2 Kalolaine Palei 1/28 / 1:24:02 Thank you Maggie 1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 1:23:45 The young 13 year old was shot near my home... we heard him say he had a gun.. 1 (sad reaction)Shellie G McKissick 1/28 / 1:23:40 Maggie, Thank you!1 Anna Zwalt 1/28 / 1:23:33 Good call out regarding unarmed citizens and mentally challenged citizens.1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 1:22:53 I still have yet to see Mendenhalls follow up.1 Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 13 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 1:22:35 Lethal force should not be an option unless ALL other options have been used 3 Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 1:22:37 The mayor is on the call. Good call out regarding the 13 year old autistic boy who was shot several times last year.3 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 1:17:53 AMEN Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 1:17:54 Great question Consul.Ma Black 1/28 / 1:16:30 Internal affairs review ??1 Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 1:11:25 With the LDS church now implementing racial sensitivity courses for its members. Do we have anything like that in the pipeline for law enforcement? I feel like it should be required in police office training.1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 1:09:41 How many hours of training does an officer get?3 Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 1:06:53 Milo!! Great great questions!!2 Anna Zwalt 1/28 / 1:06:29 I had the same question regarding homeless individuals thank you.Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 1:04:49 Are the texts going to be addressed?1 Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 1:00:41 I am appreciative of all the work being done here in SLC to address these challenges. I'm fairly certain that other cities share these. Are there any best practices that are being used elsewhere in the nation with positive results ?? Have any efforts been made to find these??2 Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 59:59 Thank you 5 Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 14 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 56:10 How about we keep people on who have had issues with the police and we can discuss how the situations will be handled and prevented from there on out.1 Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 53:53 This was reported by the Attorney Generals office and stated “we’re just not there” so then what ????1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 53:39 Please follow up with Lou as she had 3 incidents to report. It’s unfortunate that she is autistic and is somewhat being mistreated or in a way targeted.Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28/2021 / 52:49 No data no solutions in my opinion. Ralph Misa 1/28 / 52:40 Utah historically failed to politically fund ongoing police enforcement data. What is the commission doing about the collection of law enforcement data?1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 48:29 The Utah’s Attorney General was surprised by the shootings by SLC police officers and one of the highest in Utah. Mayor????Ralph Misa 1/28 / 48:16 How can this caller provide information to identify the date and place of these interactions Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 48:12 Do you feel your being targeted?Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 46:16 Does Mayor Mendenhall have a follow up into the shootings from last year?2 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 45:11 One situation last year was a 13 year old Autistic boy in Glendale:Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 15 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 39:20 The fact we have to thank the police for no harm done when we call them is an issue. That’s their job.2 Colton Uchiha Warden 1/28 / 44:18 How does SLCPD address the shooting of many in the past year that were unarmed?1 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 35:49 I witnessed an experience with a crisis line intervention in my east side neighborhood and even though nobody was harmed, the individual was taken for mental health care Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 22:04 Actions are also important.Shellie G McKissick 1/28 / 39:04 Please put the online link to PollEv in this comment stream.pollev.com/equityslc June Hussein Taylor 1/28 / 15:26 And they need to be re evaluated every year 6 Or twice a year Shellie G McKissick 1/28 / 39:13 What is the phone nber?Ralph Misa 1/28 / 39:46 Next caller lol Ralph Misa 1/28 / 14:20 Officers before they hired need a complete psych evaluation Agreed Shellie G McKissick 1/28 / 39:19 Bless your heart your a good mom Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 35:49 Si'oto 'ofa Komisiona Ka'ili mo Komisiona Sagato.1 To'o Folau 1/28 / 35:13 Great question. 2 Ralph Misa 1/28 / 34:01 Tau lotu kihe faingata’aia si’i kaunanga Koeni Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 33:09 Me’ a eeeeee 1 laughing reaction)Lisiate T.Wolfgramm 1/28 / 27:49 Bless your heart Michael, and sorry for the loss of your friend 1 (care reaction)Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 25:50 Shout out to you single dad 2 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 22:48 Big Shout out to Commissioner Ka’ili 1 Betsy Naeata Nau Facebook Comments January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Date/Time of Comment Relative to Facebook Live Comment Commen t Reaction s #Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28 / 22:21 MJ! So great to see you here! Anna Zwalt 1/28 / 22:04 Shout out Commissioner Sagato and Ka’ili 1 Nautalus Kaho Langi 1/28 / 19:31 Talofa Commissioner Sagato 1 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 18:04 to the ASL interpreter 3 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 17:33 Curious to hear from Chief Brown what he feels are some of the greatest challenges in the area of racial equity that he is already working on ??2 Peter Brownstein 1/28 / 16:46 We love u Chief Brown 1 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28 / 16:28 (tagged two users)Ralph Misa 1/28 / 9:20 (users). Ko fe homou feitu'u? Ikai ke lau mai mau fetu’u ia To' o Folau 1/28 / 11:11 Am I correct that all answers will be correlated against neighborhood and race? Theme Proposed FAQ Text Treatment of citizens with disabilities, special needs, mental illness How does SLCPD train its officers to handle situations where a person cannot communicate easily? Better de-escalation, especially with students/young adults (including changes to SRO program) What training do officers receive on de- escalation and how might SLCPD improve that training and performance? General non-lethal and/or non- physical interaction with citizens What training do officers receive on how to avoid lethal/physical interactions with the public? Racial profiling, disparate treatment during stops (harsher treatment given to communities of color) How does SLCPD work to ensure that officers do not engage in "racial profiling," where people of a particular race are stopped for reasons they don't understand? Better screening of potential officers (looking for extremism, penchant for violence, etc.) How does SLCPD evaluate potential recruits for red flag behaviors, such as support for or involvement in extremist groups, history of violent behavior, etc.? Better resources and options for SLCPD to address homelessness, gang activity What kinds of resources is SLCPD seeking to improve its performance for Salt Lake City? Cultural sensitivity when dealing with communities of color How does SLCPD train personnel in understanding different cultural norms and how to interact with people from different backgrounds? Sensitive handling of individuals in distress (praise for SLCPD) What kinds of best practices does SLCPD use in dealing with members of the public in some form of distress, such as mental illness? Praise and concerns about citizens academy, depictions of communities of color How are decisions made about Citizens Academy curriculum with an eye towards racial equity/eliminating stereotypes? Disparate responses to calls for police assistance (specifically on West side) How is SLCPD addressing concerns raised in the western part of the city, particularly concerns raised by communities of color? Call for better working relationships with the refugee community What measures has SLCPD taken to build and/or strengthen relationships with refugee populations? The Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission Public Listening Session will begin in a moment Public Listening Session Facebook Live, YouTube Live & on SLC TV 6:00 P.M. HOW TO PARTICIPATE Call (888) 410-3427 to participate in English Call (844) 881-1317 to participate in Spanish Text “EQUITYSLC” to 22333 How can the.police on their job when they are being told they are racist yest they are dealing with criminals.that have guns and dont compy.. and how do I would like this to be presented to the Police chief. I used to live in a dangerous area of midvale. I lived in an apartment complex that had a drug dea,How are you going to take these calls more seriously? I am interested what these comments are going to be put toward? I remember being in a similar call with Chief Brown in 2016/2017 at the city library. Mos How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There,How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There's a diverse room of commissioners but how many are Salt Lake residents??? I feel lik Black lives matter,Defund the police is the same as re-invest with police in DV specialists, substance use specialists, harm reductionists, social workers, and social safet When officers have time to respond to calls, my experience has been great! But in the past 6 months, officers have seemed totally demoralized and understandably less motivated, like they're fighting a battle with crime and public safety that they can't win. What has the commission been working on since last summer?,Please include social media history in background checks for police. Please do this quarterly. You can tell a lot by what people post online or their gro I think they have been great Understanding that studies show that personal bias trainings actually can further entrench biases, what is the city's position on pursuing comprehensivel,I am a westside, Latina citizen... while most of the comments have been valuable... but, I do not feel as though issues of RACIAL equity have been considered Engage with the Center for Policing Equity Can we get the polls that were given at the beginning to the end of this meeting for latecomers Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to u I called for assistance at 3:00am, because a man was trying to get into my house. Dispatch told me the SLCPD was not in the area, and they would be at my address in about 20-30 minutes, then disconnected. I was distressed and scare, and not happy with my personal safety being dismissed. When the police arrived 30 minutes later, they reluctantly walked around my house, found a slashed screen on my door, but did not make a report as the man was no longer on my property. Another interaction was at the State Fair, talking to members of the SLCPD wearing riot gear, and asked if they were expecting issues. Was informed by an officer that the "union" couldn't endorse a mayoral candidate because of a perceived alignment with the Brown Berets and Black Lives Matter movements. My question was why weren't they?,SLCPD has an opportunity to build community relations by integration into the neighborhoods. There is a difference between law enforcement and not inflicting personal bias and agenda into the job.,Psychological vetting for all police, to be sure how they are able to do their jobs, without harming the community is very important. The resignation of officers after the mayor's police reform executive order this summer indicates a culture that avoids accountability for officer actions. This should be addressed by holding the department accountable through increased power for our independent civilian review board Policy-end qualified immunity, 8 can't wait, etc.. Training-barriers to transparency and convictions, school safety-resources and holistic approach to serving children and families, have them watch pushout and learn more about the school to prison pipeline, recruitment-let them know there are safe ways to report bad police officers and that they can change the structure of their department, make it real. If police insist on carrying lethal weapons around many different types of people and in many situations they are not properly trained for than they should have a decent amount of actual training in de-escalation, mental health mediation, implicit bias and cultural training. It has been mostly okay,however I have had interactions with SLCPD that made me question whether their intent was driven by policy or implicit bias. Their efforts didn't make it better and thus I wondered what the intent was as the stated reason for their actions didn't really add up. I'd like to see police trainings / school look more like a 4 year degree, like other professional jobs. It would help weed out the i Why is the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the police not easily accessible? Or how do I gain access to it?,What kind of training do the police get for dealing with people who are on doctor prescribed drugs? A recording of the Public Listening Session can be found on Facebook or YouTube THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING AND SHARING YOUR VOICE To share additional input for the Commission, please visit: SLCREPCOMMISSION.COM The Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission Public Listening Session has concluded Preliminary Findings: REP Commission May 19 Listening Session 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 84010 84047 84101 84102 84104 84105 84107 84108 84111 84115 84116 84131 ZipCodes of participants 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% African American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic/Latino/Chicano Other Race/Ethnicity White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Race/Ethnicity Other Responses: Resources for mental health and addiction recovery Increase in funding. More mental health workers and fewer police Policing culture Cultural changes within the department 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Training Policies and Practices School Safety Other What do you most want the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to help change? What else should the Training subcommittee know? Trainers need to be from the neighborhood people that know the inns and the outs in the nuances of the community I particularly appreciate the recommendation that trainers themselves need to be diverse and representative of the community I would like to know more about how the training will promote Racial Equity Training must be paired with accountability for consistent and sustainable behavior change I believe that we need more officers than what we are coming up with for helping defuse mental health situations we also need more social workers Please train these folks by including citizens opinion Thank you so much for your time and commitment to our community Focus on ongoing efforts in the mix with point in time trainings as change takes time I'd like them trained to do their job without firearms 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Training subcommittee? What else should the Policies and Practices subcommittee know? What about 911 dispatchers? Are they being trained to gather information to relay to police What are you doing to stop officers from profiling black and blown people while driving? My husband is black and is pulled over disproportionately for th what about a CTR type training? I believe that's what the caller was referring to Were there any findings that changed your personal views? I'd like the REP commission to also look at the calls made to 911 by the public and if there are ways that calls for service which may be themselves based in racism can be weeded out by dispatch. Will the bias assessment be required and lead decision-making in the application process for prospective officers AND performance reviews of existing officers? Great work to the committee. Thank you. Is there thought to taking infractions out of police purview? Like traffic stops and things like that? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Policies and Procedures subcommittee? What else should the School Safety subcommittee know? In a predominate white state and even school environment, having SRO is what makes many young people of color uncomfortable. This had not only been seen in high school, but students of color are also against that in higher education. There are better ways to address people rather than just placing SRO Involve students in decisions about who their SRO will be and how they are asked to interact with students, to determine what will impact positive change The issue is less the officers at the schools but that the school administration is using them improperly and calling on them to do things they shouldn't. Police shouldn't be in schools. Why not the mental health workers instead? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the School Safety subcommittee? Telephone Comments (transcribed): 1) Okay, thank you, before my question, given the salt lake valley has always been a gathering place for the indigenous peoples we acknowledge that this land which name for the youth tribe is the traditional ancestral homelands, of the shoshone tribe and is the crossroads for. All of the turtle island native nomads and indigenous settlers we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are displaced Africans, Asians and recognize that Asian Pacific islander heritage month is this month, and we also stand in solidarity and and with the Palestinians and condemned the actions of the Israelis. My question is a bit of a twofold now that i've heard some of the policies in because I just want to get some clarity on that listening session we were just in. What my concern is is, these are trainings for the future, and is there a place that this curriculum is made public as to how the training will be informed by the curriculum. What data, what sort of is where yeah can we see the curriculum, so that the public may review it. Rather than just because I think that's something that's important that the Community, be able to. bring some feedback into that sort of policy and making i'm curious is officers are currently excuse me i'm My tmj is affecting how I speak today. Is officers know qpr training and the reason I asked this is because the majority of Much of the response and what we're seeing in our communities is that responses to neuro divergent. People often ends in the centrality and i'm curious if they're aware that qpr exists and to utilize those qpr tactics before responding when it with anything other than less than lethal for someone like that. kind of what i'm tying into that question is the recent clips of the Swedish officers that were tourists in New York City and amongst the four of them, they were able to break up a violent fight that. With their techniques of de escalation managed to. subdue those men, without any harm, like any fatal harm to them, and it seems like it was quite easy technique to execute and that there was some significant training for them to all be so coordinated, even on their personal time. 2) yeah Thank you, you had mentioned that a certain percentage of calls to police work for mental health issues, I wonder what the criteria are that you use to make that determination and if those are criteria you use when the call comes in, or only after it's been responded to thank you 3) Okay um so i'm a 40 year old one, almost 42 year old students have. an incredibly diverse school district in Dallas Texas, which was predominantly black and Brown. And we had a was Carter high school and I can tell you from my personal experience. That was a little over two decades ago. As sorrows only represented forces antagonism and a sense of internalized racism that perpetuates quite a lot of the bias that we see. That that are associated with as sorrows within the black and brown school systems and how a lot of those racist ideologies seep in and affect the quality of care and the quality of safety that our children have and the protections of a checklist policing. With that just simply can't be met without a cultural understanding of how we correct our youth and how elders within the Multi economies. Of of communities that exist here how we call in our youth and how we correct our youth. And how this way is not the way for children, children should not be policed children should not go to school in and fear this authoritarian influence around them and instill so they can get a quality education. And I disagree with having a sorrows as being a child of a family of several generations of students who've passed through the SRO system only to experience how much of my family had been affected by it. Because they were sucked in by that vortex of the school to prison pipeline, of having friends people I love who go to prison. For you know youthful folly that ends up being criminalized because there's an SRO officer there's an SRO rather than an elder right or. Not um and it bothers me that you don't have K PR and that that sorrow officers who are in our schools in a state that has such highest. numbers of youth self harm and you've completion that you don't have officers that are qpr trained. it's it's it's disturbing to note that this is the first time you're hearing of it when it's existed for quite a while. And i'm wondering why there seems to be quite a lot of reinvention of processes when there's already good stuff that works out there right and why that just not simply being incorporated in that current training. modalities it's just, we need to keep our kids safe and COP have no business in our school. Maybe surrounding perimeters and and that sort of thing, but we need to have a. You know, principles and you know ways of being able to de escalate, even in like I said in the most dangerous situations, so the evidence that we can do that to do want to. Comment from Spanish line: (Diego Munoz)(Salt Lake City)() There’s not security at RosePark school, we’d like to see a police officer there watching the kids. Facebook comments: to be provided by staff Theme Proposed FAQ Text Treatment of citizens with disabilities, special needs, mental illness How does SLCPD train its officers to handle situations where a person cannot communicate easily? Better de-escalation, especially with students/young adults (including changes to SRO program) What training do officers receive on de- escalation and how might SLCPD improve that training and performance? General non-lethal and/or non- physical interaction with citizens What training do officers receive on how to avoid lethal/physical interactions with the public? Racial profiling, disparate treatment during stops (harsher treatment given to communities of color) How does SLCPD work to ensure that officers do not engage in "racial profiling," where people of a particular race are stopped for reasons they don't understand? Better screening of potential officers (looking for extremism, penchant for violence, etc.) How does SLCPD evaluate potential recruits for red flag behaviors, such as support for or involvement in extremist groups, history of violent behavior, etc.? Better resources and options for SLCPD to address homelessness, gang activity What kinds of resources is SLCPD seeking to improve its performance for Salt Lake City? Cultural sensitivity when dealing with communities of color How does SLCPD train personnel in understanding different cultural norms and how to interact with people from different backgrounds? Sensitive handling of individuals in distress (praise for SLCPD) What kinds of best practices does SLCPD use in dealing with members of the public in some form of distress, such as mental illness? Praise and concerns about citizens academy, depictions of communities of color How are decisions made about Citizens Academy curriculum with an eye towards racial equity/eliminating stereotypes? Disparate responses to calls for police assistance (specifically on West side) How is SLCPD addressing concerns raised in the western part of the city, particularly concerns raised by communities of color? Call for better working relationships with the refugee community What measures has SLCPD taken to build and/or strengthen relationships with refugee populations? Guidelines for notes 1. Meeting is held with anonymity- Do not capture names. 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the Teams Folder for Subcommittee Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander June 24, 2021 Attendees: Two Commissioners Seven Community Members (Civic Engagement, Executive Director for National Tongan Society, (JP), Case Manager SL Equal Rights Community, Movement & Black Lives Matter, Tongan American, Utah Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Community One City Staff Write down the questions that the facilitator asks in Bold ● School Safety – Interest; Training – Interest; Policies & Practices ● Feedback about the SRO ○ Which schools are allocated an SRO? ○ Are charter schools included? ○ Where will the data be gathered from – intentionally focusing it from the communities of color ○ Male students of color, also include separately female students of color and what disproportionate referrals look like to admin/juvy/authorities ○ Guidelines helpful for when teachers should involve SROs (truancy can lead someone into the system – not previously exposed to until group homes) ○ MOU Provided in Chat (https://www.slcdocs.com/recorder/REPAgenda/Agenda_Materials/2019%20SR O%20Agreement.pdf) ○ What is the role of the SRO officer in addressing bullying? ○ Emphasize the essence of policing – and the students rights with the SRO ○ Hire those that have Bachelor’s degree or something related to the education teachers also must pursue to engage with students ○ The records completed by the SRO when included as part of the individuals history, carries on with the individual ○ SRO should be available for safety – more money put into counselors and cultural background experienced individuals ■ Impact of the records is very influential in the development of the success of the youth involved ○ Suggestion to de-escalation include working with families for more involved intervention ● Training ○ Will community-based trainers by compensated? ■ (Larry: Yes – contracted by the City/Department) ○ Not one single trainer for all of the topics ○ What are the rules with officers who have civilian complaints or other (Zane James) offenses – particularly to be in schools ■ No clear clarification on how SROs are selected to be in the schools; requested a need to be clear about the involvement in the selection process (instead of Police determination solely) ○ Interview process with community members/students in the selection process, will records be available to assist with the decision? ○ Mana Academy has a good cultural training (required by teachers) and would be worthwhile to consider as a resource ○ Is there separate training provided to SROs (and can it be evaluated) ○ Value of officers training when involving adolescents , especially when so many young students especially BIPOC students who may have mental health issues. working with younger kids with mental health issues is much different than adults. ● Policies & Practice ○ Will there be a student review team for SRO (similar to the Civilian Review Board) Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session – LGBTQ June 18, 2021 Attendees: 1 commissioner 1 community stakeholder 1 facilitator 2 city staff Notes on the session: (The facilitator went through the recommendations of the Policies & Practices and Training Subcommittee – the School Safety recommendations were briefly touched on) There was a breakdown of the commission and explanation of what the commission was and what it worked on. It was highlighted that the commission has reached more than just communities of color and that it’s work has touched the lives of a lot of different groups within the City. The group began working their way through the three subcommittees and going over their recommendations. They began with Policies & Practices and went through the recommendations and touched on reviews and audits and how those need to be reviewed, and on how communities should have a say in if there are specific things within the community that officers need to be trained on. The bulk of time was spent on how officers respond to those in a mental health crisis. Integration of clinicians or civilians in the response to those in a mental health crisis was the highlight of this portion. It was mentioned that youth suicide rates within LGBTQ youth is very high and that the focus on mental health response was impressive and will help those who are struggling. Another major theme was that there can be a lot of fear in calling 911 and having authorities come out but that the integration of mental health professionals could help eliminate that hesitation and do so drastically. Some of the challenges for LGBTQ youth could be the fear of how officers respond to those who are transitioning or are transgender, as well as costs of services like an ambulance. One of the other main themes was the officer’s use of gender pronouns when interacting with LGBTQ individuals while doing what is needed to be respectful and mindful of an individual’s preferred gender pronouns and preferred name. The group then moved into the Training Subcommittee’s recommendations. It was once again discussed that the community should be involved in the applicant process to ensure that their needs are being met. Additionally, it was touched on the field training officers should be a more diverse body and reflect their community. One of the main themes in the recommendations that was touched on was training for responding to a mental health crisis – requiring a re-certification for all and if you come into the Salt Lake City Police Department from another City that those officers are also required to be certified and meet the same qualifications and certifications as the officers in SLCPD. It was added that co-response should be required to mental health crisis calls, as they are more knowledgeable in how to effectively respond. The community stakeholder also believes requiring diversity and history training for new recruits on the different communities in Salt Lake City would be beneficial to aiding how officers respond. Some of the feedback in response to the Training recommendations was that the tones need to be continued and carried over to those within the LGBTQ community. It was added that there are resources and trainings available for law enforcement that could be provided to help train and aid officers. Enhanced recruitment within the LGBTQ community and diversifying the police force and could aid in response. It would also help the SLCPD accurately represent the diversity of the City it serves. It was briefly added at the end by the community stakeholder that the police should start their recruitment with Q Salt Lake (a local news outlet for the LGBTQ community) and potentially do interviews or articles to begin recruiting within the community. Racial Equity in Policing Small Group Listening Session – African American/Black Community Groups Meeting Notes Tuesday, June 15th 9:30am • Group wanted to see an outside entity that oversees the implementation of how the REP is formed. • Would like to see checks and balances monitored with a live doc/report. o How is the information being released? o What is the data after implementation is complete? • Comments Regarding School Subcommittee: o Would like to see more student/parent involvement. o More administration reviews. o Curate healthy relationships between SROs and students. ▪ SRO to be viewed more like a faculty member as opposed to an officer. ▪ May help reduce funneling of school-to-prison pipeline. ▪ Informal conversations with students can help with de-escalation tactics. o How are SROs distributed throughout? Who makes that determination? ▪ Community would like to see transparency in these decisions. o What problems are we trying to solve by means of SROs? How have they been resolved in the past? o Clarify the role of SROs on campus’. • Training Subcommittee o Officers need more mental health training. ▪ Possibly send a different entity to respond to mental health calls. o DNI Officer trainings on culture, experiences, & history. • Policy & Practice o Group liked the script “Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health, police, or mental health emergency?” ▪ Maybe add more questions into the script to engage correct response to emergency. o If a 911 caller is African American/Black, there is an element of fear/hesitation because of the unknown of who will respond to the call. ▪ “Sometimes the product doesn’t match the model.” ▪ “The standard is not the standard.” The level of standard should always be rising. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session –Utah Black Chamber of Commerce March 18, 2021 Attendees:two participants from the Utah Black Chamber Objectives: - reviewed - Understand the concerns and aspirations of those who have had interactions with the Salt Lake City Police Department, particularly communities of color, and key stakeholders interested in the work of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. - Provide and hold space for an honest dialogue and candid feedback for the Commission. - Solicit advice and innovation from community in formulating solutions. - Ensure that Commission recommendations reflect community values and dynamics. Discussion Agreements: - reviewed -Open-mindedness:Listen to all points of view -Acceptance:Suspend judgment as best you can -Curiosity:Seek to understand rather than persuade -Discovery:Question old assumptions, look for new insights -Sincerity:Speak for yourself about what has personal heart and meaning -Brevity:Go for honesty and depth but don’t go on and on -Respect:Focus on issues rather than individuals. Generalized Agenda 1) Facilitator’s Introduction (3 min) - reviewed a. Why we’re here b. Facilitator’s role c. Objectives of session d. Commitment of anonymity 2) Intro of Commissioner(s), statement of their goals/interests in the session (5 min) Commissioner heard concerns from officers that the Commission’s work is attempting to change the scale. The Commission wasn’t established to limit the Police Department’s (PD) function, but rather understand their process. Commission hopes to cure concerns of where money will be removed, and focus on where funding is needed. The Commissioners are an advisory body to suggest to the city what should happen. The Commission is about making the PD work best for all of SLC. 3) Brief intros of participants—what brought them to session, what do they hope to get out of experience (5 min) 4) Review of Commission’s mandate (2 min) – reviewed Overview of facilitators, commission. Review of webpage – City commission page; REP page 5)When you hear the phrase “racial equity in policing” in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? a. Multiple things, the first being that it’s odd. It’s very odd that we put police that aren’t from a particular area or neighborhood to police that area or neighborhood. When we’re looking at a difference in culture between the neighborhoods near me (Glendale) vs South Jordan, it’s a very clear difference between who lives in both of those neighborhoods. Someone who doesn’t understand how that particular group may interact with one another. If they don’t understand, they may police incorrectly. There’s a cultural divide and lack of understanding between different subgroups and how they behave. There’s a lack of investigation and we go on the offensive. That’s what they’re trained to do in some ways. If you add more people of color to that police department, or training, or the right people from those neighborhoods policing those neighborhoods, they’d police more appropriately. Are officers more likely to respond with suspicion/make an arrest? ●Yes. A couple of years ago, in Saratoga Springs Darien Hunt, dressed for Comic Con, had a fake wand that looked very real. Someone called the cops and said we’re terrified, what is that person doing with that sword. He was not attended to properly. ●Another incident, a 13-year old white boy with Autism (Linden Cameron). This is a child. If we could approach this by, knowing this child is autistic, coming from that angle, my approach needs to be different. If there was some training to identify those kind of things – if the police were working in that particular neighborhood, you might be a little more in the know. You’d have seen that child. We don’t understand the cultural and social implications that make up a particular neighborhood and without that understanding, we can’t provide the right type of treatment. When interactions are not based on fully-able-bodied cisgender white male [experiences], everything else is different. ●My husband is white, but if he’s in the car and I’m driving with him in the car, no problems. Never get stopped, never get ticketed. Use [white] privilege for good – it works. Once upon a time, an interracial couple would be stopped simply for being interracial. ●I don’t think any of that has changed, especially with the depiction from Hollywood’s perspective. Laying out how the black experience should be or the black definition …If I cast all black actors in a black film, am I targeting a black audience, or am I trying to tell the story of a black individual to everyone. Hollywood is terrible with their depiction. When you break down racial equity, privilege is in that carrier. There is no equity for Black people as far as treatment. I’m from an era when it was illegal to date or marry a white woman. ●When I look at equity in policing, it’s so far off scale that it’s crazy. Black people are created so different in a traffic stop, in a detainment, interrogation/”questioning” – it’s unreal. ●The other day, I read at a museum exhibit, “do you think just because Obama was elected president, that things have shifted?” I don’t. Politics play a huge role in racial inequity in the depiction of blacks. The power structure between the rich and the poor – pure example right now with the pandemic. The rich are fighting over power why the rest of us basically die. When we look at racial equity, it’s like Utah: 2% black – that’s how I gauge racial equity in America. Have you lived places other than Utah/SLC? ●Cleveland. Hard place to come up. Detroit, Florida. From Colorado. ●Bronx What if any comparisons/contrasts would you draw between SLC and elsewhere? ●SLC is behind the clock on a lot of things. First came here the first time in 2020, it was slow. No division between church and state; church runs the state. Maybe 1.5% Black population. You could see the division between the races. Blacks aren’t taken as serious and their needs and conditions aren’t examined as closely as other nationalities who “contribute more” economically to Salt Lake, like the Hispanic presence in UT which gives [Latinx community members] a bigger opportunity to define/dictate experiences. ●From the Bronx. Growing up, we knew who our cops were and they lived in our neighborhoods. If they didn’t, you kinda know. It happens here as well – cops will be called to a particular home, say it’s a Latino home and there’s a party, that can escalate really quickly. Growing up it was like, “just turn that off. We don’t want to come back here, just letting you know.” It wasn’t as aggressive as things I’ve seen here. I’ve seen it treated very differently with Hispanic parties in Glendale compared to rowdy college parties at the university. Differences based on not just stereotypes but lack of understanding on how that culture references itself or shows up. ●We’re telling people show up as your real self and we want to celebrate that, but if people do that, we’ll criminalize it. The best way to show up is to assimilate. What am I supposed to do, if I’m upset? Someone who didn’t grow up with people like me think my loud voice, emphatic gestures, are aggressive. It’s used as justification to push assimilation. ●If my husband were to tell me to calm down when I’m [being emphatic] I’d be more upset! At that’s the normal reaction. It doesn’t calm people down, it does the opposite. If we learn to recognize that and then learn other methods to deescalate, we wouldn’t be asking people to assimilate and we wouldn’t be getting into this type of trouble Officers who look like the community/are from a particular area – what do you think is critical for the department/city to do to recruit people to the department who could be protecting the neighborhoods they live in, like Glendale? What would attract a more diverse crowd? ●we already know how to do it – we do it in the rural communities because it is so difficult to travel to those communities so it’s often just easier to hire someone there. Part of that is an educational approach, like any other job. You have a Rose Park taqueria, more often than not it’s people who live in that area. It’s people who know what is needed, very familiar with the pizza/taco/whatever is needed in the neighborhood. Same thing – if you’re hiring someone for a particular role, you have to say exactly what it is and put a requirement, like “looking for someone who lives within this mileage/radius.” We tell people at our business, we don’t hire outside a 20-mile radius. Specifically because we want to provide jobs within the westside of SLC and Tooele Co. If we can do it as a company, PD can do that too. ●Companies are doing community engagement and diversity training. Community engagement goes a long way because if you need to recruit outside, you introduce people who come into our environment to the community, but you have to make a concerted effort, ●We have a team dedicated to onboarding those people into the community and get to know what UT is like. Go on trips, go to events, meet with community organizations. Trainings like “understanding UT culture” ●PD needs to get more involved in areas they want to put officers in or recruit from – partner with minority organizations who offer them access to demographics they’re targeting. ●PD has never approached UBC. Chamber has set up at least six job fairs – PD has never played a role, reached out, or tried to access those resources to hire minorities or connect with candidate pool. ●The Chief holds everyone accountable and does a great job, and so does the Assistant Chief. But if we’re going to say we need diversity, then we need to go get it. ●The reality is: the Police know. They know! I’ve worked with them before. I’ve worked with a past Mayor’s campaign. During a homelessness and drug user initiative, a PD representative come up and spewed all kinds of different stereotypes about the Latinx community, Hondurans selling drugs to vulnerable Utahns – in other words, these minorities are making the white folks sick. That’s bad rhetoric. Those present, including me, State representatives and community advocates, called it out. We need to work together to eliminate these stereotypes that negatively impact how we interact. The Chief agreed, but never did it. You know you have a responsibility, you know these things exist. You’ve been told as long as I’ve been in this work, and you’re not implementing it. ●Dad said, if I ask you once, I’m asking you. Twice, reminding you. Three times, I’m begging you. SLCPD talks a good game, but nothing ever gets done until there’s friction. When there’s friction, everything is a priority and under a microscope. Everything was fine until the protests got violent. ●Utahns Against Police Brutality started in 2013 out in the streets, doing this work right at the PD building, then federal building. You can’t say you don’t know what to do when there are so many articles. My family used to be so worried about my life because my work protesting in the streets, worried I would get shot. They already know how to change. I’ve been saying this for a long time and I’m not the only one. We’re begging you and you just don’t want to listen. Training – what do you want police officers to learn they’re either not learning or not learning effectively ●Mental health is a big issue. ●Unconscious bias training doesn’t do enough. It just says, “there are biases.” ●Officers need to be leaders in our community, respected in our community – need to be able to look at it that way. ●Why is any type of diversity work important in policing – that’s just a baseline to get us to an understanding of why diversity is even important. Then we can do these trainings and crucial listening things. They’re important but not as much as certification on mental health issues, doing a deep dive into pitfalls and privileges we hold and how to understand communities we serve. Everyone should have something that speaks to that community. You shouldn’t go into a community without knowing who they are and privileges and biases they hold. Just a baseline – we do it in the corporation world all the time. ●Beyond de-escalation, how do we effectively communicate with someone, especially in an intense situation? Like example of husband saying, ‘calm down’ – it’s demeaning. At home, we reframe with our families to deescalate and communicate better. They need to do that out in the community. ●We need empathetic/inclusive leadership training. That gets to the heart of people. Everyone likes to hear that they’re a leader – it makes you feel good, like you’re not just performing a job. This is something near and dear to their heart. How do you improve as a leader in your community? ●We need to educate people in how to be better allies – how are you [police officer] an ally to that community? Deepen your understanding of the community, its diversity and values. Now you understand where you stand in this community. How do you help them understand you don’t just want to send them to jail or murder them, but be there for them in their times of need? Have there been moments where you’ve said to yourself, if that’s what they’re being told to do, they shouldn’t do it – policies that need to be changed? ●Closest I’ve gotten is intimidation. 5 years ago, joined a group out of University of Utah doing homeless outreach by the Road Home. They would bring all types of items and lunch food because Catholic Community Services is closed on Sundays. I would see police intimidate the group bringing food and try to get them kicked out under pretext they needed a specific license. Asked former mayor about this, learned that policy was eliminated at the beginning of the year. The next weekend, PD tried to stop the group. I spoke up about talking to Mayor about policy change, PD pushed back, attitude changed after verifying relationship with Mayor. Shouldn’t intimidate people or use the badge privilege to lie/deceive/dismiss. During Public Listening session, there were comments about speed with which the Police respond to unhoused people inside businesses. Are there other particular issues in what you’d expect relating to PD protecting you/your business? ●We don’t generally have individuals coming in. Honestly, one of our pillars includes treating everyone as an equal. Part of that is, hey, if you feel uncomfortable, ask a person to leave, if not, ask PD. Goal is to not escalate to assault on the premises – take it outside would be the expectation. Want Police to be responsive, protect and serve. ●Saw story of a woman, not in Utah, at her business. A white male came in for services from this Black-owned business. He attempted to pull out a gun to harm these individuals because he wasn’t receiving the services he felt entitled to receive after being told to leave multiple times. I thought it was really sad that in the 911 call, the woman business owner was saying “this is happening, we can’t get this person out of here. I want to reiterate my husband is black, but he’s the owner. He’s not the person assaulting” I think that speaks to the fear that we now have – it’s really sad we have to do that. It’s very possible the businesses in our community, even in a dangerous situation, might not be as prone to calling for help. We had a couple businesses just last month receive multiple calls harassing the businesses, someone saying they’ll show up, making threats – businesses called the Chamber not knowing who to call, not sure the police would protect the business owners because of how they look. Without proper training, communities are left to deal with this on their own because they can’t trust the police to come protect and serve. ●Utah’s a whole different animal. Different from other places I’ve been/encountered. Just gotta keep to the grindstone, keep working to make change here. Keep telling the story, amend certain parts here as we keep telling it. Facilitator: would be happy to meet again if you thought there was another opportunity, maybe in tandem with an already-scheduled meeting/event. Chamber would love to signal boost SLCREP – requested follow up with messaging they could use to email/social media promote opportunities to weigh in via the website. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session – Native American and Indigenous groups June 23 2021 Attendees: Member of the Navajo nation Law practitioner; worked with Navajo nation; professor of American Indian Studies What attendees hope to get from this - Share what has been learned from work in their communities - Get caught up on what’s happening so far - Learn what commission is doing, about recommendations - Prove perspective on those recommendations. Feedback on SRO recommendations - Question – is recommendation that SROs are handling issues that could be handled by school administration a liability consideration? To facilitator’s understanding, this is more about the officer-student dynamic o Do SROs receive counseling training? If they aren’t trained in that, even beneficially providing that service can be a liability o Are current SROs required to take anti-bias training to reduce stereotypes against students of color. - Participant shared experience as a parent when child first went to middle school. Child reported first time seeing an SRO caught her off guard. Mother suggested asking SRO’s name and introducing herself, advised child that it’s good to know who you can turn to if students are in harm’s way. Repeated advice when child went to high school; same advice to younger child. Recommended developing a good relationship with the SRO, which can also improve relationship between SROs and other students of color. - A big concern is if SROs are not receiving training – if asked to do something you aren’t trained, you might do more harm than good. - Suggest reaching out to Kayley Richards with the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice, who worked on HB 239 re juvenile justice reforms. Included providing training throughout the state. o Dr. Procero? (Potentially Commissioner Prospero?) At U of U, who is lead in implementing this training statewide. Not sure where SLC school district is on this. Separate training for school administrators on when it’s appropriate to bring SRO in; vice versa on when SROs need school guidance o Utah Board of Juvenile Justice - Kayley Richards - ktrichards@utah.gov - Chuck (Dr. Foster) would be helpful in this conversation as well. o Dr. Harold (Chuck) Foster Education Specialist (State Board of Education,Title VI, American Indian Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session – LatinX & Hispanic June 22, 2021 Attendees: At the beginning of the meeting there were 5 community members. One experienced audio difficulty and dropped out and another could only stay a few minutes. By the end, only three members remained and provided feedback/comment. There was also one foreign government representative. School Safety • How is efficacy in school safety measured? o Who and how do we evaluate that data? It has to be tied to the actual work. Who collects/reports it? SD and PD need to work together on these solutions. • Frustration of PD response at scene, community fears their reaction – need efficacy, would aide in feedback infrastructure. • Want to see more feedback from parents and families. Peer Court Education) Phone: (801) 538-7838 | E-mail Training recommendations -Positive feedback – recommendations are spot on - One participant shared a story of an EMT in Magna who trains responders for disaster situations, who has been asking for groups of people of color who would like to participate in this training. EMTs who are not people of color tend to go to other white people first. Important to get people used to people of color. Important to offer training like that with people of color. - Commissioner shared how her participation and vulnerability sharing specific examples from her experience helped foster understanding of shared/generational trauma for the Training subcommittee. Policy and Practice Recommendations - Commissioner shared experience as boarding school survivor, and how parent taught children to hide if encountering law enforcement officer (LEO). Physiological effects persist to date. - Requested more information on civilian response, a la Denver Star. Staff to follow up. o Staff compilation of mental health response programs, presented to the City Council September 2020 https://www.slcdocs.com/council/agendas/2020agendas/September/15WS/A 3_Informational_UpdatesonRacialEquityandPolicing.pdf - City might consider – if this civilian response goes out, are they acting on behalf of the City and something goes wrong, if they do something outside normal acceptable training, who is liable? What recourse would victim’s families have, if there’s no formal liability identification? o Staff note: City Dispatch has a new agreement with the University of Utah’s mental health crisis line - Developing some type of community policing program – understanding of that practice is that it focuses on relationships within communities, helps build trust and helps officers understand norms within those communities. o Share details on what has officially been put into place and what’s been explored. What might have been missed entirely? - Sense is that this is going in the right direction. Trainers from different backgrounds may be able to provide firsthand experiences with law enforcement. - Collaboration with State: Multicultural Affairs; Board of Juvenile Justice o Nubia Pena, Director, Division of Multicultural Affairs - npena@utah.gov - Tribes have their own law enforcement – could be helpful to see what they’re doing to improve relationships in tribal areas, towns near reservations. Could already be solutions in place that would be helpful. - Mo Smith with Urban Indian Center in SLC - Recommend including Rozanna Benally-Sagg with Governor’s Multicultural Affairs Office, particularly for the Urban Native perspective in SLC proper Preliminary Findings: REP Commission May 19 Listening Session 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 84010 84047 84101 84102 84104 84105 84107 84108 84111 84115 84116 84131 ZipCodes of participants 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% African American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic/Latino/Chicano Other Race/Ethnicity White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Race/Ethnicity Other Responses: Resources for mental health and addiction recovery Increase in funding. More mental health workers and fewer police Policing culture Cultural changes within the department 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Training Policies and Practices School Safety Other What do you most want the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to help change? What else should the Training subcommittee know? Trainers need to be from the neighborhood people that know the inns and the outs in the nuances of the community I particularly appreciate the recommendation that trainers themselves need to be diverse and representative of the community I would like to know more about how the training will promote Racial Equity Training must be paired with accountability for consistent and sustainable behavior change I believe that we need more officers than what we are coming up with for helping defuse mental health situations we also need more social workers Please train these folks by including citizens opinion Thank you so much for your time and commitment to our community Focus on ongoing efforts in the mix with point in time trainings as change takes time I'd like them trained to do their job without firearms 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Training subcommittee? What else should the Policies and Practices subcommittee know? What about 911 dispatchers? Are they being trained to gather information to relay to police What are you doing to stop officers from profiling black and blown people while driving? My husband is black and is pulled over disproportionately for th what about a CTR type training? I believe that's what the caller was referring to Were there any findings that changed your personal views? I'd like the REP commission to also look at the calls made to 911 by the public and if there are ways that calls for service which may be themselves based in racism can be weeded out by dispatch. Will the bias assessment be required and lead decision-making in the application process for prospective officers AND performance reviews of existing officers? Great work to the committee. Thank you. Is there thought to taking infractions out of police purview? Like traffic stops and things like that? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Policies and Procedures subcommittee? What else should the School Safety subcommittee know? In a predominate white state and even school environment, having SRO is what makes many young people of color uncomfortable. This had not only been seen in high school, but students of color are also against that in higher education. There are better ways to address people rather than just placing SRO Involve students in decisions about who their SRO will be and how they are asked to interact with students, to determine what will impact positive change The issue is less the officers at the schools but that the school administration is using them improperly and calling on them to do things they shouldn't. Police shouldn't be in schools. Why not the mental health workers instead? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the School Safety subcommittee? Telephone Comments (transcribed): 1) Okay, thank you, before my question, given the salt lake valley has always been a gathering place for the indigenous peoples we acknowledge that this land which name for the youth tribe is the traditional ancestral homelands, of the shoshone tribe and is the crossroads for. All of the turtle island native nomads and indigenous settlers we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are displaced Africans, Asians and recognize that Asian Pacific islander heritage month is this month, and we also stand in solidarity and and with the Palestinians and condemned the actions of the Israelis. My question is a bit of a twofold now that i've heard some of the policies in because I just want to get some clarity on that listening session we were just in. What my concern is is, these are trainings for the future, and is there a place that this curriculum is made public as to how the training will be informed by the curriculum. What data, what sort of is where yeah can we see the curriculum, so that the public may review it. Rather than just because I think that's something that's important that the Community, be able to. bring some feedback into that sort of policy and making i'm curious is officers are currently excuse me i'm My tmj is affecting how I speak today. Is officers know qpr training and the reason I asked this is because the majority of Much of the response and what we're seeing in our communities is that responses to neuro divergent. People often ends in the centrality and i'm curious if they're aware that qpr exists and to utilize those qpr tactics before responding when it with anything other than less than lethal for someone like that. kind of what i'm tying into that question is the recent clips of the Swedish officers that were tourists in New York City and amongst the four of them, they were able to break up a violent fight that. With their techniques of de escalation managed to. subdue those men, without any harm, like any fatal harm to them, and it seems like it was quite easy technique to execute and that there was some significant training for them to all be so coordinated, even on their personal time. 2) yeah Thank you, you had mentioned that a certain percentage of calls to police work for mental health issues, I wonder what the criteria are that you use to make that determination and if those are criteria you use when the call comes in, or only after it's been responded to thank you 3) Okay um so i'm a 40 year old one, almost 42 year old students have. an incredibly diverse school district in Dallas Texas, which was predominantly black and Brown. And we had a was Carter high school and I can tell you from my personal experience. That was a little over two decades ago. As sorrows only represented forces antagonism and a sense of internalized racism that perpetuates quite a lot of the bias that we see. That that are associated with as sorrows within the black and brown school systems and how a lot of those racist ideologies seep in and affect the quality of care and the quality of safety that our children have and the protections of a checklist policing. With that just simply can't be met without a cultural understanding of how we correct our youth and how elders within the Multi economies. Of of communities that exist here how we call in our youth and how we correct our youth. And how this way is not the way for children, children should not be policed children should not go to school in and fear this authoritarian influence around them and instill so they can get a quality education. And I disagree with having a sorrows as being a child of a family of several generations of students who've passed through the SRO system only to experience how much of my family had been affected by it. Because they were sucked in by that vortex of the school to prison pipeline, of having friends people I love who go to prison. For you know youthful folly that ends up being criminalized because there's an SRO officer there's an SRO rather than an elder right or. Not um and it bothers me that you don't have K PR and that that sorrow officers who are in our schools in a state that has such highest. numbers of youth self harm and you've completion that you don't have officers that are qpr trained. it's it's it's disturbing to note that this is the first time you're hearing of it when it's existed for quite a while. And i'm wondering why there seems to be quite a lot of reinvention of processes when there's already good stuff that works out there right and why that just not simply being incorporated in that current training. modalities it's just, we need to keep our kids safe and COP have no business in our school. Maybe surrounding perimeters and and that sort of thing, but we need to have a. You know, principles and you know ways of being able to de escalate, even in like I said in the most dangerous situations, so the evidence that we can do that to do want to. Comment from Spanish line: (Diego Munoz)(Salt Lake City)() There’s not security at RosePark school, we’d like to see a police officer there watching the kids. Facebook comments: to be provided by staff REPSLC Survey Name Response Rubina Halwani Tawnya Keller Benjamin Petrie Connor Arrington Lynn A Hanson Steve Woodall Angelica Brian Anonymous Jon Chu Moni Candia Venis Marie Weaver Justin Merrill Gayle Dawes John Allen Shaw Janet K. Cook Gretchen Krebs Answered 17 Skipped 3 Policies and Practices Can we agree that any police officer with 17+ "excessive use of force complaints" (like Derek Chauvin) should be dismissed from the force and prevented from serving in other jurisdictions? How many officers would be ousted? I am a liberal Democrat living on the West Side of Salt Lake. I am all for police reform and holding bad cops accountable, but the whole mayor in city council approach about hands off the homeless and de-funding the place is ridiculous. I called 911 I said your call will be answered in the order was received. We should not defund the place we should actually give them more money for diversity training and the independent investigation team that has nothing to do with the police force. (1 of 2) It is not the case that 1 bad apple spoils the bunch, be it police officers or any other groups of people, that is an unfair generalization. Cops risk their lives daily to keep us safe, and SLCPD needs resources, recognition and respect so they can do their jobs, and also get training to address community concerns. (2 of 2) In RP/FP, I am saddened to see homeless camps, drug activity on North Temple, stolen vehicles, trespassers, a trashed Jordan River Trail, gang houses w/ bullets fired into the air; it really comes off like the city is neglecting the area, &amp; cops can't do their jobs effectively. We must empower the community &amp; create change, but we also have to empower SLCPD, else we will continue to lose good cops, our property values will decline and you'll lose residents to bordering neighborhoods. I would suggest adopting policies and training procedures that have worked in other places— the texts KUER series, Mountain West News Bureau series "Elevated Risk," a project powered by America Amplified, had some very good reporting. Expanding the focus of police to deesculation and as a link to other social services would be a good direction. This past weekend, I witnessed a horrific &amp; brutal police response to a women who was suicidal!! My neighbors &amp; I were appalled by the way the police drug the distraught women down our hall, hitting her head on the wall, which caused bleeding &amp; tasing her more than 3 times. The department needs to scrutinize each applicant; member of any hate groups, write- ups for excessive force, signs of racism &amp; lack of self-control. SLCPD Training We have a huge gang/drug issue in SLC, west of I-15 and in the Fairpark/Rose Park/Poplar Grove area. I bought in Rose Park to raise my baby daughters (we moved from New York), but if the neighborhood doesn't improve, I'll sell and move somewhere where it's safer. I see many complaints about teens firing guns into the air, theft and petty gang things that need to be addressed with a hard hand. None. They are already well trained they just have 0 leadership. That's why so many officers that can are leaving. I'm so excited my loved one will be leaving soon and won't miss the Hitleresc mayor and city council. Also, wondering how much taxpayer dollars were wasted on the bikini top masks when people are going hungry. SLCPD officers need Procedural Justice training to improve their interactions in the community. You can read the report of a random sample, controlled study showing how Procedural Justice training reduced police officers' use of force in the field: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12337 School Safety Students/children should not be treated as criminals. They should not feel that they are not safe. Security officers should be only against an outside threat. Untitled Activity count 11 Participant count 28 Average responses 10.09091 What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 16 Unique participants 16 Response options Count Percent Sugarhouse 4 25 Downtown/Central City 3 18.75 Glendale/Poplar Grove 1 6.25 Rosepark/NW Quadrant 1 6.25 Liberty Wells 2 12.5 Avenues/University/East Bench 2 12.5 I don't live in Salt Lake City 3 18.75 What is your race or ethnicity?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 17 Unique participants 17 Response options Count Percent American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 Black or African American 3 17.65 African 0 0 Hispanic, Latino, Chicano 5 29.41 Middle Eastern 0 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 11.76 Southeast Asian 0 0 White 6 35.29 Other Race, Ethnicity 1 5.88 What do you most want the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to help change?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 19 Unique participants 19 Response options Count Percent Training 5 26.32 Policies and Practices 12 63.16 School Safety 2 10.53 Other 0 0 What else should the Racial Equity in Policing Commission be focused on changing?Activity type Open ended Total responses 5 Unique participants 5 Responses Resources for mental health and addiction Increase in funding. More mental health workers and fewer police Policing culture Cultural changes within the department What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Training subcommittee?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 15 Unique participants 15 Response options Count Percent Very good 7 46.67 Good 2 13.33 Neutral/Unsure 3 20 Not great 2 13.33 Very concerning 1 6.67 What else should the Training subcommittee know?Activity type Open ended Total responses 9 Unique participants 8 Responses Trainers need to be from the neighborhood people that know the inns and the outs in the I particularly appreciate the recommendation that trainers themselves need to be diverse and representative of the community I would like to know more about how the training will promote Racial Equity Training must be paired with accountability for consistent and sustainable behavior change I believe that we need more officers than what we are coming up with for helping defuse mental health situations we also need more social Please train these folks by including citizens Thank you so much for your time and commitment to our community Focus on ongoing efforts in the mix with point in time trainings as change takes time I'd like them trained to do their job without What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Policies and Procedures subcommittee?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 8 Unique participants 8 Response options Count Percent Very good 3 37.5 Good 2 25 Neutral/Unsure 2 25 Not great 1 12.5 Very concerning 0 0 What else should the Policies and Practices subcommittee know?Activity type Open ended Total responses 9 Unique participants 7 Responses What about 911 dispatchers? Are they being trained to gather information to relay to police What are you doing to stop officers from profiling black and blown people while driving? My husband is black and is pulled over what about a CTR type training? I believe that's what the caller was referring to Were there any findings that changed your I'd like the REP commission to also look at the calls made to 911 by the public and if there are ways that calls for service which may be themselves based in racism can be weeded out Will the bias assessment be required and lead decision-making in the application process for prospective officers AND performance reviews of Great work to the committee. Thank you. Is there thought to taking infractions out of police purview? Like traffic stops and things like c What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the School Safety subcommittee?Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 7 Unique participants 7 Response options Count Percent Very good 4 57.14 Good 1 14.29 Neutral/Unsure 0 0 Not great 0 0 Very concerning 2 28.57 What else should the School Safety subcommittee know?Activity type Open ended Total responses 4 Unique participants 4 Responses In a predominate white state and even school environment, having SRO is what makes many young people of color uncomfortable. This had not only been seen in high school, but students of color are also against that in higher education. Involve students in decisions about who their SRO will be and how they are asked to interact with students, to determine what will impact The issue is less the officers at the schools but that the school administration is using them improperly and calling on them to do things they Police shouldn't be in schools. Why not the mental health workers instead? What else should the Racial Equity in Policing Commission know?Activity type Open ended Total responses 2 Unique participants 2 Responses Integration! coffee SLC Text Survey Comments I had one experience with a policeman in spring 2020, he pulled me over for speeding, he was kind and gave me a warning. The other experience has been through friend’s Instagram video stories during the 2020 summer protest, seeing police running at peacefu l-unarmed protesters in live video freaked me out. One of my friends son was also injured by police and had to go to the hospital. I've never been in a situation where a police officer has helped me. I have, however, been pulled over several times by the same officer on the same stretch of road for incredibly minor infractions; perhaps a financial quota was about due. Cops have never prevented my property from being vandalized, my possessions from being stolen, my car broken into, or myself from being harassed, nor did any police interaction from said event amount to any compensation of any kind; merely a waste of time. Cops don't prevent the vast majority of crime. Defund the police and invest in community resources My biracial son, half East Indian, half white has been stopped multiple times as he was walking home from school or a friend’s house by cops and asked what he is doing in the neighborhood where he lives. I have sought the advice of my lawyer and I am prepared for future racial profiling. I am d isgusted, disappointed, and wholly unsurprised that this is the relationship law enforcement is developing with my son as he enters adolescence. Of course there needs to be robust diversity training. I'm glad the commission wants to make improvements, but I don't understand why it's putting the question to the public. Was the intensity of the Black Lives Matter protests in SLC IN 2020 insufficient evidence that communities of color in our state have a problematic relationship with police at BEST, and deadly at WORST? Was that not an expression of public opinion? It bothers me that the question is being treated as though it remains unanswered. No doubt there will be an array of responses including many that will say it is unnecessary or it does no good. Does the commission intend to give weight to those opinions with such a cloud of evidence that the policing of communities of color in the state is faulty and inadequate? How do you think school resource officers should improve school safety? School staff need s to take care of routine discipline. SROs should only be involved when there is criminal activity. Reduce the number of kids in the school to prison pipeline. Efforts to do that are not just the responsibility of the police. School staff and parents must also play a role. Stop working at schools. SRO’s only contribute to the school -to-prison pipeline What else would you like the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to know? No one in this commission should have ties to the police in my opinion to avoid bias DEFUND. THE. POLICE. Item C4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE:Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations for Fiscal Year 2021 – 2022 MOTION 1A – ADOPT I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the Capital Improvement Program project-specific allocations for Fiscal Year 2021 – 2022 as shown on the attached Exhibit A Funding Log. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move the Council not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6 CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D NEW INFORMATION Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application (Attachment 12) The Administration provided a response requesting a discussion about policy guidance for when a CIP application could be disqualified. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the potential disqualification examples listed below. Policy guidance for CIP could be further discussed and developed later such as requesting the Administration propose specific amendments to the guiding CIP resolution (Attachment 1). There is no deadline for updating CIP policies (not subject to the September 1 project budget adopted deadline). - Application is less than the $50,000 minimum - Application is more than $500,000 or another maximum amount the Council could establish - Proposed project would violate City Code - Proposed project would violate a City policy or position in an adopted master plan or similar policy document - Phasing out street reconstruction CIP applications in favor of the existing worst-first, data-driven approach that incorporates rotation between Council Districts to improve geographic equity Interim Update: Construction Mitigation Funding and Guide for Businesses (Attachment 15) The Administration shared the attached guide for businesses impacted by construction in the public right of way which is often a street reconstruction or underground utility improvements. The guide provides an overview of Project Timeline: Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021 1st Briefing: June 1, 2021 2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021 3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021 4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021 5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Note: The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project specific funding is approved by September 1. Page | 2 the construction process, what a business can expect during construction, recommendations actions a business can take to mitigate impacts, shares key information from the contractor perspective and shares website for outside organizations and City departments that can provide additional resources. The Council also asked to what extent construction mitigation funding is included in street reconstruction project funding requests. Engineering responded that mitigation costs are included in project budgets but not separated out as a line item. Mitigation for street reconstruction includes the new guide (Attachment 15), driver signage, community and business outreach, in-person and/or virtual meetings and individualized responses to impacted businesses. Mitigation costs will begin to be identified as a separate line item in street reconstruction projects moving forward. In the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved $100,000 from the General Fund for the Department of Economic Development to provide small business outreach and support during large capital projects in the public right of way. The funding is contingent upon the Administration determining by August 31 if the program is or could be tailored to be eligible for ARPA. If the program is ARPA eligible, then $200,000 would be available of which the funding source for the initial $100,000 would be swapped for ARPA instead of the General Fund. The Department reported earlier this month that they gathered information on currently impacted small businesses (such as along 300 West reconstruction corridor) and are in the process of finalizing the program. Legislative Intent: Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of One-time Surplus Land Fund The Council may wish to request the Administration consider the FY20 legislative intent when developing the FY23 annual budget. Moving property maintenance expenses into the base budgets for the Facilities Division (Public Services Department) and/or Real Estate Services (Community and Neighborhoods Department) was not part of the FY21 or FY22 annual budget because of the financial uncertainty facing the City during the pandemic. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift ongoing funding for a CIP-related FTE away from the one-time Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget. The $200,000 funding level has not increased in several years and has lost purchasing power due to inflation. This ongoing expense is related to the size of vacant City-owned properties. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the Administration’s efforts to update the inventory of City-owned properties especially as it relates to vacant properties. The Administration reports a precise accounting of vacant property maintenance expenses is difficult because it involves personnel costs for call-backs after hours, overtime, lost productivity time and supplies. The Facilities Division does bill CAN for some of these costs, but personnel costs cannot be billed in that manner. The largest expense has been for security services such as break-ins, trespassing and vandalism. The Administration continues to investigate a contracted approach with an outside property management company to perform basic maintenance and respond to alarms especially after normal business hours. Unanimous Straw Poll for Balanced Budget At the August 17 briefing, the Council held a follow-up discussion on the six projects proposed for funding adjustments from the July 20 briefing. The Council took a straw poll to tentatively support the balanced budget for project funding. The Council could change project funding before the final vote scheduled for the formal meeting on August 24. The balanced budget includes adding additional funding to the 1.5% for Art fund to maintain the funding level, fully funding four of the six projects identified on July 20, partially funding a fifth project, and intending to fully fund using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars for Odyssey House’s request of structural renovations to the City-owned Annex Building. Additional information on these projects is summarized below. 1.5% for Art (Funding Log Project #1) Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Use of the funds is overseen by the Arts Council. The ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks as part of CIP projects. The Council indicated via straw poll to increase funding to maintain the 1.5% for Art level based on the $1 million General Funds added to CIP above the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Odyssey House Annex Building Renovation (Funding Log Project #3) This project provides significant renovation of the City-owned Annex Building (623 South 200 East) which is Page | 3 leased by Odyssey House. Currently, the Annex has a multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully fund the $500,000 request in the next FY2021-22 budget amendment using ARPA funds. Winner on Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction (Funding Log Project #54) This project would replace four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current tennis bubble. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully fund the $400,000 reduced cost estimate based on a bid received for the tennis courts reconstruction. The community has raised over $500,000 to purchase a new tennis bubble that will be installed over the new concrete courts. Harrison Ave and 700 East Community Garden (Funding Log Project #57) This project would establish a community garden on City-owned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and reduce barriers to urban food production. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully fund the request. Wingate Walkway (Funding Log Project #59) This project would remove and transplant trees, relocate a power pole, fencing, and construction of a multi-use path that will connect Redwood Meadows Park to the intersection of 500 North and Redwood Road. The improved access and walkability will serve residents living east of the park. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully fund the request. Capitol Hill Traffic Calming (Funding Log Project #68) The project includes potential locations and several types of traffic calming improvements (speed tables, crosswalk and bike lane striping, pedestrian bulb-outs and refuge islands, etc.) based on public engagement over the past year and a half. The Transportation Division is ready to go back to the residents and finalize traffic improvement locations and types. The project uses a neighborhood-scale approach to traffic calming which is preferable to street by street because it avoids pitting residents against each other. The Council indicate via straw poll to fully fund the request. Sugar House Safe Side Streets (Funding Log Project #72) Improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. The Council agreed to phase the project into two parts with part one including a study, designs, and some traffic calming improvements. The second phase funding request would return to the Council in future rounds of CIP.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Potential Council Changes to Project Funding At the July 20 briefing, the Council discussed potential changes to the proposed project-specific funding including applications not recommended for any funding by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. Council Members identified specific projects they are interested in fully or partially funding which are listed below. The Council may wish to discuss which revenue changes to address (General Fund and Class C recaptures and ARPA eligibilities) before identifying project funding shifts including additional funding to % for Art and Cost Overrun Account. More on these issues are provided below the list of Council Member identified potential project funding changes. -#3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovation $500,000 Request – Council Member Valdemoros expressed interest in fully funding this project which is recommended for partial funding of $300,000 by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. She also supports using American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funding for the full request which would free up $300,000 of General Fund dollars for other projects or uses. -#54 Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction $500,000 Request – Council Member Dugan expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. He noted that the tennis courts provide a service across the City for residents of all ages and socioeconomic levels and that approximately a third of the 1,000 participants are estimated to come from Council District Six. The local community has fundraised approximately $600,000 for a bubble to go around the tennis courts which are owned by the City. Reconstruction of the courts with reinforce concrete is necessary before the Page | 4 bubble could be installed. If the project was fully funded, then it would be the only year-round tennis court bubble in the City. -#57 Harrison Avenue and 700 East Community Garden $103,500 Request – On behalf of Council Member Mano (attending another obligation at the time), Council Members Wharton, Valdemoros and Dugan indicated he was interested in fully funding this constituent application. It was noted that the community gardens in the City have been poplar and every location is thought to have a waiting list. -#59 Wingate Walkway $286,750 Request – Council Member Rogers expressed interest in funding this constituent application. The cost includes removing and replanting mature trees, relocating utility boxes, installing a new 540-foot-long fence and a new concrete path. Planting new trees instead of attempting to relocate mature trees is estimated to decrease the cost by $67,500. -#68 Capital Hill Traffic Calming $595,194 Request – Council Members Rogers and Wharton expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. It was submitted in FY21 but did not proceed in CIP last year because of the abbreviated process. The application includes potential locations and types of traffic calming improvements based on public engagement over the past year and a half. The Transportation Division is ready to go back to the residents and finalize traffic improvement locations and types including East Capitol Hill BLVD. The neighborhood is a gateway into the City from the Northwest. They mentioned this is a life safety project and that there were fatal accidents in the project area in recent years. The project uses a neighborhood scale approach to traffic calming which is preferable than street by street because it avoids pitting residents against each other. They noted the Administration is preparing to send the Council a proposal for traffic calming across the City as a program but it’s not ready at this time. Their preference is to fund this life safety project as part of CIP in FY22 and it can be a model for other neighborhood scale traffic calming efforts in the citywide program. -#72 Sugar House Safe Side Streets $500,000 Request – Council Member Fowler mentioned the applicant and assigned transportation engineer had developed a modified proposal to phase the project. The phases include (1) $50,000 study and (2) $450,000 construction, engineering fees and contingency. An modified proposal for a smaller project was (1) $35,000 study and (2) $265,000 construction, engineering fees and contingency. Council Member Fowler stated she would like to fund either the $50,000 study or the modified smaller project for $300,000. Potential Increase to % for Art and Cost Overrun Accounts The Council added $1,001,415 of new General Fund dollars to CIP above what was in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget (not counting recaptured funding from completed CIP projects). If the Council wants to continue the recommended funding level to the 1.5% for Art Fund, then $15,021 would need to be allocated from the $1,001,415. The Council could decide to add this amount entirely to the Art Maintenance Fund (created by the Council this past Spring) or the New Art Fund. Another option is to split between the two accounts. The new Art Maintenance Fund has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available. The Cost Overrun Account would need $24,575 to continue the funding level. During the FY22 annual budget deliberations Council staff reviewed CIP accounts older than three years per the CIP guiding resolution (Attachment 1). The Cost Overrun Account has a total available to spend balance of $750,606 after including $100,000 from FY2016 and $219,780 from FY2019. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Eligibility Added to Funding Log (See Attachment 2 for the Funding Log, Attachment 13 for a map of qualified census tracts, and Attachment 14 for the ARPA Budget Update Infographic) The CIP Funding Log has been updated to identify projects that are fully or partially eligible for ARPA funding. This is shown in red text in the Application Title column on the left side of the log. The available funding without mayoral or advisory board spending recommendations could significantly change to the extent the Council wants to use ARPA funding for CIP projects. It’s important to note that some of the projects in the Mayor’s proposed $58 million sales tax bond are also partially or fully eligible for ARPA funding. At the July 20 briefing, Council Members expressed interest in using ARPA funding for the full $500,000 request from Odyssey House (project #3) which has a $300,000 funding recommendation from the advisory Board and Mayor. Council Members discussed using the $300,000 from the General Fund for other CIP projects. Page | 5 The U.S. Treasury Department provided updated guidance this summer that improving outdoor spaces like parks can be an eligible use of ARPA funding. This expansion of eligible uses is in addition to broadband, sewer, and water infrastructure improvements. The investments in outdoor spaces must be in Qualified Census Tracts as determined by the Federal Government which can viewed here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sadda/sadda_qct.html The FY22 CIP Projects that are ARPA eligible include: - #3 Odyssey House 100% eligible for $500,000 - #4 Street Improvements 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter up to $450,000 of the total estimated $3 million cost in FY22 for local street reconstructions - #13 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 100% eligible for $484,146 - #14 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 100% eligible for $150,736 - #19 Downtown Green Loop partially eligible all of project may not be in a qualified census tract - #22 Poplar Grove Sportcourt 100% eligible for $433,333 - #25 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 100% eligible for $510,000 - #29 200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter up to $1.8 million of the total estimated $12 million cost - #37 900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements for drainage / curb and gutter up to $375,000 of the total estimated $2.5 million cost - #46 Bridge Rehabilitation at 400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River is partially ARPA eligible. The bridges were damaged in the March 2020 earthquake. The 650 North bridge needs to be replaced at an estimated cost of $5.6 million. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding. o Note that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was recently approved by the Senate (pending approval by the House and the President’s signature) currently includes $12.5 billion for “economically significant bridges” nationally, $16 billion for major projects that deliver substantial economic benefits, and $225 million for bridge replacements and repairs in Utah. One or both bridges might qualify under the three categories of Federal infrastructure funding. - #64 9Line Asphalt Pump Track portion of the project is eligible for $615,777 but the Rose Park portion is outside of a qualifying census tract The proposed $58 million bond includes two projects that might be eligible for ARPA funding. Both projects would provide park improvements at multiple locations. Improvements at locations within qualified census tracts (see map in Attachment 13) would be eligible for ARPA. - $1.2 million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage partially eligible TBD until more details available - $4 million West Side Neighborhood parks partially eligible TBD until more details available Four Fire Department Applications Additional Info (projects #10, #11, #51 and #52) Some Council Members requested further details on the four Fire Department applications: - #10 Training Tower - #11 Single Family Prop - #51 Mixed-use Prop and - #52 Fire Training Ground Improvements The applications are on the Funding Log in order of the Department’s priorities, that is, the Training Tower is their top priority, and the Fire Training Ground Improvements is their lowest priority. In addition to Salt Lake Page | 6 City Fire Department, all the facilities are used by other fire departments in the metropolitan area. Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice. #10 would significantly upgrade the nine-story main fire training facility to keep the training props functional (near end of life) and improve the safety systems. The tower has been in use since the 1970s and some features are obsolete including physical equipment and software. 20 years ago, the tower was updated to include computer operated natural gas fire training props. Finding replacement parts is becoming difficult and the training tower will no longer be an option for live fire training. The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and installing here in SLC to keep it operating. The four areas for fire simulation are a car, apartment, industrial and high-rise. This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings (this is the only facility in Utah that offers natural gas props training). #11 is located next to the tower in #10 and the single-family prop is showing significant wear and tear. The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure to simulate more realistic situations. The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many neighborhoods in the City have that type of building. #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck. It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current engineering standards. This prop would be capable of supporting fire in three different areas and many areas for search and rescue, ventilation, and other important firefighter training. #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics facility. The former fire station was remodeled to include two classrooms, training staff offices and a recruit area. The logistics building is a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. Approximately 45,000 square feet is unused space. The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training including significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles (this would provide a more suitable area for vehicle extrication training). A security fence would also be added to the property possibly including lighting, runoff control, and some landscaping around the perimeter of the property. Timeline for Poplar Grove Park New Sport Court The Administration states that the project is estimated to begin in the first quarter of next year and construction could be completed in the second quarter of 2023. This timeline is dependent upon Engineering capacity Allen Park Funding and Projects Additional Info (project #21) Some Council Members requested further details on how the $450,000 for Allen Park in FY21 CIP relates to the $420,000 requested in FY22 CIP (project #21) and the $1.3 million in the Mayor’s proposed bond. The Administration provided the below response about the three different amounts. “$450K in reallocated Bond Funds (“Allen Park Urgent Property Protection, Planning & Public Access”) provided in 2020: These funds are being used for critical infrastructure upgrades, securing/stabilizing some of the houses, and laying the groundwork for an Adaptive Re-use and Activation Plan, as described in my email yesterday. Two answer two specific questions raised by CM Fowler: (1) we are using these funds to establish power to facilitate food trucks, art & music events, and are gearing up for a series of monthly art events running September through December 2021, and (2) water and septic systems currently on the property are completely unusable, so full utility upgrades are required. We are working to address these upgrades with this funding source to the extent that funds allow and will target additional utility upgrades with Community Reinvestment Bond Funds. $420K in requested FY22 CIP funding (“Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park”) potentially approved September 2021: The scope of the Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park CIP Project includes development of plan sets, construction documents and cost estimates for improvements that further the public vision for re-activation of the space, and in particular the historic structures, as a home for the ongoing creation of artwork, in a form that is available for the public to enjoy and appreciate. These funds would also facilitate the completion of the Allen Park Adaptive Reuse & Activation Plan, with additional public & stakeholder engagement. $1,300,000 in requested Community Reinvestment Bond Funds: These funds will be used in large part to construct structural, safety and functional improvements for historic structures, with the goal of utilizing them as separate art studio spaces and a restroom / supplies washroom. It is difficult to say Page | 7 how many buildings and studio spaces will be made fully functional with these funds until construction documents are corresponding cost estimates are completed. We anticipate a small portion of the funds will go toward repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen Property, and possibly to support modest lighting and landscaping upgrades and/or improvements to pathways throughout the site.” Sugar House Local Link Study Construction Additional Info (project #32) Some Council Members requested details from the draft study about how the requested funding would be used to implement the recommendations. “Our top priority with the requested funding is to finish building out the Parley’s Trail on Highland Drive and Sugarmont Drive as shown in the image below. We anticipate that the improvements of Parley’s Trail and 1300 East will use all of the budget requested this year. We anticipate making this an annual request until these projects are completed. Note: this view is looking to the Northwest Essentially – we are talking about using this funding to help build and enhance the “green line” section that runs N-S on Highland Drive between Sugarmont Drive and the new Hawk signal near Sprague Library, and the section on Sugarmont between Highland Drive and the improvements that have been constructed by Boulder Ventures. We plan on doing much of this work with our Highland Drive reconstruction – but will still have a small gap between the Zions Bank property and the RDA property on Sugarmont, we also would like to use this funding to both construct that section and enhance the Highland Drive project to ensure that the elements we are planning on implementing with the reconstruction don’t get cut from the project due to budget constraints. Sections of the Parley’s Trail on private property (orange lines through Sugar House Comments, or Red line through the Shopko block) would require additional coordination with developers as these properties redevelop.” #33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway Some Council Members asked how these three CIP applications are related and to what extent they overlap in allowable uses. The Administration provided the below response about the three different applications. “#33 Corridor Transformations is generally considered to address arterial or collector “through” streets, compared to neighborhood byways which use smaller residential streets that are often not continuous. #42 Kensington Byway generally would not be considered as part of this programmatic request. Page | 8 Corridor Transformations originally requested $856,042 with a budget detail showing $406,200 to 600/700 North ($572,742 including engineering design, construction management, contingency, etc); $130,000 to 2100 South ($183,300 with fees and contingency); and $100,000 to initiate a corridor study of South Temple, a priority ranked street from Transportation’s equity and project prioritization analysis. #36 Neighborhood Byways is the programmatic request that is analogous to the Kensington Neighborhood Byway. Yes, these funds could instead be used to fund Kensington, but at the cost of eliminating or significantly reducing two other neighborhood byways on which the Transportation Division has already been conducting civic engagement: $277,096 for the 800 East Neighborhood Byway Phase 1 design (800 South to 2700 S, following out of 2020’s Open Streets neighborhood interest, enthusiasm, and support); and $597,904 for the Poplar Grove Neighborhood Byway network (remaining intersections not able to be constructed with recent CDBG grant). The programmatic request also included $35,000 to initiate community collaboration and project concept design for two new key neighborhood byways: Sugar House to the U, and Westpointe/Jordan Meadows. Additionally is proposed $100,000 to develop a neighborhood byway design manual and community collaboration toolkit which will make development of future neighborhood byways more streamlined and efficient. #42 Kensington Neighborhood Byway at the $500,000 funding level will serve as match to federal grants received by the Transportation Division from WFRC through the Transportation Alternatives Program (with overlapping extents to the CIP request), to provide a total project budget of approximately $1.5 million which will allow the byway to be constructed from West Temple to the McClelland Trail.” Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction Impact Fee Eligibility (project #54) The CIP application identifies this project as eligible for parks impact fee funding. However, upon further evaluation the Administration determined the project is ineligible for parks impact fee funding because there is no service level enhancement to account for population growth. The project is only replacing an existing use at the same service level. Construction Mitigation Funding in CIP Requests Some Council Members asked to what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of- way projects include funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects like the built-in contingency percentage. The Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000 construction mitigation funding. The Administration provided the following response: “In short, Engineering includes the cost of business construction mitigation in project budgets but not as an itemized line. Mitigation comprises a construction guide, signage, outreach, meetings, and personalized response to affected businesses. Going forward as project budgets are developed, the estimated cost for mitigation will be pulled out as a line item. The actual cost will depend on the number of businesses that are affected and the complexity and duration of the project. Economic Development is evaluating the proposed $200,000 construction mitigation program.” Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 8) The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up. The updated Attachment 8 includes the prior FY2019 (calendar year 2018) cost estimates next to a column showing the 2021 estimates. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate increases. The Engineering provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer- term trends. Overall, prices are estimated to be up 10% to 14% according to Engineering. Surplus Land Fund The current available to spend balance of the Surplus Land Fund is $2,287,531. See the Additional Info section for more on the Fund. Description for $3.4 Million Bond Investment in Westside Parks Page | 9 The Administration provided the below description for the $3.4 million investment in Westside Parks that is part of the Mayor’s proposed $58 million bond (Attachment 4). The Council is tentatively scheduled to hold separate briefings about that bond proposal later summer and/or fall. The $3.4 million listed in the bond proposal for Westside Parks will cover robust community engagement, park design and construction of new improvements to Modesto, Poplar Grove and Jackson Parks. Utilizing this funding for the Westside Parks is consistent with Strategy W-1 of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan which states “Neighborhood parks are designed and programmed to highlight the unique natural, historical, cultural and economic identity of the surrounding area and community in which they are located.” The policies that support this major strategy which will be included in the project scope include data collection on park use and engagement, engaging the surrounding community in the visioning of public spaces with particular emphasis on fostering engagement with under-represented groups, and enhancing community pride and placemaking characteristics within the parks. The overarching purpose of the funding is to create high-quality experiences within these parks. As defined by the Urban Land Institutei, high- quality parks are in excellent physical condition, are accessible to all potential users, provide positive experiences and are relevant to the communities they serve, and are flexible to changing circumstances. These are all standards that will be sustained in the development of this project. Based on these qualities, the specific goals for the Westside Parks project are as follows: Improve west side parks so that they are in excellent physical condition. Evaluate the condition of all assets to determine replacement or rehabilitation needs. Improve circulation in the park and access to the park so that it is accessible to all potential users. Create a circulation network in the park to encourage walking and improve access to park amenities and the neighborhood. Collaborate with the community to identify multiple uses and opportunities to a wide variety of users. This may include new passive recreation areas or new active recreation options. Include placemaking elements that are relevant to the communities they serve and accurately reflect the community character. This might include public art, interpretive signage or the development of special use or gathering areas. Improve the climate resilience of the landscape by reducing the amount of underutilized turf and replace it with a regionally appropriate and biodiverse planting composition and potential accompanying irrigation. Include more shade trees and pollinator gardens. Funding will specifically go towards hiring of a consultant for comprehensive public engagement and design, and a contractor for construction of the project. Project scope will be developed with public input and may need to be phased based on costs and funding capacity. At the July 13 briefing, the Council reviewed the full Funding Log (Attachment 2) and identified several follow up questions. Those questions were sent to the Administration and are copied below for reference. Responses are expected to be available for the August 17 briefing. Some Council Members also identified projects without a funding recommendation from the advisory board and the Mayor which they are interested in funding. Below are updates on changes to recapture funding amounts, the Administration’s responses to policy questions from June and project #75 the 600 North Corridor Transformation. Staff is working with the Administration to determine how much of project #3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovations is eligible for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and under new guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department if additional CIP projects may qualify. $150,753 Decrease in Class C (gas tax) Funds Recapture The Administration reports $150,753 is still needed of the $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funds from completed projects that the Council recaptured as part of the annual budget. This means the new recaptured balance is $58,228, and that a correction will need to be made in a budget amendment to move the $150,753 back to the original projects so pending invoices can be paid. The situation could be an example of a system improvement opportunity for communication between departments and divisions. The projects in question were completed from a construction and engineering perspective but some post-construction invoices have not been paid. The new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system might help in similar situations in the future by improving the City’s ability to track and coordinate on finances and assets. $38,334 Increase in General Fund Recapture Page | 10 The Administration reports $38,334 in additional General Fund dollars can be recaptured for use in FY22 CIP. Three projects were completed and had remaining funds encumbered but are no longer needed. This funding will need to be part of a budget amendment to formally be added into FY22 CIP since they were not part of the annual budget. General Fund dollars are the most flexible CIP funding source and can go to any project. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions (Attachment 12) The Administration’s responses to the Council’s policy questions are available in Attachment 12. The Administration will be available to discuss with the Council the responses and potential next steps at the July 20 meeting. The Council may wish to identify policy interests for follow up after adoption of the FY22 CIP project specific funding (September 1 deadline). Some of the issues could benefit from additional time and discussion to improve existing processes and policies. Project #75 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams, Preferred Concept and Goals See Attachments 10 and 11 The Transportation Division provided Attachment 10 which has diagrams of six segments along the corridor showing potential changes to the public right of way based on public engagement to-date. Public engagement included pop-up events, several meetings, community events before the pandemic, an online survey in the spring this year and presented to community councils. Attachment 11 is a longer document summarizing the narrative and goals for the current preferred concept. A final preferred concept is expected to be available later this summer or fall. Several funding sources (Federal, State, UTA and City) have been identified but the project is not yet fully funded. Note that the $58 million bond proposal includes $4 million for this project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but that may not be enough to fully fund the project given construction inflation the City experienced in other recent projects. Fully funding the street reconstruction would mean less disruption to the neighborhood (one construction period instead of two) and some modest mobilization cost savings and efficiencies from a consolidated design. Also, a final preferred concept based on more public engagement and updated engineering designs will inform the project’s total estimated cost later this year. Construction is expected to be done in phases. In recent years, the Council funded safety improvements to the 600 North and 800 West intersection and a study of the 600 North Corridor. The total corridor is from 2200 West to Wall Street with three primary segments within: 2200 West to Redwood Road, Redwood Road to I-15, and then several blocks from I-15 to Wall Street. The project builds upon the upcoming Frequent Transit bus route on 600 North which is part of implementing the City’s Transit Master Plan with UTA. For example, the partnership with UTA includes new bus stops and improvements to existing bus stops along the corridor. UTA is paying for those new and improved bus stops and long-term maintenance. The City is paying for the concrete pads. Council Follow Up Questions to Administration The below questions were sent to the Administration following the July 13 briefing. Responses are expected to be available for the Council’s August 17 CIP briefing. What is the available to spend balance of: o The Art Maintenance Fund? o The New Art Fund? o The CIP Cost Overrun Account? o The Surplus Land Fund? Could you please help update the attached spreadsheet listing general cost estimates for regular CIP projects? This was last updated in July 2019 and we know costs for some construction materials have experienced significant inflation during the pandemic. And feel free to add rows for new projects if departments think those additions would be helpful. Is the FY22 list of projects for the Facilities capital asset replacement need to be updated given that the FY21 funding was recaptured for the emergency Central Plant boiler replacements? Could you please provide a written description of the $3.4 million for westside parks that’s listed as part of the $58 million bond proposal? The bond is separate from but related to CIP and this information Page | 11 would help the Council evaluate the City’s overall investments in parks and public lands and individual project proposals. #10 Training Tower, #11 Single Family Prop, #51 Mixed-use Prop and #52 Fire Training Ground Improvements – Is there a comparison available between these four fire applications to help the Council understand the similarities, differences, benefits, locations, etc? My recollection from the advisory board presentation is that: o The order on the funding log is the Fire Department’s order of priority between the four projects o #10 would significantly upgrade the nine story main fire training facility It’s been in use since the 1970s and the tower is almost obsolete The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and installing here in SLC to keep it operating There are four areas for fire simulation and all are nearing end of life This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings o #11 is located next to the tower in #10 The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure There are five different training areas The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many neighborhoods in the City with that type of building o #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current engineering standards There are eight training areas o #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics facility Approximately 45,000 square feet of unused space The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training Add significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles A security fence would also be added to the property All of the facilities are used by other fire departments in the area Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice #22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt – Could you please provide a general timeline for this project? #33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway – To what extent do these three funding requests overlap in allowable uses? Are there elements of #42 that could be funded by #33 and/or #36? #32 Local Link Construction – Could you please provide some details from the draft study about how this funding would be used? For example, is there an implementation and projects section that could be shared with the Council? We understand this funding request is intended to provide general flexibility for complete street enhancements to planned reconstructions but additional examples at specific locations would be helpful context. #54 Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction – What percentage of this project is parks impact fees eligible? Council-added Funding to CIP As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund revenues. The added funding includes three components: - $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project. Page | 12 - $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously completed projects. - $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law. Updated Funding Log Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several other improvements. The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log: - The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference. - The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal - The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with further details. - The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding. - The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations. - The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect funds that have not been appropriated to an application. - Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff. Policy Questions Update Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration. Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied below: - To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000 construction mitigation funding. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include outside applications. As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from projects that finished under budget or were not pursued. Page | 13 Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less than last year. $5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees. $456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed. The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue increases. $5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below. $5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). $10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22 project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall, debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21. Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed 2 0 19 -2 0 A do p t ed 2 0 2 0 -2 1 Pro p o sed 2 0 2 1-2 2 FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2 $ C h an ge FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2 % C h an ge Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 % Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 % Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 % I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 % CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 % Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 % SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 % Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 % TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 % TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 % *I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re **Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le ab o v e ***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include: FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts. Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan). Page | 14 Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending. An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects. No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process, rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations (See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book) Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below. - The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not recommended for funding or less than full funding. - Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets. - Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets. Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available (See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores) The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide. Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal (See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects) Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6 million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58 million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include: $19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total) - $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade - $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization - $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions - $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements - $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration - $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs Page | 15 $11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total) - $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation - $1 Million for cemetery road repairs - $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings) Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond. More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone. $26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total) - $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage - $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South - $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures - $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks - $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project - $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park - $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point. Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a long-term horizon. $TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the 9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc. $133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair $50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s Fleet needs $47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance $25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs $20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South $6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex $3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement $1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349 Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years (Attachment 9) The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2 million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings. Council Member Rogers’ Proposal During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street Page | 16 transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding. The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of the 600 North corridor. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing individual CIP projects. $19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total) $11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total) $26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total) 2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations. 3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the worst first based on a data-driven process, etc. 4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. 5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent: The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget. 6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly Page | 17 reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. 7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23. 8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests. 9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7) The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense. Cost Overrun Account The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months. Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7) The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets / transportation impact fees. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away - Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away - Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017 Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Impact Fee Eligibility Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s Page | 18 common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest. CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26 (Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond) The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21. The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding). This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase. 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100% FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-2 4 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP Debt Se r vice On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitments Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts 1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks) Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also Page | 19 oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6) The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide prioritization of project planning. Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8) Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August. County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and Class C funds (next section). Class C Funds (gas tax) Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for: 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way 3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund) 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals 5. Engineering and administration costs 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects 7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards 8. Matching federal funds 9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis Page | 20 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys 12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating 13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible) Roadway Selection Committee The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND, Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection process includes: Public requests for individual road repair On-going costs to keep a road safely passable Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor Safety improvement goals and crash data Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities replacements, repairs, or upgrades Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources. CIP Planning Technology Improvements The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017 2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing 3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff report for the June 1 Council meeting 4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B 5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes 6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019 7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021) 8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019) 9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture 10. 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams Draft 11. 600 North Corridor Transformation Preferred Concept, Narrative and Goals Draft 12. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions 13. Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department 14. ARPA Budget Update Infographic ACRONYMS CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board CFP – Capital Facilities Plan CIP – Capital Improvement Program ESCO – Energy Service Company FTE – Full-time Employee FY – Fiscal Year G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Page | 21 RDA – Redevelopment Agency RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017 (Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.) R 17-1 R 17-13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds, Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement Program funds and other similar funding sources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software). Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project." 2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May. 3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration : a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital program period; b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one- year capital budget. 4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects that: a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies , establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding . 8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely manner. 9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor , and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above. 10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1) year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which reads as follows: a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still required. b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: 1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of $100,000 or less; ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo. c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees. d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval. e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening. However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting." 12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. 13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account. 14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold. 15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance, changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log. 16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible, capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the General Fund budget. 17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s) should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist. 18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects funding log should identify: a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's funding recommendations, b. The Administration's funding recommendations, c. The project name and a brief summary of the project, d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type, e. The project life expectancy, f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area, g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger project, h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded separately, 1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together, j. Timing for when a project will come on-line, k. Whether the project implements a master plan, 1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or sustainability goals, m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund, n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions, o. Communities served, p. Legal requirements/mandates, q. Whether public health and safety is affected, r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and t. Any partner organizations . Debt Management Policies 1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs. 2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings. 3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds. 4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating implications). 6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance. 7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry . 8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt. 9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule. 10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of emergency. 11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating debt financing options . 12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments. 13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the project. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of October , 2017. ATTEST : HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By 4 = ASL CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____ Salt Lake City App ed As To Form By: ~~~~~~~.P aysen Oldroyd Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit 1 1.5% for Art Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks. The new Art Maintenance Fund has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available. $85,586 $34,500 $100,607 $34,500 2 Cost Overrun Account Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses that come in slightly higher than estimated. The available to spend balance of the Cost Overrun Account is $750,606. $114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000 3 Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 100% ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project Will be fully funded using ARPA dollars in the next budget amendment Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at this time. The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will cost about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be repaired, treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be restored to complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building. Following the roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural skeleton need to be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior walls need to be cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility have to be wholly replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot shut or lock because their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it will cost about $19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring, hardware, plumbing, etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500. Lastly, exterior site work, such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as permits, additional insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the renovation of the Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of $50,000 to prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall cost of $500,000. $300,000 4 Street Improvements 2021/2022 15% ARPA ELIGIBLE UP TO $450,000 Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance. $2,046,329 $2,046,329 5 Pavement Conditions Survey Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed maintenance activities. $3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429 6 Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. $75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 1 Exhibit A: Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project AllocationsDRAFT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 7 Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance. $21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571 8 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000 9 Capital Asset Replacement Program $19.2 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR SIX FACILITIES PROJECTS Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.) $1,252,230 $1,252,230 10 Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system, and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props. Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches. PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC: *New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter modules * Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery * Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10) * KFT Fire Trainer software * Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems * Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC. Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner assembly within the fire mock-up. $318,279 $318,279 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 11 Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include: One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required Burn baffles High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s), standard windows and doors, one (1) sliding door Hallway Vents with pull cable Cleanout cargo doors Freight to customer site On-site installation & set up to include: Full Project management support from Drager staff Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption Insured and bonded installation and crane service Train-the Trainer Program Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance $374,864 $374,864 12 Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request. The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included. $156,078 $156,078 13 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS 100% ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000 West. $484,146 $484,146 14 Three Creeks West Bank New Park $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS 100% ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council. Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and opened to the public in July 2021. $150,736 $150,736 15 Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review, analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020. $183,834 $183,834 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 16 Liberty Park Basketball Court Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two new basketball hoops.$99,680 $99,680 17 Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component $10 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR THIS PROJECT AND $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development. Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor, active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several phases and funding cycles. $3,200,000 $3,200,000 18 A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS AND $440,000 FOR JORDAN RIVER PADDLE SHARE Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods. Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river. The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm, and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been traditionally underrepresented. Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts: Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high- level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources, investments in programming, and strategic partnerships. $416,667 $416,667 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 19 Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park PARTIALLY ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park. Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include: • Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor • Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop. • Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure that may impact above ground improvements. • Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates. $610,000 $610,000 20 Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components: 1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred maintence projects and maintence. 2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go though a formal adoption process. 3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks and natural areas citywide. $354,167 $354,167 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 5 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 21 Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park $1.3 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR THIS PROJECT Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project • Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures • Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a restroom/supplies washroom. • Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops, and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor dining. • Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer connection on 1300 East. • Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed connection to the decorative fountains. • Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive, adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway. • High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and 1500 East. $420,000 $420,000 22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS 100% ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community. This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project includes: • Engagement with the community on project preference • Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement • Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction • Construction of post-tension court facility • Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches • Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks • Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas $433,333 $433,333 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 6 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 23 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development $5 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to better accommodate the growing trail network. Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road. Concepts are attached. Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23 Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration Canyon. Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations. If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on all foothill trails funding. $1,304,682 $1,304,682 24 SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions $5 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational access. For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use. If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the Administration about the proposed property purchases. $425,000 $425,000 25 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS AND $1.2 MILLION FOR PUBLIC LANDS SIGNAGE 100% ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi- use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed. $510,000 $510,000 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 7 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 26 RAC Playground with Shade Sails $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project Cost Estimates $300,000- Playground materials and construction $150,000- Design, engineering and contingency This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex. The full scope of this project includes: • Design for a new playground for ages 5-12 • Development of technical drawings • Grading and surfacing preparations • Playground Construction • Walkway and fencing Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects $180,032 $180,032 27 700 South Westside Road Configuration Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime, reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community. Cost – provided by SLC Engineering Traffic Circle Construction Crosswalk Construction 2-3 Planted Medians Clearly defined traffic lines. Useful Life – >10 years Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets $223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000 28 Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the intersection and a raised median) $85,000 $85,000 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 8 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 29 200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 15% ARPA ELIGIBLE UP TO $1.8 MILLION OF TOTAL PROJECT COST Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and $2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes: • Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions. • In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops. • Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping, sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes. The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases, specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards. $37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800 30 900 South 9Line RR Crossing Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at- grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that would be used to: • Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000 • Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000. • Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around $30,000 for all three. • Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically around $120,000. • Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to construction, typically around $10,000. • Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000) $28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 9 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 31 Trails Maintenance Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used year round. $200,000 $200,000 32 Local Link Construction Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances). $50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000 33 Corridor Transformations Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include 600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop. $25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 10 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 34 Area Studies Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly- developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area. These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area, following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances). $14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000 35 400 South Viaduct Trail Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes. $310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000 36 Neighborhood Byways Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000. Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway). $104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 11 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 37 900 South Signal Improvements 15% ARPA ELIGIBLE UP TO $375,000 OF TOTAL PROJECT COST Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three, improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com. The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible. 1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north. 2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened. 3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration. 4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations. 5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist. $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 38 Urban Trails Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including: • design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West • design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County • design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan • design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent. • initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain • neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail • rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail $6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500 39 Multimodal Street Maintenance Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in- house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc. $200,000 $200,000 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 12 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 40 Transportation Safety Improvements Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit. This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed. Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history, roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed a high priority for implementation. $44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000 41 1700 South Corridor Transformation Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park, support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park) and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi- permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage. $317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300 42 Kensington Byway Ballpark Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project. The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (December 2015). “Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements (for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ ) Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project. $500,000 $500,000 43 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls. 44 Logan Ave Reconstruction Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 13 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 45 Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or around the new bridge. 46 Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River) PARTIALLY ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively, out of 100. Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route. Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for this project. 47 Wingpointe Levee Design Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance. 48 Three Creeks West Bank Roadways Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and installing storm sewers. 49 Delong Salt Storage Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate. 50 Steam Bay Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously, and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4 foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 14 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 51 Mixed-Use Three Story Prop Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include: Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required) Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers Burn room baffles Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor Exterior stairs to single container roof Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof Two bailout windows Vent/enter/search windows Eleven (11) exterior doors Two (2) interior doors Emergency fire escape stairs Four (4) training deck containers On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance 52 Training Ground Site Improvements Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of underutilized training ground. Key components of this project include: Training ground site design Site excavation Drainage and retention system Site back fill and compaction Various paved access roads Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training Technical and confined rescue training props Curb and gutter along Wallace St. Perimeter landscaping and fencing 53 Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 15 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 54 Winner on Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post- tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year- round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers). Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences. $400,000 55 Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center. Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences. 56 Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project 26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center. Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences. 57 Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and reduce barriers to urban food production. The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18 months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders, volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out. The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil, amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches, and common area plantings. $103,500 58 1300 South Camping Resisitant Landscaping Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300 South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter and camping-resistant landscapes. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 16 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 59 Wingate Walkway Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project • This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project, but at a construction cost savings of $67,500. • This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires. • This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place. • A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost. • This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access. $286,750 60 1200 East Median Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction. 61 Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP): 1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each; 2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation; 3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features, per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan. 4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive signage. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 17 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 62 Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge $1.2 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR PUBLIC LANDS SIGNAGE Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000 Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000 Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000 Plat Markers- $100,000 Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000 Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000 Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000 Contingency - $10,000 Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation 63 Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 $1 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan. Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size. Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation -Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and should be added to budget requests as appropriate. Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost) 1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276 1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099 1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176 1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403 1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947 1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080 1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250 1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453 Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000 64 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS 9Line $615,777 PORTION IS ARPA ELIGIBLE Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North Cornell Avenue. The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In 2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 18 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 65 Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out of the site. The full scope of this project includes: • Design for a new playground and pavilion • Engagement with the community on project character and site development • Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation • Demolition of existing playground and pavilion • Construction of a playground and pavilion • Construction of new sidewalk connections • Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings • Installation of new site furnishings and park signage 66 Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe, well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard. This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with phasing strategies for implementation. Summary of work: 1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose appropriate solutions. 2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would increase positive activity throughout the day and week. 3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade, access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan. Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 19 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 67 Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project 2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes: 1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park; 2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and 3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment. 68 Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed- reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures. This project is at the neighborhood scale and includes East Capitol Hill BLVD. $536,966 $58,228 69 Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement, drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year- round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents. Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables, and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed. There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 20 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 70 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets. The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded, proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands, signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District. The project scope will include the following elements: 1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets (Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and effective traffic calming interventions. 2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions. 71 Stratford Bike Crossing Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross. 72 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is made up of two basic parts: 1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations. 2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street. Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to speak. $153,221 Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 21 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 73 Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016- 2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah property) and the west (City property). The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints, complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset. Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and trail user comfort. 74 Multimodal Intersections & Signals Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project • Upgrade five aging traffic signals • Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes • Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles, new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as needed. Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and overall construction costs all affecting price. 75 600 North Corridor Transformation $4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project. The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of the 600 North corridor. $1,879,654 $5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $6,901,178 $2,104,557 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654 Note: text in blue and red is information added by Council staff Totals by Funding Source: Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 22 MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _________________________ Date Received: __________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000 principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000: Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached. The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses. Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing. Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have potential private business use. rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT) 05/21/2021 05/21/2021 Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B Transmittal to City Council May 11, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use. The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the total of $22,490,000. Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules. Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000: The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for the total of $34,600,000. Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue: NEW MONEY New Money Project List $57,090,000 Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000 Taxable (red & yellow highlights) $34,600,000 The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021. An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change. The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently scheduled for August 25, 2021. Attachments cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt, Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas. Department Project Dollar Amount Description Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to Leonardo on a taxable basis. CAN Warm Springs historic structure stabilization 3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic upgrade. Stucco and window treatment. Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions 1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface $1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000. Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public. PL Public Lands Multilingual Wayfinding Signage 1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and natural lands system. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Jordan River Paddle Share improvements at Exchange Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR 440,000$ Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants). Eligible for tax-exempt financing. CAN Fisher Mansion improvements and 1,500,000$ Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection. Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Allen Park Activation Historic Structures 1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on septic systems. Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email and memo). Trans 600 North Complete Street Transformation 4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need $8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with them. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL West Side Neighborhood Parks 3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing; however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions. CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$ The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage service and/or leasable office space. Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments. Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions. PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Foothills Trails System, Phase II, III, Trailheads & Signage 5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources including grants and private donations. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms & Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility. Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line. Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility. PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting / seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging waters site. Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract guidelines, if applicable. Total 57,090,000$ Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B (September 16, 2021 ) ($57.09M Projects) Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021 2021A TAX- EXEMPT 2021B TAXABLE Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00 Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65 Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00 Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00 Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65 Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65 2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B (September 16, 2021 ) ($57.09M Projects) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 - 06/30/2022 ----803,666.50 10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 - 04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 - 06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50 10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 - 04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 - 06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00 10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 - 04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 - 06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00 10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 - 04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 - 06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00 10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 - 04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 - 06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00 10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 - 04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 - 06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50 10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 - 04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 - 06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00 10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 - 04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 - 06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50 10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 - 04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 - 06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00 10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 - 04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 - 06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75 10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 - 04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 - 06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00 10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 - 04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 - 06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00 10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 - 04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 - 06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00 10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 - 04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 - 06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25 10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 - 04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 - 06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00 10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 - 04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 - 06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50 10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 - 04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 - 06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75 10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 - 04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 - 06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50 10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 - 04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 - 06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50 10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 - 06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75 Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00 Average Life 11.479 Years Average Coupon 2.9503159% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.1873941% Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 ) ($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 - 06/30/2022 ----422,391.67 10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 - 04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 - 06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00 10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 - 04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 - 06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00 10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 - 04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 - 06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00 10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 - 04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 - 06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00 10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 - 04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 - 06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00 10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 - 04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 - 06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00 10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 - 04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 - 06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00 10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 - 04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 - 06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00 10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 - 04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 - 06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00 10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 - 04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 - 06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00 10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 - 04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 - 06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00 10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 - 04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 - 06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00 10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 - 04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 - 06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00 10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 - 04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 - 06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00 10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 - 04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 - 06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00 10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 - 04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 - 06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00 10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 - 04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 - 06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00 10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 - 04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 - 06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00 10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 - 04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 - 06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00 10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 - 06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00 Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00 Average Life 11.955 Years Average Coupon 3.8268033% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479% True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.8125237% Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021B (September 16, 2021 ) ($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 - 06/30/2022 ----381,274.83 10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 - 04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 - 06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50 10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 - 04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 - 06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00 10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 - 04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 - 06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00 10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 - 04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 - 06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00 10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 - 04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 - 06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00 10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 - 04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 - 06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50 10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 - 04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 - 06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00 10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 - 04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 - 06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50 10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 - 04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 - 06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00 10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 - 04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 - 06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75 10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 - 04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 - 06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00 10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 - 04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 - 06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00 10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 - 04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 - 06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00 10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 - 04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 - 06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25 10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 - 04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 - 06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00 10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 - 04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 - 06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50 10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 - 04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 - 06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75 10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 - 04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 - 06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50 10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 - 04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 - 06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50 10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 - 06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75 Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00 Average Life 11.222 Years Average Coupon 2.4447718% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.4447718% Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7 Draft of 5/20/21 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3 8709966/RDB/mo RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021 A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed $58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”); WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below) and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law; WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein) pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”), between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to be applied in accordance with the Indenture; WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related costs authorized by law; - 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement, the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within 30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below) containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as provided in the Indenture. (b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture, subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the Indenture, is hereby approved. (c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, - 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise. Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021 Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”). (b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such determinations and effectuations: (i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000); (ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates; (iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided, however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed __________ percent (____%) per annum; (iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount); - 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) (v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof; (vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however, the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds; (vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any; (viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution. For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means (a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and (b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City Council. Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Section 2. Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah. - 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official Statement. Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds. Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax- exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws. Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. - 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation within the City. For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution (including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause. Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector. Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code, no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H. Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit I. Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021 Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds. - 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign the Purchase Contract. Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof. Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021 Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged. Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. (Signature page follows.) 1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19 pandemic. - 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July 2021. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH _______________________________________ Chair Salt Lake City Council ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED: By ____________________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ____________________________________ Senior City Attorney A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT A [ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE] B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT B [ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE] C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT C [ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION] D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT D [ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT] E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT E [ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT] F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT F NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed 2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution, including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums described above. The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively, the “Pledged Taxes”). F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us). Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed Bonds is $__________. A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City, Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any cause. DATED this 13th day of July, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By ____________________________________ City Recorder [SEAL] G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT G [ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT] H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT H SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”). PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty- eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project. SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20. H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public hearing. PURPOSE FOR HEARING The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30 calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection. If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __, 2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By ____________________________________ City Recorder I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT I PETITION To: City Recorder Salt Lake City, Utah We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are correctly written after my name: I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) WARNING It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter. REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE COUNTED) SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE [The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page [attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters] I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021. Notary Public (or other official title) Signature: Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com 2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)] Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score 72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35 T7 Division of Transportation  / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17 T13 Division of Transportation  / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14 P2 Public Lands  / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57 P1 Public Lands  / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07 E5 Engineering  / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017 T12 Division of Transportation  / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017 E3 Engineering  / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8 C20 Sugar House Community Council  / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31 T11 Division of Transportation  / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29 F1 Fire  / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26 C5 Public Lands  / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2 T2 Division of Transportation  / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016 E2 Engineering  / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85 T3 Division of Transportation  / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83 F4 Fire  / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79 P10 Public Lands  / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79 T10 Division of Transportation  / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74 C4 Public Lands  / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7 T6 Division of Transportation  / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67 F2 Fire  / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57 T1 Division of Transportation  / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33 T4 Division of Transportation  / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent)500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33 C6 Sugar House Park Authority  / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31 P5 Public Lands  / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29 F3 Fire  / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29 C12 Public Lands  / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21 T8 Division of Transportation  / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17 E6 Engineering  / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8 T9 Division of Transportation  / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67 C17 Poplar Grove Community Member  / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67 T14 Division of Transportation  / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33 T5 Division of Transportation  / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent)856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29 P13 Public Lands  / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14 P12 Public Lands  / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14 P11 Public Lands  / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah  / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03 E8 Engineering  / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River)3,000,000.00 6 to 014 C22 Ballpark Community Council  / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114 E7 Engineering  / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87 FA3 Public Services Facilities Division  / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87 P3 Public Lands  / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86 C15 Engineering  / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85 T15 Division of Transportation  / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6 E1 Engineering  / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4 C1 Tracy Aviary  / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31 C21 Public  / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2 P6 Public Lands  / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07 C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council  / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9 P14 Public Lands  / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86 C11 Wingate Village Townhomes  / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86 C7 Liberty Hills Tennis  / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83 P9 Public Lands  / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79 C23 N/A  / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71 C9 Wasatch Community Gardens  / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43 C24 Citizen  / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31 P15 Public Lands  / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29 C16 David B. Troester  / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17 C8 Liberty Hills Tennis  / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14 C13 Public Lands  / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1 FA1 Public Services Facilities Division  / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83 C3 Liberty Hills Tennis  / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77 P8 Public Lands  / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1)3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62 C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs  / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43 P17 Public Lands  / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29 P16 Public Lands  / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17 E4 Engineering  / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211 E9 Engineering  / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55 FA2 Public Services Facilities Division  / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43 C19 Streets and Sanitation  / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43 C10 Ballpark Community Council  / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67 P7 Public Lands  / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43 P4 Public Lands  / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86 Attachment 5A FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores from Highest to Lowest #Division Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score 3 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation $ 500,000 4 to 2 14.03 4 E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.4 5 E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey $ 175,000 7 to 0 15.85 6 E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 $ 750,000 6 to 0 16.8 7 E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 $ 300,000 7 to 0 17 8 E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 $ 70,000 5 to 1 14.8 9 FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla $ 5,860,449 4 to 1 11.83 10 F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade $ 318,279 7 to 0 16.26 11 F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop $ 374,864 6 to 0 15.57 12 C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house. $ 156,078 5 to 1 13.31 13 C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization) $ 490,074 5 to 0 15.7 14 C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design $ 150,736 7 to 0 16.2 15 C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace $ 183,834 6 to 0 15.31 16 C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts $ 99,680 6 to 0 15.21 17 P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 $ 3,200,000 7 to 0 17.07 18 P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan $ 420,000 6 to 0 17.57 19 P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 $ 610,000 6 to 1 13.86 20 P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report $ 475,000 6 to 0 15.29 21 P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park $ 420,000 5 to 1 13.07 22 P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt $ 440,000 6 to 0 15.79 23 P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development $ 1,304,682 7 to 0 14.07 24 P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition $ 425,000 6 to 1 14.14 25 P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways $ 510,000 7 to 0 14.14 26 P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground $ 450,000 5 to 1 11.17 27 C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration $ 514,450 5 to 0 14.67 28 C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements $ 85,000 6 to 0 16.31 29 T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent) $ 3,261,900 6 to 0 15.33 30 T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16 31 T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 15.83 32 T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent) $ 500,000 6 to 0 15.33 33 T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) $ 856,042 5 to 1 14.29 34 T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent) $ 215,000 6 to 0 15.67 35 T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent) $ 900,000 6 to 0 18.17 36 T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 5 to 0 15.17 37 T9 Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 $ 500,000 6 to 0 14.67 38 T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 6 to 0 15.74 39 T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16.29 2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals Sorted by Funding Log Project # #Division Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score 2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals Sorted by Funding Log Project # 40 T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements $ 500,000 7 to 0 17 41 T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W) $ 363,150 7 to 0 18.14 42 C22 Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ $ 500,000 4 to 1 14 43 C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb $ 449,315 5 to 1 13.85 44 E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction $ 1,405,000 4 to 2 11 45 E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.87 46 E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River) $ 3,000,000 6 to 0 14 47 E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design $ 800,000 5 to 1 10.55 48 C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways $ 1,158,422 4 to 1 12.17 49 FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility $ 1,504,427 5 to 1 9.43 50 FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay $ 363,495 6 to 0 13.87 51 F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop $ 815,895 5 to 0 15.29 52 F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements $ 694,785 6 to 0 15.79 53 C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk $ 72,739 4 to 1 11.43 54 C3 Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D $ 500,000 2 to 3 11.77 55 C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center $ 202,100 3 to 3 12.83 56 C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers $ 300,000 4 to 2 12.14 57 C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden $ 103,500 4 to 2 12.43 58 C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping $ 100,000 1 to 5 7.67 59 C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway $ 286,750 5 to 1 12.86 60 C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting $ 500,000 4 to 1 12.1 61 P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation $ 765,325 3 to 3 6.86 62 P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge $ 790,000 4 to 2 7.43 63 P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) $ 3,838,000 5 to 1 11.62 64 P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks $ 1,393,600 6 to 0 12.79 65 P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement $ 690,000 6 to 0 12.86 66 P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development $ 225,000 3 to 2 12.29 67 P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements $ 650,000 4 to 2 11.29 68 C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming $ 595,194 4 to 2 12.9 69 C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction $ 1,311,920 2 to 4 8.43 70 C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming $ 400,000 3 to 2 13.2 71 C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford $ 200,000 4 to 2 12.71 72 C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets $ 500,000 5 to 1 12.31 73 T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East) $ 350,000 5 to 1 13.6 74 T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades $ 1,050,000 6 to 0 14.33 1 8 8 0 3 ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019 1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council consideration. Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of deferred maintenance Appropriations vs. funding need identified in Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that tracks each asset $6.8 million annually or $68 million over ten years Expand the City's urban trail network with an emphasis on East-West connections Total paved/unpaved network miles; number and funding for improved trail features; percentage of 9-Line completed $21 million for 9- Line implementation Increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement condition survey every five years $133 million cost estimate (in addition to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Master Plan Distance of improved trails completed; number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD Advance the City's sustainability goals through building energy efficiency upgrades Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD Focus on renewal and maintenance projects over creating new assets Number, funding level and ratio of renewed assets vs. new assets $TBD 2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5 million, and over $5 million. 3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs. 4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding. Does the Administration have a preference? Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential Data pulled 4/20/2021 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 421,062$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,002,114$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,435,142$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,125,188$ D 14,983,506$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$ 202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month 202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$ 202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$ 202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$ 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$ 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$ 202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$ Notes ^1 FY 2023Calendar Month 1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expendituresFiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 4/20/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation ValuespSum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation p Sum of Police AllocationCrime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$ Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$ Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$ Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$ Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$ PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$ Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$ Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$ Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$ Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$ Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$ Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$ FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$ Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$ Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$ Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$ 337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$ Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$ Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$ FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$ Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 50,034$ 59,025$ Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$ Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 9,165$ 2,088$ 388,747$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$ Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,512,215$ 794,781$ 9,108,873$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$ LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$ Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D 700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$ 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 213,551$ 607,870$ 2,036,669$ Grand Total 9,292,247$ 681,222$ 3,382,117$ 5,228,908$ Total 24,384,609$ 2,496,081$ 5,197,908$ 16,690,620$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8,435,142$ 5,125,188$ 14,983,506$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 421,062$ $1,002,114 8484001 UnAllocated Budget Amount Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000 Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000 Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000 Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000 City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000 Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000 Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000 Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000 Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000 Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000 New post tension court $250,000 $300,000 Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40" width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000 Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 + Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750 Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000 Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles = 1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+ Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile) 2,000+$2,500+ Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000 Traffic Signals - New 250,000$ 350,000.00$ Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$ 350,000.00$ HAWK Signals 130,000$ 150,000.00$ Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$ $75,000 Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$ $30,000 Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000 Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$ $9,500 Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk 25,000$ $30,000 Pedestrian Refuge Island 10,000$ $12,000 Curb Extension at Intersection 20,000$ $25,000 Crosswalk 1,600$ $1,800 Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$ 335,000$ Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$ 6,000$ Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$ 600,000$ Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile) $700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$ $5 Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12 Note: Last updated July 2021 Studies Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work) Regular CIP Project Costs General Rules of Thumb NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be out of date), vary by project, and do not include on-going maintenance. Drinking Fountains Multi-purpose Field Improvements Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts) Path/ Trail Improvements Attachment 8 Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8317057 Deteriorated Sidewalk 2,237.00$ 8318061 900 West Neighborhood nodes an 46,728.00$ 8318062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 5,987.00$ 8318063 Jordan River Parkway 181,571.00$ 8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658.00$ 8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49.00$ 8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320.00$ 8314033 SugarHouse Circulation 96,736.00$ 8317030 Sugar House Park Roadway Maint 24,836.00$ 8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 20,841.00$ 8317033 Paver Crosswalks Reconstructio 33,392.00$ 8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522.00$ 8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047.00$ 8318154 1300 E Class C 443,879.00$ 8310077 Regional Sports Complex Donati 3,154.00$ 8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 8,598.00$ 8314100 900 S Oxbow 619.00$ 8314103 Warm Springs Park Master Plan 223.00$ 8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion 229,927.00$ 8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House 102,751.00$ 8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation 35,566.00$ 8317064 Jordan River Trail - Union P 500,000.00$ 8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 6,989.00$ 8315073 City Cemetery Master Plan 25,740.00$ 8316026 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9 1,452.00$ 8316031 Fairmont Park Pond Restoration 3,097.00$ 8316041 PPL Deferred Maintenance, City 2,309.00$ 8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 104,210.00$ 8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195.00$ 8316085 Contingency 100,000.00$ 8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond (16,584.00)$ Why is this negative? 8317024 Sorenson Multicultural Center 27,452.00$ 8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 455,159.00$ 8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 17,269.00$ 8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 128,823.00$ 8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 79,995.00$ 8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928.00$ 8317096 Fire Station #3 2,200.00$ General Fund Dontions Class C CDBG 8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 40,413.00$ 8318028 Bridge Maintenance 77,132.00$ 8318033 Concrete Rehab 3,431.00$ 8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 109,235.00$ 8318046 Warm Springs Restrooms 12,993.00$ 8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 272,091.00$ 8318048 Miller Park ADA access 371,369.00$ 8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 7,023.00$ 8318050 Artesian Well Park Redevelopme 1,332.00$ 8318054 Fairmond Salt Storage 7,111.00$ 8318055 9 Line Central Ninth 152,500.00$ 8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104.00$ 8318085 Computer Rm Cooling Units 40,787.00$ 8318087 Ball Field Lights 2,979.00$ 8318097 Percent for Art 98,161.00$ 4,251,536.00$ General Fund TOTAL of ALL SOURCES 600/700 North 26 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ I-215 to Redwood Road In this western segment, 700 North will maintain two vehicle travel lanes in each direction with left turn lanes. The redesign includes numerous changes to balance vehicle mobility with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Protected bike lanes A curb-separated bike lane is recommended for the street design. Narrowing the vehicle travel lanes frees up space for upgrades to the bike facilities. The relatively limited number of driveways and lack of on-street parking makes this configuration ideal. Landscaped medians Landscaped medians are placed strategically in the center turn lane on this segment of 700 North to support pedestrian crossings, reduce the scale of the street, add greenery, slow traffic, and provide a neighborhood gateway. Morton pedestrian-activated crossing This segment of 700 North lacks frequent pedestrian crossings. This pedestrian activated crossing at Morton Drive can provide a place to cross and help slow traffic as it enters the neighborhood.MORTON DR.I - 215DOROTHEA WY.2200 West through I-215 Interchange The segment of 700 North from 2200 West through the I-215 interchange, while included in this corridor study, is not shown in this illustrative diagram. The lane configuration for this segment is recommended to stay the same as existing, with improvements focused on visibility, protection, and conflict mitigation of active transportation facilities. 600 - 700 North Illustrative Concept LEGEND Roadway lanes and parking New landscaped areas New pedestrian space Bike lane Bus stop DRAFT 27600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ Star Crest Drive crossing Star Crest Drive is planned as a Neighborhood Byway. These Byways formalize quiet streets into a network of corridors that offer comfortable routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The key strategy to a Neighborhood Byway is to provide safe signalized crossings at major barrier streets. Trade on-street parking for a protected bike lane Complete streets inevitably involve trade-offs and compromises. The south side of 700 North between Morton Drive and east of Sir Anthony Drive (2.5 blocks) is the only place with on- street parking between 2200 West and Redwood Road. This plan recommends removing this small amount of residential-oriented on-street parking to allow for a continuous protected bike lane. This trade-off creates a safe bike environment and maintains current vehicle capacity. Sidewalk-level bikeway This plan recommends a bike path raised to sidewalk-level between Redwood Road and approximately 1500 West. This will connect the protected bike lanes to the west with high-comfort bike infrastructure that accesses the Jordan River Parkway, Riverside Park, and Backman Elementary. Sir Anthony pedestrian- activated crossing This segment of 700 North lacks frequent pedestrian crossings. This pedestrian activated crossing at Sir Anthony Drive can provide a place to cross and help slow traffic as it enters the neighborhood. Redwood Road crossing improvements While the recommended street configuration does not create major opportunities for shortening the Redwood Road/700 North pedestrian crossings, look for opportunities to increase visibility, improve corner environment, or optimize crossing time. Redwood Road intersection area transit stops The commercial node here is an important destination for basic daily needs. In anticipation of the new transit service on 600 North (Rt 205) and 1000 North (Rt 1) - part of the Frequent Transit Network plan - Salt Lake City and UTA are planning new stops and upgrades to existing stops. Transition to one through lane each way East of Redwood Road, the corridor transitions to a configuration with one vehicle lane in each direction. This change is necessary to create space in the narrowest section of the corridor to provide high-quality streetscape features and multi-modal environment.STAR CREST DR.SIR ANTHONY DR.REDWOODRD.DRAFT 600/700 North 28 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ Improve on-street parking Existing on-street parking remains - it is especially important for Riverside Park use. However, pedestrian crossings and traffic calming will improve access and safety to parking areas. Manage driveway access Ensure commercial driveway conflicts are treated properly, with bike markings and driveway cuts do not interrupt sidewalk grade. Access management using raised medians is appropriate for closely spaced driveways near Redwood Road. New park edge Reconfiguring 600/700 North to expand the pedestrian and bicycle environments also is a major opportunity to transform the edge of Riverside Park to become more permeable and active with more shade, pathways into the park, and amenities such as benches or even picnic pavilions. Improved crossing at Jordan River The Jordan River Parkway crossing is shortened and made more visible by the addition of curb bulb- outs and a median refuge. Improved mid-park crossing The existing pedestrian crossing at Backman School and Riverside Park is shortened and made more visible by the addition of curb bulb-outs and a median refuge. Realign 1500 West to create gateway and crossing for park, school and neighborhood A major move recommended by this plan is a realignment of 1500 West and the Riverside Park parking lot driveway to create a four-way intersection. This four-way intersection accomplishes several things: It reduces the awkwardness of this area; it creates a place for a pedestrian crossing at Backman School’s front door and the entry to the park; it calms traffic; and it creates the opportunity for entry plazas for the park, school, and neighborhoods to the east.Raised bike lane along park and school High demand for access to Riverside Park and Backman School, on-street parking, and few driveways mean an ideal opportunity for raised bike lanes at the sidewalk grade providing a safe bike environment for the full range of bike and micromobility users riding along 600/700 North. The intersection reconfiguration also creates public green space benefits - an active use of the current landscaped triangle, a terminus and quality access point for the wide landscaped median and pathway extending Riverside Park to the east, and perhaps even an extension of Backman School outdoor classroom space into these plazas. RIVER-SIDE DR.JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY1500 WESTRiverside Park Backman Elementary School Keep center turn lane The plan recommends including the two-way center turn lane to allow more flexibility with on-street parking and turning around. DRAFT 29600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ Begin landscaped median parkway with path The reconfigured 1500 West/Riverside Park driveway intersection is the starting point for the wide landscaped median that runs eastward to 900 West. The median has a pathway running down it, flanked by trees; users at this west end access the path via the 1500 West crossing. This west end of the median parkway can also include neighborhood gateway elements such as plantings, monuments, or public art. 1300 West Neighborhood Byway treatment A Neighborhood Byway is planned for 1300 West through Rose Park and Fairpark. Where 1300 West crosses 600 North, the median parkway can extend across the intersection, creating a highly safe crossing and neighborhood open space node. While this design restricts left turns into and from 1300 East, the trade-off with the Byway crossing and public green space created is worthy. Protected bike lane In this segment of 600 North, the raised bike lane along the Backman School/Riverside park segment transitions to a bike lane in the roadway, protected by a curb and likely vertical delineators. This is an opportunity created by the lack of on- street parking for this segment. Having the bike lane in the roadway allows existing curb locations to remain. Median intersection treatments Where the median parkway crosses an intersection that runs through the median area, a special treatment will be needed. Left turn lanes will be preserved, but the crossing median path will need high-visibility markings, and median noses should be placed as close together as possible. A raised crossing could be considered. Pedestrian realm largely remains as-is in this segment The sidewalk and park strip will largely remain in its existing condition for this segment of the corridor (Catherine Street to 1200 West). Exceptions are reconfigured corners and new bus stop areas. Bus stops in a constrained environment The lack of an on-street parking lane and only one through lane means that room will need to be made for a bus pullout at the bus stops planned for this segment - likely by routing the bike lane up onto the curb into the pedestrian realm, behind the bus stop pad. CATHERINEST.1400 WESTCOLORADO ST.1300 WESTOAKLEY ST.Potential signal Consider a full traffic signal retrofit at 1400 West intersection. DRAFT 600/700 North 30 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ Narrower median east of 1200 West The inclusion of on- street parking along 600 North east of 1200 West means that the center planted median will need to be narrower - in the range of 20 to 25 feet. 1200 West bulbout/plaza/crossing The wide Fairpark streets (in contrast to the narrow Rose Park streets) create the opportunity for large bulb-outs extending into the corridor’s cross streets on the south side. These can be designed as public plazas, especially in conjunction with new bus stops. Perhaps the best such opportunity is at 1200 West, where a demonstration project along these lines was built in 2020. Pedestrian realm largely remains as-is in this segment The sidewalk and park strip will largely remain in its existing condition for this segment of the corridor. Exceptions are bulb-outs at intersection crossings and new bus stop areas. New bus stops Bus stops along 600 North between 800 West and 1200 West will be located in this segment’s wide existing park strips at 900 West, 1000 West, and 1200 West. Bus stops can be catalysts for landscape, streetscape and public space improvements that celebrate neighborhood identity and provide rider comfort. Some on-street parking will be displaced to accommodate the bus stop activity. Buffered bike lanes Buffered bikes lanes are an appropriate design for this segment given the changes to vehicle travel lanes and center median, which is expected to reduce vehicle speeds. Buffered bike lanes also are compatible with other priorities like on street parking and driveway access. Rambler Dr. intersection Rambler Drive’s wide parking lane on the south side of its intersection with 600 North provides the opportunity for bulb-out curb extensions to shorten the pedestrian crossing, calm traffic and create public open space.1200 WESTRAMBLER DR.MARION ST.More pedestrian crossings In this diagram, marked pedestrian crossings are shown at every “city block” street - i.e. 1200 West, 1300 West) - however, with the slowed design speed of the corridor and median refuge, it may make sense to consider additional crossings at the interim streets (i.e. Marion St., Chicago St.), which would also provide access to the median space. DRAFT 31600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study 1000 West Intersection At the 1000 West intersection the plan recommends bulb-out curb extensions, a median refuge, and bus stops, transforming this intersection into a more walkable, rideable neighborhood node. Transition to 2 through lanes each way east of 900 West 900 West is a key transition point. East of this point, 600 North transitions back to a configuration of two through lanes each way (the street cross section is generally unchanged from existing conditions). 800 West bike crossing improvements Where 600 North crosses 800 West, the existing pedestrian activated crossing is enhanced. This crossing will move westbound cyclists coming off the two-way path over the viaduct into the westbound buffered bike lane on the north side of the street, and improve north-south crossing. 6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ Eastern end of center planted median: neighborhood gateway The 900 West intersection marks the eastern end of the center planted median that runs westward from Riverside Park; the median could have features creating a gateway to Fairpark and Rose Park.1000 WEST900 WESTCHICAGO ST.800 WESTDEXTER ST.AMERICAN BEAUTY DR.DRAFT 1 DRAFT July 14, 2021 DRAFT 600/700 North Preferred Concept Introduction The purpose of this document is to summarize recommendations for 600/700 North corridor, and to provide some context about the process and rational behind the recommendations. In late 2019 the Study began without any funding commitments; since then several significant funding sources have been cobbled together from various Federal, State, and local sources. The Preferred Concept presented in this document reflects a transformative vision for the corridor, and it should be emphasized that additional refinement and engineering is necessary to clearly understand how much additional funding is needed. It is also noted that implementation is expected to occur in phases, with roadway reconstruction activities preceded by spot improvements to crosswalks and bus stops. Project Goals The 600/700 North Corridor Stakeholder Committee established a set of 10 Corridor Goals: 1) Maintain and enhance the link among 600/700 North corridor neighborhoods and the rest of Salt Lake City 2) Link people and neighborhoods across 600/700 North 3) Maintain the corridor’s regional connections 4) Calm traffic to create a safe corridor 5) Create a beautiful street with great places reflecting neighborhood pride 6) Improve access to and leverage Jordan River Parkway, Riverside Park, and the surrounding corridor parks and open space network 7) Support and shape corridor commercial nodes with walkable character and neighborhood-oriented services 8) Implement and support Salt Lake City’s Frequent Transit Network and other transit connections 9) Improve the safety, consistency, and comfort of east-west bicycle travel in the project area. 10) Create a comprehensive and integrated set of solutions for the entire corridor Working closely with the Committee, the project team developed three alternative concepts for the corridor that achieve these goals in different ways: Concept 1: Baseline with Improvements - The current roadway layout with five lanes generally remains. Improvements are added for walking, biking, and transit. Concept 2: Green Boulevard - A wide landscaped median is added to the center of the street in addition to walking, biking, and transit improvements. Concept 3: Streetside Park - A portion of the street space is repurposed as a linear park extending from Riverside Park to provide a variety of amenities and public space. 2 DRAFT July 14, 2021 In addition to these core ideas, each concept included options for the Backman School/Riverside Park area and the I-15 interchange area. The team presented these options to the public through an online story map, which included a short survey. The survey received nearly 500 responses that provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback. This feedback conveyed a series of clear – sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting - messages: • Desire for green space and community open space as well as overall investment in the Westside neighborhoods, serving the purposes of creating a beautiful community and providing usable community space – embodying Goal 5. • Desire for safe bike travel along the corridor, embodying Goal 9. • Desire to slow traffic and create an overall safe environment for all street users – embodying Goal 4. • Desire for 600/700 North to retain its function of moving people through Westside neighborhoods and to regional destinations, embodying Goal 1; and concern that one lane each way could not sufficiently move motor vehicle traffic now and in the future. • Concern about the viability, sustainability and safety of open space and the fit of open space within the neighborhood context. In addition, although it was less emphasized by the public, one key goal of the project from the outset is to integrate the new frequent transit network service into the corridor with high quality transit stops and waiting environment. The team also considered the results of detailed traffic modeling on the corridor that concluded that one lane each direction from 900 West to Redwood Road can handle the existing traffic volumes as long as left and right turns lanes are provided at key intersections. The team received guidance from the Stakeholder Committee in interpreting these results. In speaking with committee members, the team gleaned some key insights – that the area deeply desires a quality investment, though many in the community fear the change such an investment would bring. At the end of the day, many committee members expressed that a smaller, non-transformative project would not create the type of traffic calming, connections, and public spaces that they feel the corridor needs, embodied in the Corridor Goals. Based on this feedback and these considerations, the team developed a Preferred Concept for the 600/700 North Corridor. The preferred concept is a mix of the three alternative concepts presented, taking on the strengths of each. This preferred concept combines and applies the alternatives in ways appropriate for the context of different segments of the corridor. It may be useful to think of the overall shape of the preferred concept as an “hourglass,” with more traffic demand and corresponding traffic capacity at either end of the corridor, serving the two freeway 3 DRAFT July 14, 2021 interchanges and 900 West and Redwood Road corridors, while the neighborhood core of the corridor, between Redwood Road and 900 West, has less traffic demand and more desire for slow traffic and neighborhood activity associated with homes, Backman School, Riverside Park and Jordan River Parkway, and neighborhood commercial uses. Correspondingly, the two ends of the corridor would retain two lanes each way, while this “neighborhood core” of the corridor would be reconfigured to one lane each way – with the space gained used to create a mutually reinforcing “ecosystem” of slower vehicle speeds, better active transportation conditions, community space, and beautification. Draft Preferred Concept diagram The diagram above shows how these pieces fit together at a high level. Here is a breakdown: • One part of the “neighborhood core” of the corridor, from 900 West to 1500 West, is a version of Concept 2 with lanes reconfigured to one through lane each way and turn pockets at intersections. This concept has the central feature of the landscaped median proposed in Concept 2 but incorporates the usable open space popular with Concept 3’s linear park by 4 DRAFT July 14, 2021 including a pathway down the center of the median between two rows of trees, from 1200 West to 1500 West. This median would be a modern version of the planted medians found throughout Salt Lake’s streets such as 200 West and 600 East – with more useable space and having sustainable landscaping. The segment of the median with the pathway would have marked crossings across the minor side streets in the medians. Typical cross section, 600 North from 900 West to 1500 West, showing two different approaches to bike facility. Median path would only run from 1200 West to 1500 West. • In addition to the popularity of the median concept with the public (it received the highest rating of the three concepts), there are several practical arguments for a landscaped median configuration: o Having this space and pathway in the median is appropriate for the single-family residential context of the corridor, creating the community open space desired by the community, but separating it from people’s front yards. o It is easier to plant larger trees in the median, where there would be no power lines along it, unlike along the park strip. 5 DRAFT July 14, 2021 o Putting the open space in the center allows the curbs to remain where they are and keeps flexibility as to just how active the median can be. o The median’s width from 1200 West to 1500 West would be about 30 feet, allowing for an 8-to-10-foot path with plenty of room on either side for buffer and trees/landscaping, as well as the ability to continue the path into the median nose alongside a narrow turn pocket. For reference, the 600 and 800 East medians are about 24 feet; the 300 South median in downtown, which has a pathway to access the median parking, is about 30 feet. o The minor nature of the cross streets (and their narrow width on the Rose Park side) also make well-marked median crossings feasible at Oakley Street, Colorado Street, 1400 West and Catherine Street/Circle. The median would extend across the 1300 West intersection to enhance the crossing 1300 West Neighborhood Byway. o The median is one big move that, if done well, could make a major contribution to creating a slower, human scale environment – reducing the traffic to one lane each way and adding landscaping makes a wide median a more hospitable place to be. Examples of planted medians and median crossings in (clockwise from top left) Bogota, Colombia; New York City; Downtown Salt Lake City; and Oakland, California. • The other part of the neighborhood core segment, alongside Backman School and Riverside Park, will be a blend of Concepts 2 and 3, with an alignment of 1500 West and the park drive to create a crossable 4-way intersection serving as a gateway to the neighborhood, transition between the two neighborhood core cross sections, and more navigable entry to the park. 6 DRAFT July 14, 2021 600/700 North through this segment west of 1500 West will have three lanes (short medians at pedestrian crossings), on-street parking, and raised bike lanes behind the curb alongside enhanced sidewalks, improving the safety and accessibility of this segment and its community destinations. Typical cross section, 600/700 North at Riverside Park 7 DRAFT July 14, 2021 An example of a recently constructed street in Sommerville, Massachusetts with a similar raised bike lane configuration as to that envisioned on 600-700 North in the Riverside Park segment. • For the corridor from 800 West to I-215, we believe we can cover over 80 percent of the east- west distance with protected bike facilities, whether through a bike lane raised on the curb (Backman School/Riverside Park segment), a pathway shared with pedestrians (between Jordan River and Redwood Road), a curb/delineator-protected lane (1200 West to 1500 West and Redwood to I-215), or in rare circumstances, a parking-protected lane (potentially some limited places between 900 West and 1200 West and between Redwood and I-215). • The transitional segments on either end of this neighborhood core – the “wide” part of the hourglass, from 800 to 900 West and from Redwood Road to 2200 West - have more demand for traffic coming on and off the freeways to Redwood Road and 900 West and so will adopt Concept 1’s 5-lane cross section with multi-modal improvements such as a buffered bike lane, curb extension “bulb-outs,” pedestrian refuges, and streetscape. • The viaduct/I-15 interchange segment of the corridor will adopt the Concept 2 approach, with a widened path, improved freeway ramp crossings and buffers, as well as an improved active transportation crossing at 800 West, although the Concept 3 north side path could be considered as a future phase. We believe this corridor concept best balances and achieves the Corridor Goals established by the Stakeholder Committee and creates a transportation and public space investment worthy of the communities it will serve. The following discusses these segments in more detail. 8 DRAFT July 14, 2021 900 West to 1500 West • Reconfigured lanes to one through lane each direction • Median with turn pockets at intersections - but with center path (1200 West to 1500 West) and two rows of trees, street furniture and pedestrian scale lighting, with pedestrian refuge and crossing at path, making median occupiable/usable space. • Where the median meets intersections, consider raising the intersection between the median segments halfway to the curb to create a calmer area to mitigate potential conflicts. • A goal to protect the bike lane as much as feasible, and in balance with the residential driveways and on-street parking, where currently existing. This can be a block-by-block solution that can be largely protected by a vertical curb element from 1200 West to 1500 West, where no parking exists, and potentially protected for some blocks from 900 West to 1200 West, particularly at the 1100-1200 West block with civic/commercial frontage and some blocks on the south side of 600 North with side on residential and few driveways. For the remaining blocks, a buffered bike lane (on traffic side and parking side) would be employed, similar to some segments of the 300 South protected bike lane. • Bus stops in park strips at 900 West, 1000 West, 1200 West, 1300 West and 1400 West. • For stops slated for 1300 West and 1400 West, we propose a bike bypass – a ramp from the bike lane up to the sidewalk, which would become a short shared pathway going behind or in front of the bus passenger waiting area and back down on the far side of the stop, giving the bus a place to pull out. When there is no bus occupying the pull out, a cyclist can make the choice to keep riding through the pull out. • Preserve parking where existing, for the most part, the exception potentially being some stretches where residences side-on to the roadway and a protected bike lane could be implemented. • Bulb-outs into the parking lane where they exist on both 600/700 North and cross streets. • 1300 West is a planned Neighborhood Byway – here, the median could continue across the intersection, reducing through traffic on this street and making it easter for active travelers to cross 600 North. 1500 West to Redwood Road (Backman School/Riverside Park segment) • Reconfigure 1500 West and Riverside Park Drives to align, with plazas on all four corners and crossings of 600/700 North, creating a gateway to the neighborhoods, the park, and school. • Center turn lane, though can consider medians at pedestrian crossings. 9 DRAFT July 14, 2021 • Parallel parking on both sides. • Raised bike lanes behind parking alongside sidewalk to west side of bridge. • Between the Jordan bridge and Redwood Road, we propose either a raised bike lane alongside the sidewalk or a shared pathway on both sides for cyclists and pedestrians to share – due to the need to protect cyclists within the limited right-of-way, and as the roadway transitions back to a 5-lane section. • Consider new, more permeable park edge along 600/700 North, replacing chain link fence. • Consider new system of connected drives in the park offering on-street parking spaces. Redwood Road to I-215/2200 West A modified version of Concept 1 with: • 5 lanes (two lanes each way and a center turn lane) • Curb-protected bike lanes on north side (where no parking and very few driveways); curb- protected bike lanes replacing parking on south side. • New pedestrian crossings at Morton and Sir Anthony Drives. • Intermittent medians breaking up the wide pavement and providing pedestrian refuges for the new crossings. • Curb extension bulb-outs where there is a parking lane. Viaduct/I-15 interchange Continue working with UDOT to make modifications include: • Widened path/sidewalk with upgraded curb ramps and crosswalk signals. • Painted on-street bike lanes. • Modify eastbound right turn lane to interchange with more abrupt turn angle. • Reduce NB-to-EB curve to manage high vehicle speed. • Consider Alternative Concept 3’s north side pathway as a future phase Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions POLICY QUESTIONS: 1. $300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing individual CIP projects.  $19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)  $11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)  $26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total) 2. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations. ARPA Funding • CIP FY21 o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions o Rehabilitation of bridges over the Jordan River at 400 S and 650 N • CIP FY22 o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions o 200 South transit complete street • Projects with Drainage and Stormwater Improvement Expenses o 100 South o 300 West o 900 East o 900 South o Local Streets #1 o Local Streets #2 o 200 South (FY22) o 900 South (FY22) o Local Streets Projects (FY22) • Bridges o 650 North  Damaged by earthquake and application submitted to UDOT for $5.6M o 400 South  Rehabilitation cost estimated at $2.8M 3. Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the worst first based on a data-driven process, etc. The Administration would greatly appreciate policy guidance from Council that establishes an agreeable allowance for CIP staff to disqualify applications that are not within the required funding amounts, are in Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions violation of a City code, or if an application violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document. The Administration would also request Council allowance to phase out constituent applications for street reconstructions as City staff have developed an equitable and data-driven approach to these improvements. 4. Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will be completed within the next 60 days. We request the opportunity to provide an analysis to Council of the funding allocated by various Council districts, zip codes, neighborhoods, or other relevant demographic information. Following this analysis, CIP staff would like to hold community meetings in areas with the least funding awarded to provide hands-on, pre-submission workshops in multiple languages. The CIP Team is proposing a new “CIP Collaborative” that will offer high level assistance with division staff and education about the CIP and its application process. This initiative would include engagement components such as: o CIP Handouts/Brochures (English & Spanish) available at the City’s libraries and other public buildings and distributed to Community Councils (Liaisons) that provide the CIP details and appropriate contact information for inquiries o “CIP Collaborative” meeting(s) held sometime in July or August of each year that give constituents an opportunity for facetime with the appropriate City division for a Q&A session and to educate and develop a feasible project scope for their application prior to submission deadlines o Broadening of the Constituent application timeline to allow more time for collaboration and submission o Regular communication with all Community Council Liaisons to ensure transparency of the CIP process and any updates o Staff attendance at Community Council Meetings (as requested) to educate and inform Constituents on CIP criteria and the process to apply Note: The intention in broadening the constituent timeline and adding an engagement element is to give staff more time to assist the applicants, not to discourage submissions but rather, encourage complete and feasible project scopes that meet the CIP eligibility criteria. 5. Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent: The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget. Full building maintenance costs are different than basic measures taken to preserve a vacant building in its current condition until it can be developed, improved, or disposed of. Public Services has performed basic measures only, and these costs are difficult to quantify because they comprise call-back, overtime, and lost productivity time in addition to materials and supplies. Facilities bills CAN for some of its expenses, but personnel costs cannot be billed. Most of the expense paid by CAN for FY21 was for security services to patrol and respond to break-ins. Public Services is preparing asset stabilization plans for each vacant property (Warm Springs, Fisher Mansion, Fleet Block, Old PSB, Glendale Water Park). Plans will include immediate measures Facilities can take to mitigate and repair damages. Some funding for stabilization is included in the proposed bond that will hopefully prevent further asset degradation. We are also continuing to investigate contracted property management companies that will perform the basic work currently done by Facilities and respond to after-hours calls from the alarm systems if they are workable. When final plans are prepared, they will include recommendations for funding and possible outsourcing. If the long- term management of these buildings is shifted to the Facilities portfolio, FTE’s will be required. CAN has also recently kicked off a Community Land Trust study that will contemplate the structure and governance of a third-party entity that provides profession asset and portfolio management over agreed upon City properties. 6. CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly Page | 6 reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will be completed within the next 60 days. 7. Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23. Transportation coordinates regularly with the County on funding opportunities. So far, we haven’t heard much interest from the County on levying this tax. The Division will continue to push Salt Lake City projects forward with both UTA and the County so that they are well positioned for potential new revenue sources like this one. 8. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests. Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions 9. Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent. The needs for both street reconstruction and multi-modal transportation projects far exceed the funding available from these two sources. While it may appear that these two funding sources are spent independently, they are often blended on projects to ensure that reconstruction projects include the full suite of complete streets elements. Transportation will continue to collaborate to ensure further integration in future years. Engineering ran an analysis using Cartegraph that determined we would need an additional $20 million per year just to get back to an overall average OCI score of fair condition. The Division is currently working to refine this analysis so it can be presented to Council/Administration in the next 6 months. Attachment 13 - Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from HUD American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) BUDGET UPDATE Learn more about funds spent at www.tinyurl.com/SLCBudgetFY21 AUGUST 17, 2021 Balancing Our Priorities Funds Spent by Department DEADLINE TO SPEND ONE-TIME ARPA FUNDS: DECEMBER 2024 Some ARPA-Eligible Spending Options As suggested/asked by Council Members 1 Policy Questions How much should we reserve for FY23? Should we use ARPA for CIP/Bond to preserve bond capacity/fund balance? How do we balance one-time projects with ongoing people and program expenses? What are our unmet community needs? What have we heard from the community? *When will we revisit the $1.5 million holding account from 10 ARPA-ineligible administration funding requests? 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 FY23 Estimated Funding Needs $36 million Ongoing expenses on employees & programs (e.g. police salaries, YouthCity, 10 new FTEs) and larger revenue loss replacement **Could be funded using other sources; final amount TBD 2 General Fund Balance Reimbursement $3 million $1 million for small business loans $2 million for low-income senior and veteran housing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) $6+ million Improve outdoor spaces $500,000 to repair the Annex Building (Odyssey House application #3) Improve drainage on streets 4 Sales Tax Bond $5.2 million Improve outdoor spaces Holding account* (1.9%) $1,583,500 FY23 estimated funding needs** (42.1%) $36,000,000 Financial Overview $85,411,572 $22,555,258 Total funds Funds spent (26.4%)Funds remaining (71.7%) 50.7% Revenue Replacement (General Fund) 37.7% Police (Ocer existing salaries) Apprenticeship Program (Multiple Departments) Community & Neighborhoods Economic Development Finance Fire 4.4% 4% 1.5% 0.9% 0.8% $61,272,814 Remainder (29.6%) $25,272,814 Revenue Replacement for the General Fund Police Ocer Salary Increases Apprenticeship Program Youth & Family COVID-19 Programming Continuation Economic Development Sta (2 New FTEs) Medical Response Team Expansion (4 New FTEs funded for 6 Months) ARPA Grant Administrator (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding) ARPA Grant Manager (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding) Community & Neighborhoods Special Projects Assistant (1 New FTE) Youth & Family Community & Program Manager (1 New FTE) Economic Development Strategic Plan Medical Response Team Equipment for Expansion Total ARPA Funds Spent 98.7% spent on ongoing expenses 4% spent on 10 New FTEs $11,432,646 $8,507,318 $1,000,000 $711,350 $290,000 $136,762 $101,020 $95,000 $93,829 $90,633 $50,000 $46,700 $22,555,258 $22,262,538 $807,244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Arts Council Sta (3 FTEs), Operational Costs TBD Associate Planners (3 FTEs) Forest Preservation & Growth (1 FTE), Operational Costs TBD Small Business Construction Mitigation Pilot Program Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager (1 FTE) Business & Cultural Districts (1 FTE) Forest Preservation & Growth Program Equipment & Supplies (one-time) Business Analyst (1 FTE) Tech Lake City American Express Card Merchant Fees Holding Account 78% of holding account proposed for 10 FTEs and merchant fees (ongoing expenses) $350,000 $235,000 $219,000 $200,000 $160,000 $150,000 $95,000 $89,500 $45,000 $40,000 $1,583,500 $1,243,500 ARPA-Funded Projects Holding Account Proposals 650 North Bridge Replacement (partially ARPA eligible) Damaged from March 2020 earthquake. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding. 200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets (15% eligible) For drainage, curb, and gutter. 9-Line Asphalt Pump Track Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways (100% eligible) Odyssey House (100% eligible) Three Creeks West Bank Trailway (100% eligible) Street Improvements (15% eligible) For drainage, curb, and gutter. Total estimated cost - $3 million. Poplar Grove Sportcourt (100% eligible) 900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements For drainage, curb, and gutter. Three Creeks West Bank New Park (100% eligible) Downtown Green Loop (partially eligible) All of project may not be entirely eligible in a qualified census tract West Side Neighborhood Parks (partially eligible) TBD until more details are available. Public Lands Multilingual Wayfinding Signage (partially eligible) TBD until more details are available. ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects CIP Bond $5,600,000 $1,800,000 $615,777 $510,000 $500,000 $484,146 $450,000 $433,333 $375,000 $150,736 $4,000,000 $1,200,000 $16,118,992 $10,918,992 $5,200,000 ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects = ongoing expense CIPBond SURVIVING ROAD & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION A Planning & Resource Guide for Salt Lake City Businesses MARCH2021 ii LETTER FROM THE MAYOR & SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DEAR SALT LAKE CITY BUSINESS OWNER: Salt Lake City is growing, and public utility and road improvement projects are critical to meet the demand from new residential and commercial development. The city’s goal is to not only use local taxpayer dollars, but state, county and federal grants to build safer, more accessible, and more welcoming streets that accommodate all ages and abilities. These transformative projects will allow for future growth and changes in transportation while focusing on moving people – not just cars. With input from the community at every stage, city projects are designed to not only solve transportation problems, but also beautify the communities they serve, promote public health, and create a more sustainable environment. We know that road and utility construction projects will temporarily impact area businesses and that the final improvements will benefit all aspects of the community for decades to come. We also know that we can work together to reduce the impacts of construction on area businesses by engaging you early in the project lifecycle, providing you with the right information, and coordinating together with the project team. While the inconveniences and impacts of construction are unavoidable, our goal is to help you plan ahead to reduce the impact on your business and your customers. This Surviving Road and Utilities Construction Planning and Resource Guide was created to provide you with additional ideas and information to assist you before, during, and after construction begins. For projects in areas with many impacted businesses, the city will designate a project liaison to coordinate with you throughout construction. The liaison will keep you informed about the project and work with you to minimize impacts to your business and customers. Check out the rest of this guide for more information on the engagement process. On behalf of my office and the City Council, thank you for the contributions you make to the vibrancy of our city. We look forward to continued partnership with you. Mayor Erin Mendenhall & Salt Lake City Council Members: James Rogers–District 1, Andrew Johnston–District 2, Chris Wharton–District 3, Ana Valdemoros–District 4, Darin Mano–District 5, Dan Dugan, District 6, Amy Fowler– District 7 our city. We look forward to continued partnership with you. Mayor Erin Mendenhall & Salt Lake City Council Members: James Rogers–District 1, Andrew Johnston– iii CONTENTS: How to Use This Guide 1 Construction Project Lifecycle 2 What to Expect – Impacts from Construction 3 From Roads to Public Utilities 5 Planning is Key – Be Prepared and Stay Resilient 7 Communication is Critical – Stay In Touch 10 Advice from Contractors 12 Time to Celebrate – Post Construction 13 Resources for Business Owners 14 iv Road construction projects often include upgrading or replacing curb and gutter, which reduces ponding and improves storm water runo΍ for neighEoring properties. 1 HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE WORKING TOGETHER At Salt Lake City, we believe that communities work best when residents, businesses, and institutions are engaged and working together. We value diverse perspectives and encourage community members to be informed and involved in shaping how decisions are made. This guide helps explain how public street and utility projects move from planning to completion, how construction activities often impact businesses, and how you can get involved and plan ahead to reduce the impacts of those activities on your business. Each section provides information about a different aspect of the project lifecycle, what you can expect, how we can help you, and offers ideas to help reduce impacts to your business. Understanding where the project is in this cycle and how your input can influence the process will help you make the best decisions for your business whether you have already participated in a phase of a project affecting you, or are learning about a project for the first time. BUSINESSES COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS RESIDENTS 2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LIFECYCLE PROJECTS MOVE THROUGH A DELIVERY PROCESS The process begins when we prioritize areas of need as part of our planning process. Funding is then allocated and projects move to environmental clearance, concept development and design. The process of prioritization to selecting a designer can take anywhere from 1-5 years. During the design phase, business owners are contacted and invited to participate in meetings to share their ideas. This is the most important time for you to be involved and when your comments have the most impact on the project design. The design phase is also the time to work with your neighborhood association or council representatives and local chamber(s) of commerce to make connections and stay informed. Once the design is finalized, the project features and planned improvements are set. Participating in the design phase gives you a voice and your input helps us to determine project improvements. Once public input is incorporated into the project design, the project is advertised to the contracting community. Once a contractor is hired, we’ll share the schedule, project phasing, and anticipated impacts via a combination of workshops, fliers, email newsletters, and more. Public feedback is accepted at any time throughout a project, however once a project reaches construction changes or additions are unlikely. Often, construction of city projects is phased to complete utility relocation and upgrades to clear the way for roadway construction. This means your business could be impacted over more than one construction season. The city phases projects this way to help reduce costs and impacts to traffic as well as provide a higher quality end product. PUBLIC INFORMATION PUBLICENGAGEMENT PRIORITIZATION FUNDING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENT 3 WHAT TO EXPECT - IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION IS NECESSARY Construction is necessary to maintain or enhance existing city infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, utilities, signals and more. Projects also create opportunities to improve travel safety for everyone by adding, replacing or upgrading sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and even new features like bike lanes. Park strips, trees, lighting and landscaping can also be added to support our goals and beautify our city. Depending on the size of the project, construction can last anywhere from a few months to a year or more. However, once finished, roads will likely be construction-free for years, if not decades. Your business will benefit directly from the improvements as travel to your location is safer, more comfortable, and accessible for your customers. If your business is located in or near a road construction area, you will be impacted by construction and may also experience financial impacts during the project. While this is not an all- inclusive list, these are the most common impacts from construction. Knowing what to expect can help you plan ahead to reduce those impacts wherever you can to mitigate how the inconveniences of construction affect you, your business and your customers. WORK AT OR NEAR YOUR PROPERTY • Noise, dust, and vibration will be daily occurrences when work is at or near you. • Construction activities occur linearly, meaning one activity may pass by your location at a time. They also occur concurrently with multiple active work zones at the same time. This means your location could be impacted multiple times throughout the project. • Crews only work inside the city’s property or easements except when they connect the new infrastructure to your property. This is called a “tie-in” and the project team will coordinate with you before crews come onto your property to perform this work. Safety is important to Salt Lake City. Reconstructing streets gives the city an opportunity to add new sidewalks to areas that don’t currently have them, which improves safety for pedestrians and those using mobility devices. 4 WHAT TO EXPECT - IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION (continued) TRAVEL IMPACTS • Travel lanes, shoulders, side streets and intersections may close during construction and paving operations. These temporary closures are required to provide safe work and travel conditions for everyone. • During these instances detour routes will be necessary and appropriate access and signage will be provided to maintain customer access. UTILITY SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS • Intermittent utility service interruptions may happen if sewer, water, gas, power, internet, or phone services are being upgraded or replaced. These are critical services and crews will limit service interruptions to minimize impacts as much as possible. • Utility service interruptions may happen if unidentified or misidentified underground utilities are damaged by equipment. UNFORESEEN ISSUES • Heavy rainfall or other extreme weather events may cause delays. • Schedules can change for several reasons including weather, equipment, material, or scarcity of resources. UNFORESEEN ISSUES CAN HAPPEN AND WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO MITIGATE THE INCONVENIENCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE CITY ASKS OUR CONTRACTORS TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING GOALS: • Always maintain a way for customers to get to businesses. • Keep one lane of travel in each direction open the majority of the time. • Communicate additional closures to businesses and the public ahead of time. • Maintain at least one business access at all times. • Provide business access with signage to guide traffic when possible. • Restore landscape elements damaged by the project. • Minimize work around major holidays as much as possible. • Provide advance notice of lane closures, night work, and access impacts. • Construction workers should not park on your property without your permission. • If assigned, a project liaison will work closely with you on issues. 5 FROM ROADS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES YOUR BUSINESS MAY BE IMPACTED Before or during road projects, your business may also be impacted by utility work. Salt Lake City’s Department of Public Utilities is responsible for building and maintaining water, sewer, and storm drain utilities. Other utilities like power, gas, and communications lines (like phone and internet) are owned by other parties. Salt Lake City and project teams coordinate closely to ensure that utility work can be phased to happen before road work, or that the two projects can occur simultaneously. This is handled on a project- by-project basis because each project impacts utilities differently. The impacts from utility work are similar to those listed previously. However, there are some differences and knowing what to expect from utility work will help you prepare for the impacts and help your staff and customers navigate the work at your location. During water line maintenance or replacement you can expect temporary water service interruptions. You will be notified up to 48 hours in advance of planned service interruptions. Occasionally, emergency service interruptions happen and the project team will notify you as quickly as possible. When a new water line is installed, it will undergo bacteria, pressure, and other testing for upwards of a week to ensure health, safety and water quality standards are met. During testing it may look as if no progress is being made because crews are not actively working on the site. As soon as testing concludes, crews will connect your business to the new line and finish construction. Not all water service interruptions are for new line installation. Sometimes the water service is interrupted so that other adjacent utilities can be looped around water lines, or vice versa. Utility work is often done during major roadway reconstruction to improve those services while the road is already torn up. Here, Public Utility crews reconstruct a storm drain line along 1300 East. FROM ROADS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES (continued) During sewer line work you may be asked to temporarily stop using your water and sewer systems to allow crews to perform their work. When crews drain these lines you may notice an odor for a short period of time. Storm drain work, like road construction, may impact accesses to your business, create noise, dust, and vibration, and require detouring travelers. No matter the type of utility work being performed, you can expect to have utilities restored by the end of the day. We will also restore disturbed landscaping to its condition prior to construction. Crews working on public utilities build reliability and redundancy into the utility system to ensure that utilities at your business function the way they should. If you have questions about utility work call 801-483-6900 or visit www.slc.gov/utilities. If one of your other utility services appears to have been interrupted, please contact the project liaison to help expedite service restoration. You may notice that your water is cloudy, white or even rusty looking. This is normal when a service is stopped and then reinstated and will resolve quickly. To flush the line: • Remove all aerators, screens, and filters from your faucets. • Check to see if you have a water softener; if you do, be sure to bypass it prior to flushing. • Locate your water heater and close the inlet valve if possible. • Then run the cold water until the water returns to normal. Crews prepare to install a sewer line. Underground utility upgrades are done in partnership with Salt Lake City Public Utilities and other city departments as well as other entities. 6 7 PLANNING IS KEY - BE PREPARED AND STAY RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION & IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPACT YOU, YOUR BUSINESS AND CUSTOMERS The overall project schedule and anticipated impacts should be shared with you at least two weeks before construction begins, with more specific details provided regularly. Once you’ve received this information, you can further prepare and help your employees and customers cope with construction. The following tips and ideas have been shared with the city from past projects and can help minimize surprise and frustration for your customers before construction Eegins. Start by including a note about the project and start date on your website, social media pages, and in any newsletter or business communication you have with customers • Include messages that emphasize: – There will always be a way to get to your business – Customers can sign up for the project newsletter to receive timely information and to help them understand the best way to reach you • If you don’t collect contact information already, now is a good time to start so you can help keep clients/customers informed. • Support your customers’ buying habits by sending regular emails with route information and promotions. WORK WITH YOUR EMPLOYEES ON A PLAN TO MAINTAIN REGULAR OPERATIONS • Talk to your employees about ways to stay prosperous during construction and allow them to share any concerns they have. • Create or strengthen your marketing plan so it is in place before construction begins. • Make sure your employees are signed up for project updates and that they know available routes to get to work during construction. • Ensure your employees have a plan to communicate any messages that might come from the construction team outside of project updates. Sidewalk closures are common during reconstruction. If the sidewalk on one side of the street is closed, the other side will be open with detour signage. There will always be pedestrian access through construction. 88 PLANNING IS KEY - BE PREPARED AND STAY RESILIENT (continued) CONNECT WITH A NETWORK OF SUPPORT • Join your local chamber(s) of commerce and make use of their resources, including marketing support. • Connect with neighboring businesses, community and neighborhood associations to share your business information and promotions with the surrounding community. See our reference list on page 14. ASK FOR WHAT YOU NEED • Work with city staff in the pre-bid stage to request that contracts include business friendly requirements such as: – cleaning up the project site and suspending construction activities during critical business days – ensuring accesses to business is available at all times – putting up “all businesses are open” signage – requesting meetings with the project team and contractor to stay in the loop on the project schedule and share concerns THINK THROUGH YOUR OPERATIONS • Talk to your lender about the upcoming project and whether existing debt can be restructured or if lines of credit might be needed prior to construction and in light of potentially diminished revenue. • Secure a line of credit while your sales are good so it is in place in an emergency. • Consider your staffing needs. A decrease in customers may happen during construction. Keeping an open position vacant, job sharing, and reducing hours are all strategies to keep your staff lean if there is a loss of revenue. • Reducing inventory is another strategy to respond to slower times during construction. • Consider adding more money for cleaning in your budgets during heavy construction to keep your business as dust-free as possible. Crews work to keep dust down, but it is a reality during construction. • Don’t relocate because of construction. A new location may still be impacted by future construction. Once road construction is finished in your area it will be many years, if not decades, before it is necessary again. For any kind of crisis, have a STRONG BUSINESS PLAN in place. The stronger the plan, THE BETTER OFF your Eusiness will Ee. 9 Road reconstruction aims to improve accessibility and create more welcoming streets by designing them to remove obstacles that previously oEstructed travel and Eeautifying the area with landscaping and trees. Salt Lake City uses its Master Plans, studies, and other guiding design documents to develop and prioritize roadway design and improvements. To learn more visit https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/ 10 COMMUNICATION IS CRITICAL – STAY IN TOUCH ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS Once construction begins, work will occur in front of your business multiple times and for varying periods of time depending on the activities taking place. For instance, underground excavation and utility upgrades may take longer, while asphalt paving is usually a very short operation. Often, utility relocation and upgrade work occurs before roadway construction. This means your business could be impacted over more than one construction season. Construction is phased to finish as quickly as possible. The convenience of a shorter project is usually offset by more frequent or intense impacts. Impacts like dust, noise and vibration are inevitable during construction. Others, such as traffic delays and blocked travel routes and accesses, often arise. The following ideas can help you cope if/when they happen. MAINTAIN OPEN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PROJECT TEAM • The project liaison’s job is to help you during construction. Call them if you have a question, concern or issue. • Report problems as they happen and whenever they happen. Don’t wait for a situation to get worse before alerting the team. • If damage occurs to your property from the project, contact the project liaison right away. Do not repair it on your own. • Keep this project guide handy for questions. You can find it online at https://www.slc.gov/ed/businessresources • Save the project hotline number in your phone, ask your store managers to do the same, and make it visible for your staff. • Talk to the project liaison if you are planning property improvements during construction such as landscaping, parking lot maintenance, etc., to coordinate and avoid delays, extra work or future damage to your new improvements. • Talk to the project team in advance if you are planning any special events at your location. • Be sure to read all correspondence about the project. The most important thing you can do is MAINTAIN COMMUNICATION with the project team. The sooner we know about your needs the better we can A&&2002'A7( <28. 11 KEEP YOUR CUSTOMERS COMING BACK • We will put up signs to direct traffic. Take a look at these signs and make sure they make sense to you and your customers. If not, let the project liaison know what your concerns are. • Remain positive when talking about construction to your customers. Having a negative attitude can make customers less likely to return. • Keep a script with information next to the phone that explains the best way to get to your business if customers call. • Put this information on your website and social media feeds. The project liaison can often provide route maps for you to use. • Look at options like signs or flags on your property to increase business visibility. • Consider offering discounts and promotions during the most difficult construction periods as additional incentives for customers. • If you have alternate entrances, consider adding extra signage to help customers reach you more easily. • Extend or shift business hours so you’re open after construction wraps up for the day. • Consider using a delivery service to get your products to customers. • If your location has minimal onsite parking, consider asking employees to carpool or park on side streets to free up spaces for customers. KEEP YOUR SUPPLIERS INFORMED • Talk to your suppliers, delivery drivers, maintenance and landscape providers in advance so they aware the project is coming. • Ask them to sign up for project updates to get the most recent information about project schedule, impacts, and available routes. • Coordinate with the project liaison if your deliveries are impacted by construction. BE CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS • If you’ve been considering a remodel or repairs to your business, make the construction work for you by performing this work during a slower time. • Consider pooling advertising resources or joining marketing campaigns with surrounding businesses in the construction zone. • Use creative promotions and do something above and beyond what you might normally do to attract new customers. • Consider offering customers a promotional item or discount if they post photos on their social media pages of them in your business with a note about construction not keeping them away. A reconstructed roadway with the first “lift” or layer of new asphalt is shown. Asphalt paving is a significant milestone and signals the end of major road construction. 12 ADVICE FROM CONTRACTORS WHAT CONTRACTORS THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW In addition to sharing advice from business owners who have been resilient through construction, we asked construction contractors about what they think you should know. • Construction phasing may not seem logical to you, but there is a method to the madness. Check in with the project liaison to understand the order of work and associated impacts so you have a full picture of what is planned in your area. • We want to help reduce impacts where we can, but contract documents guide the work. Sometimes we can easily address your concerns, other times we may need to work together to brainstorm solutions. • Often there are crews from more than one construction company on a project. While our team wants to help you and reduce impacts, talking to the workers may not resolve an issue or get the information to the right person. It might seem counterintuitive to call the project liaison when there are workers right outside your door, but the liaison is the best person to help resolve issues quickly and at the lowest level possible. • Direct questions about schedule, timing and phasing to the project liaison, website or email updates. ȏ &onstruction is messy. The city will monitor the contractor to make sure they keep it cleaned up. &rews construct a new corner and sidewalN. If you have questions about work at your location call the project liaison for details. 7ry to Neep the Eig picture in mind. /iNe remodeling your home, construction is 0(66< A1' Ζ1&219(1Ζ(17. In the end, you’ll have a %5A1' 1(: 52A'. 13 TIME TO CELEBRATE - POST CONSTRUCTION CELEBRATE WITH EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS As construction ends, take the opportunity to celebrate with your employees and customers. The new road will be more convenient, accessible, and welcoming. • Work with your neighborhood association or council, and project team on a ribbon cutting ceremony or other project-completion event. • Post a message on your website, social media pages, and in emails to customers announcing the end of construction and the benefits of the project. • Consider an end of construction sale or promotion to bring back customers and/ or thank customers for hanging in there. • If needed, partner with other businesses to take turns at sharing driveways or parking stalls. • Support other businesses in areas with road construction. Share your experience and advice with them. &rews finish worN on a new layer of asphalt. 'epending on the depth of reconstruction, most projects will receive two to three layers of new asphalt. 14 RESOURCES FOR BUSINESS OWNERS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Salt Lake City’s Department of Economic Development is the best place to learn about resources available to support your business before, during, and after construction. We know that construction can be challenging, but that the improvements will benefit your business by improving customer access, increasing customer visits, and improving your property value. Our team of experts can connect you with available loan programs offered by the city and other organizations. Our number one tip for businesses about to be impacted by construction is to contact the Suazo Business Center, the Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC) and the Women’s Business Center of Utah. These organizations offer free consulting to help you with your business and marketing plans. Other available resources include: Pacific Islander Business Alliance https://pik2ar.org/piba/ Salt Lake Chamber https://slchamber.com/ Small Business Development Corporation - Utah https://utahsbdc.org/ Suazo Business Center https://suazocenter.org/ Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce Greater Salt Lake https://www.facebook.com/ TCCGSL/ Utah Asia Chamber of Commerce http://www.utahasiancc.org/ Utah Black Chamber https://utahblackchamber.com/ Utah Gay & Lesbian Chamber https://www.utahlgbtqchamber.org/ Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce https://www.facebook.com/utahhcc/ Women’s Business Center https://wbcutah.org/ 15 QUESTIONS Questions for Salt Lake City’s Civic Engagement, Economic Development, Engineering, and Public Utilities teams can be directed to the contacts below. SALT LAKE CITY CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CivicEngagementTeam@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/civic-engagement SALT LAKE CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 801-535-7200 ed@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/ed @SLCEconDev SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 801-535-7961 engineeringinfo@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/engineering @SLCMoves SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES 801-483-6900 www.slc.gov/utilities @SLCPu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Salt Lake City wishes to thank the local business and construction contracting community that provided advice and recommendations. Additional acknowledgment and gratitude are offered to the cities of Madison, Wisconsin, Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Minnesota and Utah Departments of Transportation for their development of similar resource guides, which were used as references. Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date ______________________________ Sign ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO._________OF 2021 (Adopting Capital Improvement Program Allocations for fiscal year 2021-2022.) A resolution adopting the attached Capital Improvement Program Allocations for the fiscal year 2021-2022. WHEREAS, in June the City Council adopted a final budget for the City fiscal year 2021-2022; and WHEREAS, the budget adopted by the City included a budget for the capital improvement program; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to formalize the appropriations for the capital improvement program. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the capital improvement allocations for the City for fiscal year 2021-2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Capital Improvement Allocations. The capital improvement allocations for fiscal year 2021-2022, which were included within the 2021-2022 budget, shall be and hereby are adopted according to the specific terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 3. Public Inspection. The City budget officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file copies of these capital improvement program allocations in the office of said budget officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which allocations shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL _______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS FY 2021-22 PROJECTS OVERVIEW A-1 FY 2021-22 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY A-2 DEBT SERVICE CIP DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND B-4 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS B-5 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1 ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS This page has been intentionally left blank Capital Improvement Program Overview Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. Two elements guide the City in determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current fiscal year's capital budget. Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C” Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration. Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book) Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,653,052 general fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, $4,900,000 transportation tax, and 491,520 of Impact Fee funds. Projects include traffic signal upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and neighborhood byway enhancements. Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park, Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of $1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital replacement projects that are long overdue. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-1 Debt ServiceDebt Service Projects Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514 Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801 Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951 Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296 Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151 Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667 B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377 ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500 ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0 ESCO Parks Debt Service 0 Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233 Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900 Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390 OngoingOngoing Projects Crime Lab 560,869 560,869 Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000 Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000 Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869 Other OngoingOther Ongoing Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000 Public Services- Smiths Ballfield 154,000 154,000 Public Services- ESCO County Steiner 148,505 148,505 Public Services - Memorial House 68,554 68,554 Other Ongoing 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059 Maintenance Funded Projects MaintenanceMultimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000 Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000 Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000 Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-2 New CIPNew/Maintenance Projects Total Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000 400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000 1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092 A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667 Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000 Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400 Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000 Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000 Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736 900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000 Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333 Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146 Area Studies 201,000 201,000 Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864 200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222 Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000 Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834 Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167 Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680 Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000 700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450 900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000 Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-3 New Projects (Continued)SLC  Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682 Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000 Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000 Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329 Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078 Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000 Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230 RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032 New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819 Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114 Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086 Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects. 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337 Other Capital Improvement Programs CDBGCity Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation) SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000 Total CDBG 322,000 322,000 AirportAirport CIP Projects Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000 Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000 Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000 North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000 Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000 Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000 Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000 Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000 Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000 Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-4 Airport (Continued)Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500 Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000 GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000 Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000 North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000 Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500 GolfGolf CIP Projects Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575 Range Improvements 177,836 177,836 Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000 Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411 Public UtilitiesPublic Utilities CIP Projects Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000 Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000 Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000 Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000 Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000 Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000 Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000 Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000 Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000 Landscaping 68,000 68,000 Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826 Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000 Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000 Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500 Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000 Detention Basins 50,000 50,000 Landscaping 168,000 168,000 Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000 Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000 Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-5 RDARedevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179 Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179 SustainabilityTotal Sustainability CIP Projects No Projects 0 Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0 Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416 GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 703,068,753 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-6 Salt Lake City Impact Fee Summary Fiscal Year 2022 PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL Impact FeesImpact Fee Projects Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233 Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900 400 South Viaduct Trail 90000 90,000 1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300 Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000 Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736 900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000 Urban Trails 6,500 6,500 200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422 Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000 Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500 900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000 Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398 SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682 Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000 Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000 RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032 Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-7 Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2022 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total Unfunded ProjectsConstituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315 Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue 1,405,000 1,405,000 Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South) 3,500,000 3,500,000 Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River) 400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000 Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive 800,000 800,000 Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422 Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427 Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495 Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895 Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785 Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740 Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction 1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000 Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100 Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing 1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000 Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500 Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000 Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750 Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000 Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325 Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge 200 N Street 790,000 790,000 Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000 Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-8 Unfunded Projects (Continued)Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements 440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000 Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East 225,000 225,000 Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction 2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000 Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194 Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920 Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South) 400,000 400,000 Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000 Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north 500,000 500,000 Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000 Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000 Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-9 This page has been intentionally left blank MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS A-10 This page has been intentionally left blank Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $333,514 Sales Tax Rev Bonds June 2012 10/1/2032 RDA Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000. As of June 30, 2021, $10,845,000 in principal remains outstanding. The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The Series 2012A bonds mature on October 1, 2032. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $530,801 Sales Tax Rev Bonds November 2013 10-01-2033 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,470,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2033. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $744,951 Sales Tax Rev Bonds September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads. The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2021, $8,430,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2034. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1 Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $2,009,296 Sales Tax Rev Bonds June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City. Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of $2,363,890.47 for the City. As of June 30 2021, $17,910,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2028. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $366,151 Sales Tax Rev Bonds December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown. The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of $299,661 for the City. As of June 30, 2021, $2,095,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April 1, 2027. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $975,377 Sales Tax Rev Bonds August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-2 The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2021, $2,820,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2024. ESCO Lease Debt Service 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $82,850 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division. ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County $148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment. ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $517,200 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks. Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $118,300 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $500,900 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 04-15-2037 Impact Fees The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,755,000 in principal remains outstanding. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-3 Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15, 2037. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A 2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $483,233 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 04-15-2038 Impact Fees The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project. The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2021, $7,555,000 in principal remains outstanding. ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND Crime Lab Rental Payments 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $560,869 General Fund Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab Facilities Maintenance 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $350,000 General Fund The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock. Parks Maintenance 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $250,000 General Fund The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-4 Percent for Art 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $120,086 General Fund To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP) Cost overrun 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $160,114 General Fund ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES Smith Ballfield Naming Rights 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $156,000 Other -Donations Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old. CIP Memorial House 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $68,554 Other - Rental A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation. Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use of the funding is to be determined. Real Estate Services – Surplus Land 2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $200,000 Other – Surplus Land MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-5 Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B 2021 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev Bonds October 2019 04-01-20 RDA Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it. The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of $6,396,905. As of June 30, 2021, $57,740,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1 beginning in 2020. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2038. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP B-6 This page has been intentionally left blank MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-2 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-3 This page has been intentionally left blank MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-4 This page intentionally left blank MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-2 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-3 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-4 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-5 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-6 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-7 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-8 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-9 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-10 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-11 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-12 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-13 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-14 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-15 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-16 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-17 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-18 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-19 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-20 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-21 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-23 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-24 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-25 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-26 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-27 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-28 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-29 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-30 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-31 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-32 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-33 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-34 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-35 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-36 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-37 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-38 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-39 This page has been intentionally left blank MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-40 This page has been intentionally left blank The Department of Airports The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports has 610.8 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget continues to show financial impacts due to COVID-19. The Salt Lake City International Airport, along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has been acutely impacted by the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The Airport continues to look for ways to control costs and provide airline and concession relief through the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) grant as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation ACT (CRRSAA) grant. These grants will offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY22. While the American Rescue Plan has been passed, no allocations or awards have been made at this time and are not reflected in the Airports FY22 budget. While passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, the Department of Airports will act prudently in managing the FY22 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital expenses where feasible and look for ways to strengthen our revenues. The developed FY22 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits while facing challenges of decreased passengers and revenues. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital projects while deferring non-critical projects to preserve cash and liquidity. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which will improve ongoing operations, create jobs, and provide economic stimulus to the City’s and State’s economy. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-2 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-3 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-4 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-5 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-6 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-7 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-8 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-9 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-10 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-11 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-12 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-13 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-14 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-15 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-16 The Salt Lake City Golf Division The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds have not been released for use as the fund balance has been needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division has proposed increasing the Golf CIP Fund from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The projected increase for the final six months of FY22 from the proposed increase is $124,800. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $257,575 in FY 2022 to purchase additional, mostly used equipment (lease-return equipment from high-end private courses). The Golf Division will be focusing on making improvements to the driving ranges and practice areas located at five of our six locations and have allocated $177,866 from the Golf CIP Fund for solid-surface hitting stations with artificial turf hitting mats along with new dispensers/washers. The Golf Division will be undergoing a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling a number of tee boxes at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY22 from the Golf CIP Fund for materials and equipment rentals. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-18 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-19 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-20 Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these activities. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2022, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Some planned capital improvement projects initially anticipated for FY2021 were deferred and reprioritized to FY2022 and beyond. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Alternatives from a recently completed condition assessment for all three plants are being evaluated. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-23 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-24 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-25 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-26 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-27 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-28 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-29 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-30 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-31 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-32 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-33 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-34 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-35 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-36 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-37 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-38 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-39 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-40 Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial districts that experience disinvestment. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial, planning, and revitalization tools to support redevelopment projects that encourage economic investment, assist in the housing for low-and moderate-income households, and help implement Salt Lake City’s Master Plan. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2022 budget proposes only one potential City public infrastructure project. The Station Center infrastructure project is an allocation for the construction and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure surrounding the Agency’s properties in the Depot District. This project is currently being designed in conjunction with the City’s Transportation and Engineering Departments. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS E-42 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Update PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: August 24, 2021 Set Date: Public Hearing: Potential Action: ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the Northpoint Small Area Plan, which when completed, will provide guidance on future development and use of property along 2200 West Corridor in the Northwest Planning Community of Salt Lake City. In FY2020/21 the Council allocated $100,000 to update the master plan for this area. A request for proposals process was completed in spring 2021 and Logan Simpson was selected as the consultant. The contract was finalized in June 2o21 and the money encumbered before the end of the 2021 budget year. In May 2020 the Council adopted a resolution outlining the policy and objectives for preparing masterplans (Resolution 14 of 2021). The resolution states the “City Council policy input to be included early in the process so that such input can be incorporated into broad community outreach efforts.” This check-in is meant to give fulfill that goal and give the Council opportunity to review and provide feedback on the public engagement process. The short transmittal letter outlines the goals and objectives of the small area plan, the proposed timeline, public and stakeholder engagement and management team members. Attached to the transmittal letter is the scope of work that provides insight into process and timelines. Page | 2 The updated small area plan would (page 2 transmittal letter): • Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics of the area that can coexist with the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land in the vicinity that is within Salt Lake County. • Establish the justification, parameters, and needs necessary to establish a transfer of development rights program for the area. • Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. • Identify appropriate elements to support non-automobile transportation to link future employment opportunities to nearby residential areas, both inside and outside of Salt Lake City. • Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. • Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Policy Questions 1. Page three of the transmittal letter outlines the steering committee that will help provide guidance on the development of the plan. Does the Council have any other names or stakeholders they think should be included in that group? 2. One of the main reasons the Council supported funding the update for the small area plan is due to development pressure for potential residential areas north of I-215 and the potential annexation of this area of Salt Lake County into North Salt Lake City (Davis County). The biggest concerns are how city streets such as 2200 west and Salt Lake City International Airport operations may be impacted by residential development in this area. NSL is identified as one of the steering committee members. The Council may wish to ask staff to discuss how they plan to include North Salt Lake City and the developers in that area in the process. 3. Salt Lake City Airport is not included as members of the Steering Committee, but they will be engaged throughout the entire process by the project management team. The Council may wish to consider if the role of the Airport Staff should be elevated or more specifically identified due to the potential impact on the airport. City Council Meeting 24 August 2021 Agenda •Overall Process + Schedule •Early Feedback •Next Steps Timeline and Anticipated Outreach Overall Process + Schedule What is the Master Plan? •Previous plan adopted in 2000 •Address increasing development pressure along the 2200 West Corridor •Address increasing interest in annexations of adjacent unincorporated land •Balance sometimes competing values: •protecting the Salt Lake International Airport, •preserving agricultural land and wildlife habitat, and •recognizing property rights. The Update Will: Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics of the area that can coexist with the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1 Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land in the vicinity that is within Salt Lake County. 2 Establish the justification, parameters, and needs necessary to establish a transfer of development rights program for the area. 3 Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. 4 Identify appropriate elements to support non-automobile transportation to link future employment opportunities to nearby residential areas, both inside and outside of Salt Lake City. 5 Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. 6 Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. 7 Jun -SepInitiation + Analysis •Plan Audit •Existing Conditions •Engagement Plan •Kickoff Week •Vision Sep -DecConcept Design + Plan Development •Key Opportunities •Tradeoffs + Priorities •Action Plan •Small Group Roundtables Jan -AprDraft Plan, Refinement + Finalization •Preliminary Plan •Draft Plan Public Review •Final Plans •Adoption Process Timeline Early Feedback This Plan will be a SUCCESS if… •it is set up to be fully implemented and is clear in delineating ways to conserve and preserve land •includes educational components or a guidebook for continued implementation •it focuses on agriculture and cultural heritage of the area and the preservation of the ecology of Great Salt Lake and associated habitat •it balances the desires and needs of property owners with conservation efforts •the integrity and health of the land is preserved and enhanced, and that any development is complementary and compatible with neighborhoods •It incorporates a seamless, adequate buffer through this area, and extending west along the Great Salt Lake’s entire southern shoreline •the process is open and transparent, incorporates and considers all feedback, and develops trust, ultimately accepted and endorsed by the community Action Items + Next Steps Next Steps •Continued One-on-One Interviews •Initial Online Questionnaire: •www.slc.gov/planning/2021/08/02/northpoint- small-area-plan/ •Existing Conditions + Mapping Extra Slides Swaner Property North Salt Lake Annexation ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY MAYOR AND NEIGHBORHOODS BLAKE THOMAS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 4 04 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 14548 6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 -548 6 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CIT Y COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 20, 2021 Chris Wharton, Chair FRO M: Blake Thomas, Director , Department of Community & Neighborhoods _____________________ SU BJECT: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Update ST AFF CONTACTS: Nick Norris, Director, Planning Division Nick.Norris@slcgov.com Michaela Oktay, Deputy Director, Planning Division Michaela.Oktay@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item RECOMMENDATION : Review BU DGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND The Salt Lake City Council allocated $100,000 in the 2021 budget to update the Northpoint Small Area Plan to provide guidance on future development and use of property along 2200 West Corridor in the Northwest Planning Community of Salt Lake City. A Request for Proposals process was completed in spring 2021 and Logan Simpson was selected as the consultant. The contract was finalized in June 2o21 and the money encumbered before the end of the 2021 budget year. In accordance with Resolution 14, 2021 the Planning Division is providing this informational transmittal for the City Council. The Resolution indicates that the City Council should be updated early in the process so there is understanding of the scope of work, the project budget, project timeline, and any barriers that may impact the process . Additionally, this is the opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information to the consultants that may help the project. The previous plan for the area was adopted in 2000. Since that time, the development pressure along the 2 200 West Corridor has increased and the interest in annexations of adjacent Lisa Shaffer (Jul 29, 2021 13:54 MDT) 07/29/2021 07/29/2021 unincorporated land has increased. The co mbined forces present a unique challenge for the city and the balancing of sometimes competing values, such as maintaining operations of the Salt Lake Inter national Airport, preserving agricultural land and wildlife habitat, and recognizing property rights. The ne w plan will: • Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics of the area that can coexist with the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land in the vicinity that is within Salt Lake County. • Establish the justification, parameters, and needs necessary to establish a transfer of development rights program for the area. • Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. • Identify appropriate elements to support non-automobile transportation to link future employment opportunities to nearby residential areas, both inside and outside of Salt Lake City. • Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. • Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. The timeline for the development of the plan is anticipated to take approximately 12 months. with a projected completion in early summer 2022. Anticipated project deliverables include: • public engagement plan and events (detailed below) • existing conditions report • conceptual and refined land use plans • implementation • draft and final small area master plan PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Planning Division will work with Logan Simpson and the City’s Civic Engagement Team on public outreach throughout the project. The consultant has included three milestones within the scope during which focus on obtaining community input: • Stakeho lder Interviews: mid- to late-summer 2021 In conjunction with City staff, Logan Simpson will host a two - to three-day series of 45- minute individual/ small group meetings with property owners, City departments, public agencies and technical experts, and key developers, to review preliminary existing conditions report data, and identify key issues and opportunities for the area. These meetings will provide key stakeholders the opportunity to comment on technical aspects for feasibility, land use mix, and policies. The meetings will also be used to begin the discussion on crucial implementation steps and anticipating potential barriers to implementation. • Public Roundtables: fall 2021 In conjunction with City staf f, Logan Simpson will host a series of two, 1 to 1-1/2 hour small group roundtables via digital platform/ meeting with property owners, public agencies, key developers, and general public, to review and refine the preliminary draft concepts and frameworks. • Draft Plan Public Comment: winter 2022 The Draft Plan will be presented to the public via digital or in-person open house to allow for public review and comment. The project team is seeking input from the City Council to help identify stakeholders who should be engaged in the process. Identified stakeholders include property owners within and near the project area, nearby neighbors and businesses, adjacent local governments (including school districts and service providers) who have an interest or role along 2200 West, and advocacy groups with an interest in the area. The City Council can help the project team identify other groups to ensure a diverse representation of people and interests are engaged in the process. STEERING COMMITTEE It is anticipated that a steering committee be established to provide guidance on the deliverables of the plan as it is developed. It is anticipated that the steering committee consist of people outside of the city government. There will likely be some overlap and communication on some issues, such as providing services as the area changes with development and annexations. Invitations to participate on the steering committee will be sent to the following: • Property owners • Representative of nearby residents • Jordan River Commission • North Salt Lake • Salt La ke County • Nearby duck clubs • Friends of the Great Salt Lake • Mosquito Abatement District Other interest groups will be added as they are identified. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Planning Division • Nick Norris, Planning Director ; • Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director Logan Simpson • Megan Moore, Project Manager • Bruce Meighen, Planning Principal • Jim Carter, Senior Advisor • Olivia Cvetko, Public Outreach DEPARTMENT AL COORDINATION The project management team will engage other city departments throughout the pr ocess. The selection committee included representatives from the Airport, Transportation, Engineering, and Public Utilities. Sustainability, Public Services, Police, Fire, Building Services and other Departments who will be impacted by development in this area will be engaged throughout the process to ensure the plan considers impacts to the ability to provide services and the role this area can play in helping implement the applicable goals of the City and each Department. NEXT STEPS The first outreach series is anticipated for mid- to late-summer 2021 with property owners, City departments, public agencies and technical experts, and key developers, to review preliminary existing conditions report data, and identify key issues and opportunities for the area. Nick Norris and Michaela Oktay are on the core team that will meet regularly though out the planning process. Additionally, Planning will provide periodic updates to the City Council through informational transmittals in accordance with Re so lutio n 14 of 2020. The attached work plan, which has been extracted from the finalized contract with the consultant, provides some insight on the steps in the process and the timelines. The timeline in the contract is for a draft plan to be finished in approximately 12 months. There are potential barriers that may impact that timeline, including needing to modify engagement activities to achieve equity, conflicts in public input that require additional time to find consensus, opposition to the draft plan, and time to coordinate with neighboring government agencies. Page 8 of 14 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-20-2146 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF WORK NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA MASTER PLAN UPDATE I. GENERAL A. Consultant, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. B.Consultant shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by Consultant's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel. C.Consultant shall be solely responsible for the safety of Consultant's employees and others relative to Consultant's work, work procedures, material, equipment, transportation, signage, and related activities and equipment. D.Consultant shall possess and keep in force all licenses and permits required to perform services under this Agreement. II.RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT A. Consultant shall provide certain Northpoint Small Area Master Plan update as specified for the study area which includes the 2200 West corridor from North Temple to the Salt Lake County line and the land located between the I-215 on the east and the Salt Lake International Airport and the Great Salt Lake to the west. Scope of work shall include but may not be limited to the following: 1. Provide an existing conditions report that reviews the existing policies in the current Northpoint Small Area Plan, Northwest Community Master Plan, and Northwest Quadrant Master Plan to determine consistency with Plan Salt Lake. 2. Engagement: Issue Identification. Engage property owners, nearby residents, technical experts, City Departments, developers, to discover the issues associated with development in the area to identify community values related to future development and impacts in the area. Targeted and safe engagement activities that are appropriate for the community and stakeholders should be provided. 3. Citywide Goals: Review applicable citywide goals and identify how the identified issues are compatible, nor not compatible, with the citywide goals. 4. Engagement: Solution. Page 9 of 14 Find solutions to the issues and identify how the solutions help achieve citywide goals. Offer solutions that are capable of building consensus whenever the identified issues and stakeholder input do not align with City goals. Consultant shall provide solutions and the solutions shall consider what policies and elements from existing plans are appropriate and shall be included in the proposed master plan update. The objective outlined shall be prioritized based upon community and stakeholder input. 5. Draft plan: Based on the outputs from the previous steps, develop a draft plan that guide future land use, infrastructure, and development related decisions for the area. The plan should include the following information: a. Clearly state the goals and objectives for the plan and specific policies or action items to achieve the goals and implement the objectives. Environmental justice and equity should inform each goal and objective. b. Identify how the plan is meeting Citywide goals and policies. Relevant adopted Citywide goals and policies that inform the plan’s goals and policies should be referenced in the plan. c. Desired and appropriate land use types for the area and the necessary level of infrastructure to support the land use types. This should include any land that should be preserved as open space. d. A description, analysis, examples, and key requirements for establishing a transfer of development right program in the area. e. Recommended development characteristics to help guide future development regulations, including identifying best practices for compatibility measures between the land use types. This should include building scale, placement and design, buffering requirements, energy efficient designs, air quality controls, storm water management best practices, and other necessary to address issues raised during the engagement process. f. Recommended considerations/criteria for City annexations of adjacent land in and adjacent to the plan area. g. Recommended right-of-way design, configuration, and alignments for existing to be improved rights-of-way and future rights-of-way through the area. h. Recommended elements to support non-automobile transportation to link future employment opportunities to nearby residential areas, both inside and outside of Salt Lake City; 6. Engagement: Plan Comments. Provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to provide input on the draft plan. Page 10 of 14 7. Planning Commission Draft Plan: Develop a draft plan that makes appropriate changes based on the engagement activities identified in step 6. B. Consultant shall work with the Planning Division and other City Departments to provide the following resources necessary to complete the work. 1. Establish the schedule to check in on milestones next steps in the process of the project. 2. Address any obstacles or barriers on a bi-weekly basis to the Planning Division in order to keep the project on schedule. C. Timeline. The project shall be completed within approximately 12 months. Anticipated length of time for each task and deliverable are as follows: Existing conditions report: 2 months Public engagement plan: 1 month Initial engagement activities: 2 months Public engagement report: 1 month Draft plan: 3 months Engagement activity: 1 month Final engagement report: 0.5 month Final draft plan: 1.5 months D. Consultant shall provide the following deliverables: 1. Existing conditions report to be delivered within 60 days of starting work. 2. Public engagement plan to be produced within 60 days of starting the work. 3. Provide public engagement report activity. 4. Include a summary of each activity 5. A list of stakeholders 6. The demographics of those participated 7. The issues, solutions and of disagreement identified throughout the process 8. A draft plan that includes the goals and objectives, action items to achieve the goals, annexation criteria for unincorporated areas, recommended land uses, and infrastructure to support the land use, development characteristics, and options for preserving open space. 9. A final draft plan that reconciles the last round of engagement with the initial draft. Page 11 of 14 10. All deliverables to the planning Division in a pdf and InDesign format. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY The City Planning Division shall work with other City Departments and Divisions to provide the following sources necessary to complete the work. A. Contact information for a representative from each City Department and Division that are interested in the development of the plan. B. Contact information for each recognized organization within 5 miles of the area. C. Provide GIS Data that is accessible to the City Parcel data Utility type, capacity, and location Streets, including right of way widths, cross sections, and modes of transportation Land use Any natural hazards Geology and hydrology in the area Zoning Others? D. Some links are available below and some documents shall be provided by the City to Consultant. Master plans for Consultant’s reference. Plan Salt Lake http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf Northwest Master Plan, including, including the existing Northpoint small area master plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NWMP.pdf http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NP.pdf Transportation Master Plan, (http://www.slcdocs.com/transportation/Master/PDF/MasterPlan.pdf ) including the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan ( https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans- studies/pbmp/) and Transit Master Plan (https://www.slc.gov/transportation/transit-plans/) Salt Lake City Annexation Policy (not available online). E. The Planning Division shall work with other City Departments or Government Agencies to provide plans associate with: The management of the shorelands of the Great Salt Lake (to be provided by City after award). Salt Lake International Airport (to be provided by City after award). Salt Lake County Master Plans https://slco.org/planning-transportation/oquirrh- view/ North Salt Lake Master Plan https://www.nslcity.org/162/Plans-Ordinances Page 12 of 14 IV. DISCLOSURE OF CITY RECORDS Because City shall own the documents generated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall not, without written approval by City, disclose publicly said records. V. DELIVERABLES The data used in compiling, and the results of, any tests, surveys or inspections, as well as all photographs, drawings, renderings, schedules, data processing output, computations, studies, audits, reports, models, and other items of like kind prepared by Consultant, its employees and consultants, shall be the property of City on which City shall own the copyright. Consultant may retain reproducible copies of all of the foregoing documents for information and reference and customary marketing and public relations. The originals of all of the foregoing documents shall be delivered to City upon completion of the work and before final payment is made. This provision may be enforced by an order of specific performance and is independent of any other provision of this Agreement. Page 13 of 14 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-20-2146 EXHIBIT “B” PRICE SCHEDULE NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA MASTER PLAN UPDATE I. GENERAL A. Prices stated include all costs associated with the performance of the services specified, including materials, supervision, labor, insurance, transportation, delivery, fuel or other surcharges, demurrage, and related costs. No other charges shall be allowed. All prices and fees are stated in U.S. dollars. B. City is exempt from sales, use, and federal excise taxes on these products and services. Exemption certificates shall be furnished upon request. C. Prices stated shall be firm for the full term of this Agreement, including any renewal terms. II. PRICING FEES A. The total combined price to be paid for all services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $100,000. Consultant may invoice City after completion of each phase. Task Description Labor Exp. Total Phase 1: Project Initiation and Initial Analysis 1 Facilitate Initial Overview Meeting $2,500 $750 $3,250 2 Prepare Initial ECR $17,500 $- $17,500 3 Prepare PEP $2,500 $- $2,500 4 Conduct Stakeholder Interviews $6,000 $1,250 $7,250 5 Document Final ECR $4,500 $- $4,500 Phase 2: Concept Designs and Plan Development 6 Draft Design Inspiration and Concepts $10,000 $- $10,000 7 Host Stakeholder Roundtables $5,000 $1,250 $6,250 8 Refine Concept and Develop Mockup $8,500 $- $8,500 9 Outline Implementation $7,500 $- $7,500 Phase 3: Draft, Refine and Finalize Small Area Master Plan 10 Develop Small Area Master Plan $12,000 $- $12,000 11 Release Plan for Public Comment $6,000 $750 $6,750 12 Refine and Finalize Small Area Master Plan $8,500 $1,000 $9,500 13 Transmit Final Document $750 $- $750 Total: $91,250 $5,000 $96,250 North Star DrRedwood RdNorth Temple St 600 N1200 W1000 N 1700 N 700 N 2300 N 2200 W300 N 2100 N 3300 N 4000 W§¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦215 §¨¦215 §¨¦215 §¨¦215 §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦215§¨¦80 §¨¦15 ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division, 11/10/2020 City Boundary Northpoint Study Area (Approximate) County Boundary 0 0.7 1.40.3 Miles Northpoint Plan Update Vicinity Map DAVIS C O U N T Y SALT L A K E C O U N T Y COUNTY LINESALT LAKE C ITY INTL . A IRPORT COUNTY LINE2200 WNorth Temple St3200 W Erin J. Mendenhall Mayor DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE, ROOM 138 P.O.BOX 145470, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5470 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL:801-535-7773 Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Lorna Vogt, Director, Public Services Department _____________________ SUBJECT: Renaming of People’s Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground STAFF CONTACTS: Kristin Riker, Public Services; Laura Briefer, Public Utilities DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance amending 15.350 RECOMMENDATION: Notify Council of the proposed name change per City Code Chapter 3.65 and recommend amending Chapter 15.350 to recognize the name change BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Ballpark Community Council requested that the People’s Freeway Park, located at 1560 South West Temple, be renamed the Ballpark Playground. The Public Utilities Department owns the property, and it is managed by the Public Services Department, Parks Division. Both departments support the name change. Naming city assets is addressed in City Code Chapter 3.65. Section 3.65.020B classifies city assets as either minor or major. Naming of minor assets is under the purview of the Mayor and is handled through a letter to the Public Services Department files. Major assets, including land regardless of acreage, requires Council approval. Public Services forwarded to the Mayor a request to follow the process described in 3.65.020B[2], thereby notifying her of the requested name change. The process then requires the Mayor to forward the request to the Council for approval. The Council then has 15 days to notify the Mayor if the Council wishes to use a legislative process for naming an asset. It the Council does not respond or chooses not to exercise this option, the Mayor may proceed with the naming just as she would with a minor asset. However, in addition to the naming process outlined in Chapter 3.65, parks are named in City Code Chapter 15.04; therefore, Peoples Freeway Park currently is identified by name in the City Code. To maintain consistency between the park’s name in the department’s files (as approved by the Mayor and/or Council) and its name in City Code 15.04.350, Public Services recommends an ordinance amendment to reflect the name change. rachel otto (May 25, 2021 14:38 MDT) 05/25/2021 05/25/2021 Page 2 of 2 To initiate the process, Public Services recommends that the attached letter from the Mayor be forwarded to the Council notifying them of the proposed name change. Public Services also recommends that the Council, after the requisite fifteen-day period, consider amending Section 15.04.350 to approve the name change. ATTACHMENT A Letter from the Mayor ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 May 24, 2021 Dear Council Members, The Ballpark Community Council is requesting that the People’s Freeway Park located at 1560 South West Temple be renamed Ballpark Playground. The land is owned by Public Utilities and managed as a park by the Parks Division of Public Services. I support this request. City Code Chapter 3.65 states that the Mayor may approve naming of minor assets. The Council approves naming of major assets, which includes any acreage of land. The Council may choose to approve the s name change through legislative process or defer the approval to my office. Chapter 3.65 allows the council fifteen days to determine its course of action. If after fifteen days, on June 15, 2021, no action is taken, the naming decision reverts to the Mayor’s office. Further, the Peoples Freeway Park is identified in City Code Chapter 15.350. Pending a Council decision, my office recommends amending 15.350 to rename the park and avoid inconsistency. Sincerely, Mayor Erin Mendenhall ATTACHMENT B Red Lined Ordinance 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. ______ of 2021 3 4 (Renaming of People’s Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground) 5 6 An ordinance amending Section 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to other 7 parks in Salt Lake City. 8 WHEREAS, the city desires to rename People’s Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 11 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such change. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 13 SECTION 1. Section 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to other parks in 14 Salt Lake City, is amended as follows: 15 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS: 16 The following properties are "parks" for the purposes of this title and are named and described. 17 Some parcels may be associated with multiple parks: 18 19 11th Ave Park: 20 Parcels: 09-32-130-001-0000 21 22 17th S River Park: 23 Parcels: 15-14-159-009-0000 24 25 4th E Community Garden: 26 Parcels: 16-06-454-006-0000 27 28 5th Ave Park: 29 Parcels: 09-31-408-001-0000 30 31 6th E Park: 32 Parcels: 16-06-279-017-0000 33 34 9 Line Oxbow Preserve: 35 2 Parcels: 15-11-180-004-0000, 15-11-180-009-0000, 15-11-180-010-0000, 15-11-180-011-0000, 36 15-11-180-012-0000, 15-11-180-014-0000, 15-11-180-015-0000, 15-11-180-016-0000, 15-11-37 181-001-0000, 15-11-181-002-0000, 15-11-181-003-0000, 15-11-181-004-0000, 15-11-181-005-38 0000, 15-11-183-001-0000, 15-11-186-017-0000, 15-11-186-018-0000, 15-11-503-023-0000, 39 15-11-503-024-0000, 15-11-503-025-0000, 15-11-503-026-0000, 15-11-503-027-0000, 15-11-40 503-028-0000, 15-11-503-029-0000, 15-11-503-030-0000, 15-11-503-031-0000, 15-11-503-032-41 0000, 15-11-503-033-0000, 15-11-503-034-0000, 15-11-503-035-0000, 15-11-503-036-0000, 42 15-11-503-010-0000 43 44 9 Line Trail: 45 Parcels: 15-11-503-037-0000, 15-11-280-015-0000, 15-11-260-020-0000, 15-12-154-002-0000, 46 15-12-154-003-0000, 15-11-178-009-0000, 15-11-154-009-0000, 15-11-178-009-0000, 15-11-47 154-008-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-48 0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-255-016-0000 49 50 9th S River Park: 51 Parcels: 15-11-136-001-0000, 15-11-181-006-0000, 15-11-181-007-0000, 15-11-181-008-0000, 52 15-11-181-010-0000, 15-11-182-001-0000, 15-11-253-001-0000, 15-11-253-012-0000, 15-11-53 253-013-0000, 15-11-253-014-0000 54 55 Alzheimers Wildlife Grove: 56 Parcels: 15-02-155-009-0000, 15-02-155-010-0000, 15-02-155-011-0000, 15-02-155-012-0000, 57 15-02-155-015-0000, 15-02-156-001-0000, 15-02-156-002-0000, 15-02-156-003-0000, 15-02-58 156-004-0000, 15-02-156-006-0000, 15-02-156-007-0000, 15-02-156-011-0000, 15-02-156-012-59 0000, 15-02-156-013-0000, 15-02-156-014-0000, 15-02-156-015-0000, 15-02-176-011-0000, 60 15-02-176-012-0000 61 62 Artesian Well Park: 63 Parcels: 16-07-253-025-0000 64 65 Ballpark Playground: 66 Parcels: 15-13-276-007-0000, 15-13-276-008-0000, 15-13-276-009-0000 67 68 Beatrice Evans Park: 69 Parcels: 16-08-280-016-0000 70 71 Beldon Park: 72 Parcels: 16-06-452-019-0000 73 74 Bend in the River: 75 Parcels: 15-11-330-003-0000, 15-11-331-004-0000, 15-11-331-005-0000, 15-11-331-012-0000, 76 15-11-332-004-0000, 15-11-332-005-0000, 15-11-333-004-0000, 15-11-333-005-0000, 15-11-77 334-001-0000, 15-11-377-006-0000, 15-11-377-007-0000, 15-11-377-008-0000, 15-11-377-011-78 0000, 15-11-378-001-0000, 15-11-378-002-0000, 15-11-378-006-0000, 15-11-378-007-0000, 79 15-11-378-008-0000, 15-11-378-009-0000, 15-11-378-014-0000, 15-11-378-015-0000, 15-11-80 382-001-0000, 15-11-382-002-0000, 15-11-405-012-0000, 15-11-405-013-0000, 15-11-405-015-81 3 0000, 15-11-405-016-0000, 15-11-405-017-0000, 15-11-405-018-0000, 15-11-405-019-0000, 82 15-11-451-001-0000, 15-11-451-003-0000, 15-11-451-005-0000, 15-11-451-006-0000, 15-11-83 453-008-0000, 15-11-453-009-0000, 15-11-453-010-0000, 15-11-453-011-0000, 15-11-453-012-84 0000, 15-11-453-013-0000, 15-11-453-014-0000, 15-11-453-015-0000, 15-11-454-001-0000, 85 15-11-454-002-0000, 15-11-454-003-0000, 15-11-454-004-0000, 15-11-454-005-0000, 15-11-86 454-006-0000, 15-11-454-007-0000, 15-11-454-008-0000, 15-11-454-009-0000, 15-11-454-010-87 0000, 15-11-454-011-0000, 15-11-454-012-0000, 15-11-454-013-0000, 15-11-457-001-0000, 88 15-11-457-002-0000, 15-11-457-003-0000, 15-11-457-004-0000, 15-11-457-005-0000, 15-11-89 457-006-0000, 15-11-457-007-0000, 15-11-457-008-0000, 15-11-457-009-0000, 15-11-457-010-90 0000, 15-11-457-011-0000 91 92 Blaine Preserve: 93 Parcels: 16-16-327-018-0000 94 95 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve: 96 Parcels: 08-13-300-011-0000, 08-13-300-015-0000, 08-24-100-004-0000 97 98 Bonneville Shoreline Trail: 99 Parcels: associated with other parks identified herein 100 101 Cannon Greens Community Garden: 102 Parcels: 15-11-480-001-0000, 15-11-480-028-0000, 15-11-480-003-0000, 15-11-480-029-0000, 103 15-11-480-012-0000, 15-11-480-033-0000, 15-11-480-032-0000 104 105 City Creek Park: 106 Parcels: 09-31-353-029-0000 107 108 Columbus Hillside Preserve: 109 Parcels: 09-30-351-040-0000 110 111 Cotten Park: 112 Parcels: 16-18-339-005-0000 113 114 Cottonwood Park: 115 Parcels: 08-34-252-041-0000, 08-34-252-042-0000, 08-34-252-048-0000, 08-34-251-032-0000 116 117 Curtis Park: 118 Parcels: 16-15-126-019-0000 119 120 Dry Creek Detention Basin: 121 Parcels: 09-33-403-008-0000 122 123 Dee Glen Smith Tennis Courts: 124 Parcels: portion of 16-10-401-002-0000 125 126 East Bench Preserve: 127 4 Parcels: 16-14-306-021-0000, 16-14-306-027-0000, 16-14-306-030-0000, 16-14-306-046-0000, 128 16-14-326-016-0000, 16-14-352-002-0000, 16-14-352-003-0000, 16-14-352-026-0000, 16-14-129 353-018-0000, 16-14-353-020-0000, 16-14-353-022-0000, 16-14-378-001-0000 130 131 Elizabeth Sherman Park: 132 Parcels: 16-20-255-006-0000, 16-20-426-001-0000 133 134 Ensign Peak Nature Park: 135 Parcels: 16-20-229-053-0000, 16-20-229-057-0000, 16-20-229-059-0000, 16-20-229-062-0000, 136 16-20-229-072-0000 137 138 Hillcrest Park: 139 Parcels: 16-21-426-017-0000 140 141 Imperial Neighborhood Park: 142 Parcels: 16-28-131-001-0000 143 144 Inglewood Park: 145 Parcels: 16-08-452-001-0000 146 147 International Peace Gardens: 148 Parcels: portion of 15-11-259-001-0000 149 150 Jackson Park: 151 Parcels: 08-35-276-002-0000, 08-35-276-008-0000 152 153 Jake Garn Park: 154 Parcels: 15-02-380-025-0000 155 156 Jefferson Park: 157 Parcels: 15-12-428-005-0000, 15-12-428-006-0000, 15-12-428-007-0000, 15-12-428-017-0000, 158 15-12-428-018-0000, 15-12-428-019-0000, 15-12-428-020-0000, 15-12-428-021-0000, 15-12-159 428-022-0000, 15-12-428-023-0000, 15-12-428-024-0000, 15-12-428-025-0000, 15-12-428-026-160 0000, 15-12-428-027-0000, 15-12-428-028-0000, 15-13-276-005-0000 161 162 Jordan River Parkway: 163 Parcels: 15-14-129-013-0000, 15-14-155-003-0000, 15-14-176-001-0000, 15-14-177-001-0000, 164 15-14-177-002-0000, 15-14-177-003-0000, 15-14-177- 004-0000, 15-14-180-001-0000, 15-14-165 180-017-0000, 15-14-180-019-0000, 15-14-180-023-0000, 15-14-180-024-0000, 15-14-180-025-166 0000, 15-14-329-001-0000, 15-14-329-002-0000, 15-14-329-003-0000, 15-14-353-001-0000, 167 15-14-376-003-0000, 08-16-276-004-0000, 08-34-201-010-0000, 08-34-202-022-0000, 08-34-168 202-023-0000, 08-34-202-024-0000, 08-34-202-027-0000, 08-34-202-028-0000, 08-34-202-032-169 0000, 08-34-203-005-0000, 08-34-203-006-0000, 08-34-203-007-0000, 08-34-203-008-0000, 170 08-34-203-010-0000, 08-34-203-011-0000, 08-34-203-012-0000, 08-34-203-013-0000, 08-34-171 203-016-0000, 08-34-203-032-0000, 08-34-251-014-0000, 08-34-251-015-0000, 08-34-251-016-172 0000, 08-34-251-017-0000, 08-34-251-018-0000, 08-34-251-019-0000, 08-34-251-020-0000, 173 5 08-34-251-021-0000, 15-02-181-002-0000, 15-02-181-003-0000, 15-02-326-002-0000, 15-02-174 326-004-0000, 15-02-327-008-0000, 15-02-327-010-0000, 15-02-327-011-0000, 15-02-327-012-175 0000, 08-35-376-001-0000, 15-11-129-001-0000, 15-11-129-003-0000, 15-11-129-004-0000, 176 15-11-129-009-0000, 15-11-129-010-0000, 15-11-130-001-0000, 15-11-130-002-0000, 15-11-177 130-003-0000, 15-11-130-004-0000, 15-11-130-009-0000, 15-11-134-010-0000, 15-11-134-011-178 0000, 15-11-134-012-0000, 15-11-134-013-0000, 15-11-134-014-0000, 15-11-134-023-0000, 179 15-11-134-025-0000, 15-11-134-027-0000, 15-11-134-028-0000, 15-02-376-015-0000, 15-02-180 376-017-0000, 15-02-382-002-0000, 15-02-384-008-0000, 15-02-384-009-0000, 15-02-384-010-181 0000, 15-11-126-013-0000, 15-11-126-019-0000, 15-11-126-020-0000, 15-11-132-001-0000, 182 15-11-132-005-0000, 08-34-251-030-0000, 08-34-428-001-0000, 08-34-428-002-0000, 08-34-183 428-003-0000, 08-35-301-011-0000, 15-11-258-015-0000, 15-11-258-016-0000, 15-11-258-004-184 0000, 15-11-259-002-0000, 15-11-258-003-0000, 15-02-332-009-0000, 15-02-333-011-0000, 185 15-02-334-001-0000, 15-02-334-008-0000, 15-02-334-012-0000, 15-02-334-015-0000, 15-02-186 334-019-0000, 15-02-334-023-0000, 15-02-334-024-0000, 08-27-402-002-0000, 08-27-402-003-187 0000, 08-27-402-004-0000, 08-27-403-006-0000, 08-27-405-004-0000, 08-27-405-005-0000, 188 08-27-405-007-0000, 08-27-452-041-0000, 08-27-452-044-0000, 08-34-252-043-0000, 08-34-189 252-044-0000, 08-34-252-045-0000, 08-34-252-046-0000, 08-34-252-047-0000, 08-34-278-010-190 0000, 08-15-100-011-0000, 08-15-100-016-0000, 08-15-326-001-0000, 08-15-327-001-0000, 191 08-15-327-002-0000, 08-15-351-005-0000, 08-15-376-002-0000, 08-15-376-003-0000, 08-15-192 376-007-0000, 08-15-376-009-0000, 08-22-100-002-0000, 08-22-100-004-0000, 08-22-100-005-193 0000, 08-22-100-009-0000, 08-22-452-007-0000, 15-14-126-008-0000, 15-14-126-009-0000, 194 15-14-126-010-0000, 15-14-126-024-0000, 15-14-126-025-0000, 15-14-126-026-0000, 15-14-195 126-027-0000, 15-14-126-028-0000, 15-14-129-001-0000, 15-14-129-004-0000, 15-14-129-006-196 0000, 15-14-129-007-0000, 15-14-129-008-0000, 15-14-129-009-0000, 15-14-129-011-0000, 197 15-14-326-001-0000, 15-14-327-002-0000, 15-14-327-003-0000, 15-14-327-004-0000, 15-14-198 327-011-0000, 15-14-328-002-0000, 15-14-328-011-0000, 15-02-152-003-0000, 08-22-252-001-199 0000 200 201 Kay Rees Park: 202 Parcels: 09-30-476-022-0000 203 204 Kletting Park: 205 Parcels: 09-31-411-017-0000 206 207 Meadows Park: 208 Parcels: 08-34-151-022-0000 209 210 Memory Grove Park and Natural Area: 211 Parcels: 09-30-330-014-0000, 09-30-376-021-0000, 09-30-402-002-0000, 09-30-453-013-0000, 212 09-30-454-016-0000, 09-31-126-009-0000, 09-31-201-001-0000, 09-31-326-002-0000, 09-31-213 328-001-0000, 09-31-328-002-0000, 09-30-376-022-0000, 09-30-376-023-0000, 09-30-454-016-214 0000, 09-31-201-001-0000 215 216 Miami Park: 217 Parcels: 08-22-326-012-0000, 08-22-326-014-0000, 08-22-326-021-0000 218 219 6 Modesto Nature Park: 220 Parcels: portion of 15-11-453-015-0000 221 222 Nelli Jack Park: 223 Parcels: 15-10-453-029-0000 224 225 North Bonneville Preserve: 226 Parcels: 09-29-403-018-0000 227 228 North Gateway Park: 229 Parcels: portion of 08-25-403-001-0000 230 231 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds: 232 Parcels: portion of 16-10-401-002-0000 233 234 Parley Pratt Plaza: 235 Parcels: Approximately 2300 E 2100 S 236 237 Parleys Way Park: 238 Parcels: 16-23-327-008-0000 239 240 Peace Tree Bend: 241 Parcels: 15-14-129-013-0000, 15-14-155-003-0000, 15-14-176-001-0000, 15-14-177-001-0000, 242 15-14-177-002-0000, 15-14-177-003-0000, 15-14-177-004-0000, 15-14-180-001-0000, 15-14-243 180-017-0000, 15-14-180-019-0000 ,15-14-180-023-0000, 15-14-180-024-0000, 15-14-180-025-244 0000 245 246 Peoples Freeway Park: 247 Parcels: 15-13-276-007-0000, 15-13-276-008-0000, 15-13-276-009-0000 248 249 Perrys Hilltop Preserve: 250 Parcels: 09-28-100-002-0000, 09-28-100-004-0000, 09-28-100-006-0000 251 252 Perrys Hollow Preserve: 253 Parcels: 09-32-226-016-0000, 09-29-476-003-0000, 09-32-202-017-0000, 1028 E Chandler Dr. 254 255 Popperton Park & Preserve: 256 Parcels: 09-33-154-010-0000 257 258 Post Street Park: 259 Parcels: 15-02-405-014-0000, 15-02-405-015-0000 260 261 Pugsley Ouray Park: 262 Parcels: 08-36-177-025-0000 263 264 Redwood Meadows Park: 265 7 Parcels: 08-34-177-004-0000 266 267 Roberta Laconia Park: 268 Parcels: 16-07-130-009-0000 269 270 Ron Heaps Memorial Park: 271 Parcels: 16-07-329017-0000 272 273 Rosewood Park: 274 Parcels: 08-23-353-005-0000, 08-23-353-006-0000, 08-23-353-007-0000, 08-23-353-011-0000, 275 08-23-378-001-0000, 08-23-378-002-0000, 08-23-379-001-0000, 08-23-380-001-0000, 08-23-276 381-001-0000, 08-23-382-004-0000, 08-23-383-001-0000, 08-26-126-001-0000, 08-26-126-002-277 0000, 08-26-126-003-0000, 08-26-126-004-0000, 08-26-126-005-0000, 08-26-126-006-0000, 278 08-26-126-007-0000, 08-26-126-008-0000, 08-26-126-009-0000, 08-26-126-010-0000, 08-26-279 126-011-0000, 08-26-126-012-0000, 08-26-126-013-0000, 08-26-126-014-0000, 08-26-126-015-280 0000, 08-26-203-001-0000 281 282 Rotary Glen Park & Preserve: 283 Parcels: 16-11-177-002-0000 284 285 Rotary Park: 286 Parcels: portion of 09-30-402-003-2000 287 288 Salt Lake City Cemetery: 289 Parcels: 09-32-181-007-0000, 09-32-204-001-0000, 09-32-251-001-0000, 09-32-277-001-0000, 290 09-32-332-001-0000, 09-32-401-001-0000, 09-32-426-002-0000, 09-32-203-002-0000 291 292 Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex: 293 Parcels: 08-15-351-003-0000, 08-15-351-004-4001, 08-15-351-004-4002 294 295 Shipp Park: 296 Parcels: 09-32-309-011-0000 297 298 Silver Park: 299 Parcels: 08-36-234-019-0000, 08-36-234-020-0000, 08-36-234-021-0000 300 301 Spring Gulch Preserve: 302 Parcels: 09-28-200-002-1001, 09-28-376-001-0000, 09-28-400-008-0000, 09-33-126-014-0000, 303 09-33-202-026-0000 304 305 Stansbury Shoreline Preserve: 306 Parcels: 08-25-428-001-0000, 08-25-200-010-0000, 08-24-400-002-1001, 08-25-200-002-0000, 307 08-25-200-003-1001, 08-24-300-013-1001, 08-25-278-001-0000, 08-24-300-011-1001, 08-24-308 300-002-1001 309 310 Stanton Park: 311 8 Parcels: 16-06-451-011-0000 312 313 Steenblick Park: 314 Parcels: 08-26-380-004-0000 315 316 Swede Town Park: 317 Parcels: 08-23-477-005-0000 318 319 Taufer Park: 320 Parcels: 16-07-127-027-0000 321 322 Van Ness Park: 323 Parcels: 16-07-255-009-0000 324 325 Victory Park: 326 Parcels: portion of 16-05-254-002-0000 327 328 Wasatch Hollow Park: 329 Parcels: portion of 16-16-179-030-0000 330 331 Wasatch Hollow Preserve: 332 Parcels: 16-16-209-011-0000, 16-16-251-008-0000, 16-16-252-002-0000, 16-16-252-004-0000, 333 16-16-179-032-0000, portion of 16-16-179-030-0000334 335 Wesemen Park: 336 Parcels: approximately 1335 S 900 W 337 338 Westminster Park: 339 Parcels: 16-17-183-012-0000, 16-17-183-013-0000 340 341 Westpointe Park: 342 Parcels: 08-27-107-014-0000, 08-27-107-015-0000, 08-27-107-016-0000, 08-27-151-019-0000 343 344 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in 345 accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section 346 10-3-713.347 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 348 2021. 349 ____________________________ 350 CHAIRPERSON 351 9 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 352 353 ___________________________ 354 CITY RECORDER 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 359 360 361 ____________________________ 362 MAYOR 363 364 365 366 ___________________________ 367 CITY RECORDER 368 369 370 (SEAL) 371 372 373 Bill No. ______ of 2021. 374 Published: _____________________. 375 376 377 378 379 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Boyd Ferguson Date: __________________ ATTACHMENT C Clean Ordinance 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. ______ of 2021 3 4 (Renaming of People’s Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground) 5 6 An ordinance amending Section 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to other 7 parks in Salt Lake City. 8 WHEREAS, the city desires to rename People’s Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 11 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such change. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 13 SECTION 1. Section 15.04.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to other parks in 14 Salt Lake City, is amended as follows: 15 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS: 16 The following properties are "parks" for the purposes of this title and are named and described. 17 Some parcels may be associated with multiple parks: 18 19 11th Ave Park: 20 Parcels: 09-32-130-001-0000 21 22 17th S River Park: 23 Parcels: 15-14-159-009-0000 24 25 4th E Community Garden: 26 Parcels: 16-06-454-006-0000 27 28 5th Ave Park: 29 Parcels: 09-31-408-001-0000 30 31 6th E Park: 32 Parcels: 16-06-279-017-0000 33 34 9 Line Oxbow Preserve: 35 2 Parcels: 15-11-180-004-0000, 15-11-180-009-0000, 15-11-180-010-0000, 15-11-180-011-0000, 36 15-11-180-012-0000, 15-11-180-014-0000, 15-11-180-015-0000, 15-11-180-016-0000, 15-11-37 181-001-0000, 15-11-181-002-0000, 15-11-181-003-0000, 15-11-181-004-0000, 15-11-181-005-38 0000, 15-11-183-001-0000, 15-11-186-017-0000, 15-11-186-018-0000, 15-11-503-023-0000, 39 15-11-503-024-0000, 15-11-503-025-0000, 15-11-503-026-0000, 15-11-503-027-0000, 15-11-40 503-028-0000, 15-11-503-029-0000, 15-11-503-030-0000, 15-11-503-031-0000, 15-11-503-032-41 0000, 15-11-503-033-0000, 15-11-503-034-0000, 15-11-503-035-0000, 15-11-503-036-0000, 42 15-11-503-010-0000 43 44 9 Line Trail: 45 Parcels: 15-11-503-037-0000, 15-11-280-015-0000, 15-11-260-020-0000, 15-12-154-002-0000, 46 15-12-154-003-0000, 15-11-178-009-0000, 15-11-154-009-0000, 15-11-178-009-0000, 15-11-47 154-008-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-281-011-48 0000, 15-10-281-011-0000, 15-10-255-016-0000 49 50 9th S River Park: 51 Parcels: 15-11-136-001-0000, 15-11-181-006-0000, 15-11-181-007-0000, 15-11-181-008-0000, 52 15-11-181-010-0000, 15-11-182-001-0000, 15-11-253-001-0000, 15-11-253-012-0000, 15-11-53 253-013-0000, 15-11-253-014-0000 54 55 Alzheimers Wildlife Grove: 56 Parcels: 15-02-155-009-0000, 15-02-155-010-0000, 15-02-155-011-0000, 15-02-155-012-0000, 57 15-02-155-015-0000, 15-02-156-001-0000, 15-02-156-002-0000, 15-02-156-003-0000, 15-02-58 156-004-0000, 15-02-156-006-0000, 15-02-156-007-0000, 15-02-156-011-0000, 15-02-156-012-59 0000, 15-02-156-013-0000, 15-02-156-014-0000, 15-02-156-015-0000, 15-02-176-011-0000, 60 15-02-176-012-0000 61 62 Artesian Well Park: 63 Parcels: 16-07-253-025-0000 64 65 Ballpark Playground: 66 Parcels: 15-13-276-007-0000, 15-13-276-008-0000, 15-13-276-009-0000 67 68 Beatrice Evans Park: 69 Parcels: 16-08-280-016-0000 70 71 Beldon Park: 72 Parcels: 16-06-452-019-0000 73 74 Bend in the River: 75 Parcels: 15-11-330-003-0000, 15-11-331-004-0000, 15-11-331-005-0000, 15-11-331-012-0000, 76 15-11-332-004-0000, 15-11-332-005-0000, 15-11-333-004-0000, 15-11-333-005-0000, 15-11-77 334-001-0000, 15-11-377-006-0000, 15-11-377-007-0000, 15-11-377-008-0000, 15-11-377-011-78 0000, 15-11-378-001-0000, 15-11-378-002-0000, 15-11-378-006-0000, 15-11-378-007-0000, 79 15-11-378-008-0000, 15-11-378-009-0000, 15-11-378-014-0000, 15-11-378-015-0000, 15-11-80 382-001-0000, 15-11-382-002-0000, 15-11-405-012-0000, 15-11-405-013-0000, 15-11-405-015-81 3 0000, 15-11-405-016-0000, 15-11-405-017-0000, 15-11-405-018-0000, 15-11-405-019-0000, 82 15-11-451-001-0000, 15-11-451-003-0000, 15-11-451-005-0000, 15-11-451-006-0000, 15-11-83 453-008-0000, 15-11-453-009-0000, 15-11-453-010-0000, 15-11-453-011-0000, 15-11-453-012-84 0000, 15-11-453-013-0000, 15-11-453-014-0000, 15-11-453-015-0000, 15-11-454-001-0000, 85 15-11-454-002-0000, 15-11-454-003-0000, 15-11-454-004-0000, 15-11-454-005-0000, 15-11-86 454-006-0000, 15-11-454-007-0000, 15-11-454-008-0000, 15-11-454-009-0000, 15-11-454-010-87 0000, 15-11-454-011-0000, 15-11-454-012-0000, 15-11-454-013-0000, 15-11-457-001-0000, 88 15-11-457-002-0000, 15-11-457-003-0000, 15-11-457-004-0000, 15-11-457-005-0000, 15-11-89 457-006-0000, 15-11-457-007-0000, 15-11-457-008-0000, 15-11-457-009-0000, 15-11-457-010-90 0000, 15-11-457-011-0000 91 92 Blaine Preserve: 93 Parcels: 16-16-327-018-0000 94 95 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve: 96 Parcels: 08-13-300-011-0000, 08-13-300-015-0000, 08-24-100-004-0000 97 98 Bonneville Shoreline Trail: 99 Parcels: associated with other parks identified herein 100 101 Cannon Greens Community Garden: 102 Parcels: 15-11-480-001-0000, 15-11-480-028-0000, 15-11-480-003-0000, 15-11-480-029-0000, 103 15-11-480-012-0000, 15-11-480-033-0000, 15-11-480-032-0000 104 105 City Creek Park: 106 Parcels: 09-31-353-029-0000 107 108 Columbus Hillside Preserve: 109 Parcels: 09-30-351-040-0000 110 111 Cotten Park: 112 Parcels: 16-18-339-005-0000 113 114 Cottonwood Park: 115 Parcels: 08-34-252-041-0000, 08-34-252-042-0000, 08-34-252-048-0000, 08-34-251-032-0000 116 117 Curtis Park: 118 Parcels: 16-15-126-019-0000 119 120 Dry Creek Detention Basin: 121 Parcels: 09-33-403-008-0000 122 123 Dee Glen Smith Tennis Courts: 124 Parcels: portion of 16-10-401-002-0000 125 126 East Bench Preserve: 127 4 Parcels: 16-14-306-021-0000, 16-14-306-027-0000, 16-14-306-030-0000, 16-14-306-046-0000, 128 16-14-326-016-0000, 16-14-352-002-0000, 16-14-352-003-0000, 16-14-352-026-0000, 16-14-129 353-018-0000, 16-14-353-020-0000, 16-14-353-022-0000, 16-14-378-001-0000 130 131 Elizabeth Sherman Park: 132 Parcels: 16-20-255-006-0000, 16-20-426-001-0000 133 134 Ensign Peak Nature Park: 135 Parcels: 16-20-229-053-0000, 16-20-229-057-0000, 16-20-229-059-0000, 16-20-229-062-0000, 136 16-20-229-072-0000 137 138 Hillcrest Park: 139 Parcels: 16-21-426-017-0000 140 141 Imperial Neighborhood Park: 142 Parcels: 16-28-131-001-0000 143 144 Inglewood Park: 145 Parcels: 16-08-452-001-0000 146 147 International Peace Gardens: 148 Parcels: portion of 15-11-259-001-0000 149 150 Jackson Park: 151 Parcels: 08-35-276-002-0000, 08-35-276-008-0000 152 153 Jake Garn Park: 154 Parcels: 15-02-380-025-0000 155 156 Jefferson Park: 157 Parcels: 15-12-428-005-0000, 15-12-428-006-0000, 15-12-428-007-0000, 15-12-428-017-0000, 158 15-12-428-018-0000, 15-12-428-019-0000, 15-12-428-020-0000, 15-12-428-021-0000, 15-12-159 428-022-0000, 15-12-428-023-0000, 15-12-428-024-0000, 15-12-428-025-0000, 15-12-428-026-160 0000, 15-12-428-027-0000, 15-12-428-028-0000, 15-13-276-005-0000 161 162 Jordan River Parkway: 163 Parcels: 15-14-129-013-0000, 15-14-155-003-0000, 15-14-176-001-0000, 15-14-177-001-0000, 164 15-14-177-002-0000, 15-14-177-003-0000, 15-14-177- 004-0000, 15-14-180-001-0000, 15-14-165 180-017-0000, 15-14-180-019-0000, 15-14-180-023-0000, 15-14-180-024-0000, 15-14-180-025-166 0000, 15-14-329-001-0000, 15-14-329-002-0000, 15-14-329-003-0000, 15-14-353-001-0000, 167 15-14-376-003-0000, 08-16-276-004-0000, 08-34-201-010-0000, 08-34-202-022-0000, 08-34-168 202-023-0000, 08-34-202-024-0000, 08-34-202-027-0000, 08-34-202-028-0000, 08-34-202-032-169 0000, 08-34-203-005-0000, 08-34-203-006-0000, 08-34-203-007-0000, 08-34-203-008-0000, 170 08-34-203-010-0000, 08-34-203-011-0000, 08-34-203-012-0000, 08-34-203-013-0000, 08-34-171 203-016-0000, 08-34-203-032-0000, 08-34-251-014-0000, 08-34-251-015-0000, 08-34-251-016-172 0000, 08-34-251-017-0000, 08-34-251-018-0000, 08-34-251-019-0000, 08-34-251-020-0000, 173 5 08-34-251-021-0000, 15-02-181-002-0000, 15-02-181-003-0000, 15-02-326-002-0000, 15-02-174 326-004-0000, 15-02-327-008-0000, 15-02-327-010-0000, 15-02-327-011-0000, 15-02-327-012-175 0000, 08-35-376-001-0000, 15-11-129-001-0000, 15-11-129-003-0000, 15-11-129-004-0000, 176 15-11-129-009-0000, 15-11-129-010-0000, 15-11-130-001-0000, 15-11-130-002-0000, 15-11-177 130-003-0000, 15-11-130-004-0000, 15-11-130-009-0000, 15-11-134-010-0000, 15-11-134-011-178 0000, 15-11-134-012-0000, 15-11-134-013-0000, 15-11-134-014-0000, 15-11-134-023-0000, 179 15-11-134-025-0000, 15-11-134-027-0000, 15-11-134-028-0000, 15-02-376-015-0000, 15-02-180 376-017-0000, 15-02-382-002-0000, 15-02-384-008-0000, 15-02-384-009-0000, 15-02-384-010-181 0000, 15-11-126-013-0000, 15-11-126-019-0000, 15-11-126-020-0000, 15-11-132-001-0000, 182 15-11-132-005-0000, 08-34-251-030-0000, 08-34-428-001-0000, 08-34-428-002-0000, 08-34-183 428-003-0000, 08-35-301-011-0000, 15-11-258-015-0000, 15-11-258-016-0000, 15-11-258-004-184 0000, 15-11-259-002-0000, 15-11-258-003-0000, 15-02-332-009-0000, 15-02-333-011-0000, 185 15-02-334-001-0000, 15-02-334-008-0000, 15-02-334-012-0000, 15-02-334-015-0000, 15-02-186 334-019-0000, 15-02-334-023-0000, 15-02-334-024-0000, 08-27-402-002-0000, 08-27-402-003-187 0000, 08-27-402-004-0000, 08-27-403-006-0000, 08-27-405-004-0000, 08-27-405-005-0000, 188 08-27-405-007-0000, 08-27-452-041-0000, 08-27-452-044-0000, 08-34-252-043-0000, 08-34-189 252-044-0000, 08-34-252-045-0000, 08-34-252-046-0000, 08-34-252-047-0000, 08-34-278-010-190 0000, 08-15-100-011-0000, 08-15-100-016-0000, 08-15-326-001-0000, 08-15-327-001-0000, 191 08-15-327-002-0000, 08-15-351-005-0000, 08-15-376-002-0000, 08-15-376-003-0000, 08-15-192 376-007-0000, 08-15-376-009-0000, 08-22-100-002-0000, 08-22-100-004-0000, 08-22-100-005-193 0000, 08-22-100-009-0000, 08-22-452-007-0000, 15-14-126-008-0000, 15-14-126-009-0000, 194 15-14-126-010-0000, 15-14-126-024-0000, 15-14-126-025-0000, 15-14-126-026-0000, 15-14-195 126-027-0000, 15-14-126-028-0000, 15-14-129-001-0000, 15-14-129-004-0000, 15-14-129-006-196 0000, 15-14-129-007-0000, 15-14-129-008-0000, 15-14-129-009-0000, 15-14-129-011-0000, 197 15-14-326-001-0000, 15-14-327-002-0000, 15-14-327-003-0000, 15-14-327-004-0000, 15-14-198 327-011-0000, 15-14-328-002-0000, 15-14-328-011-0000, 15-02-152-003-0000, 08-22-252-001-199 0000 200 201 Kay Rees Park: 202 Parcels: 09-30-476-022-0000 203 204 Kletting Park: 205 Parcels: 09-31-411-017-0000 206 207 Meadows Park: 208 Parcels: 08-34-151-022-0000 209 210 Memory Grove Park and Natural Area: 211 Parcels: 09-30-330-014-0000, 09-30-376-021-0000, 09-30-402-002-0000, 09-30-453-013-0000, 212 09-30-454-016-0000, 09-31-126-009-0000, 09-31-201-001-0000, 09-31-326-002-0000, 09-31-213 328-001-0000, 09-31-328-002-0000, 09-30-376-022-0000, 09-30-376-023-0000, 09-30-454-016-214 0000, 09-31-201-001-0000 215 216 Miami Park: 217 Parcels: 08-22-326-012-0000, 08-22-326-014-0000, 08-22-326-021-0000 218 219 6 Modesto Nature Park: 220 Parcels: portion of 15-11-453-015-0000 221 222 Nelli Jack Park: 223 Parcels: 15-10-453-029-0000 224 225 North Bonneville Preserve: 226 Parcels: 09-29-403-018-0000 227 228 North Gateway Park: 229 Parcels: portion of 08-25-403-001-0000 230 231 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds: 232 Parcels: portion of 16-10-401-002-0000 233 234 Parley Pratt Plaza: 235 Parcels: Approximately 2300 E 2100 S 236 237 Parleys Way Park: 238 Parcels: 16-23-327-008-0000 239 240 Peace Tree Bend: 241 Parcels: 15-14-129-013-0000, 15-14-155-003-0000, 15-14-176-001-0000, 15-14-177-001-0000, 242 15-14-177-002-0000, 15-14-177-003-0000, 15-14-177-004-0000, 15-14-180-001-0000, 15-14-243 180-017-0000, 15-14-180-019-0000 ,15-14-180-023-0000, 15-14-180-024-0000, 15-14-180-025-244 0000 245 246 Peoples Freeway Park: 247 Parcels: 15-13-276-007-0000, 15-13-276-008-0000, 15-13-276-009-0000 248 249 Perrys Hilltop Preserve: 250 Parcels: 09-28-100-002-0000, 09-28-100-004-0000, 09-28-100-006-0000 251 252 Perrys Hollow Preserve: 253 Parcels: 09-32-226-016-0000, 09-29-476-003-0000, 09-32-202-017-0000, 1028 E Chandler Dr. 254 255 Popperton Park & Preserve: 256 Parcels: 09-33-154-010-0000 257 258 Post Street Park: 259 Parcels: 15-02-405-014-0000, 15-02-405-015-0000 260 261 Pugsley Ouray Park: 262 Parcels: 08-36-177-025-0000 263 264 Redwood Meadows Park: 265 7 Parcels: 08-34-177-004-0000 266 267 Roberta Laconia Park: 268 Parcels: 16-07-130-009-0000 269 270 Ron Heaps Memorial Park: 271 Parcels: 16-07-329017-0000 272 273 Rosewood Park: 274 Parcels: 08-23-353-005-0000, 08-23-353-006-0000, 08-23-353-007-0000, 08-23-353-011-0000, 275 08-23-378-001-0000, 08-23-378-002-0000, 08-23-379-001-0000, 08-23-380-001-0000, 08-23-276 381-001-0000, 08-23-382-004-0000, 08-23-383-001-0000, 08-26-126-001-0000, 08-26-126-002-277 0000, 08-26-126-003-0000, 08-26-126-004-0000, 08-26-126-005-0000, 08-26-126-006-0000, 278 08-26-126-007-0000, 08-26-126-008-0000, 08-26-126-009-0000, 08-26-126-010-0000, 08-26-279 126-011-0000, 08-26-126-012-0000, 08-26-126-013-0000, 08-26-126-014-0000, 08-26-126-015-280 0000, 08-26-203-001-0000 281 282 Rotary Glen Park & Preserve: 283 Parcels: 16-11-177-002-0000 284 285 Rotary Park: 286 Parcels: portion of 09-30-402-003-2000 287 288 Salt Lake City Cemetery: 289 Parcels: 09-32-181-007-0000, 09-32-204-001-0000, 09-32-251-001-0000, 09-32-277-001-0000, 290 09-32-332-001-0000, 09-32-401-001-0000, 09-32-426-002-0000, 09-32-203-002-0000 291 292 Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex: 293 Parcels: 08-15-351-003-0000, 08-15-351-004-4001, 08-15-351-004-4002 294 295 Shipp Park: 296 Parcels: 09-32-309-011-0000 297 298 Silver Park: 299 Parcels: 08-36-234-019-0000, 08-36-234-020-0000, 08-36-234-021-0000 300 301 Spring Gulch Preserve: 302 Parcels: 09-28-200-002-1001, 09-28-376-001-0000, 09-28-400-008-0000, 09-33-126-014-0000, 303 09-33-202-026-0000 304 305 Stansbury Shoreline Preserve: 306 Parcels: 08-25-428-001-0000, 08-25-200-010-0000, 08-24-400-002-1001, 08-25-200-002-0000, 307 08-25-200-003-1001, 08-24-300-013-1001, 08-25-278-001-0000, 08-24-300-011-1001, 08-24-308 300-002-1001 309 310 Stanton Park: 311 8 Parcels: 16-06-451-011-0000 312 313 Steenblick Park: 314 Parcels: 08-26-380-004-0000 315 316 Swede Town Park: 317 Parcels: 08-23-477-005-0000 318 319 Taufer Park: 320 Parcels: 16-07-127-027-0000 321 322 Van Ness Park: 323 Parcels: 16-07-255-009-0000 324 325 Victory Park: 326 Parcels: portion of 16-05-254-002-0000 327 328 Wasatch Hollow Park: 329 Parcels: portion of 16-16-179-030-0000 330 331 Wasatch Hollow Preserve: 332 Parcels: 16-16-209-011-0000, 16-16-251-008-0000, 16-16-252-002-0000, 16-16-252-004-0000, 333 16-16-179-032-0000, portion of 16-16-179-030-0000 334 335 Wesemen Park: 336 Parcels: approximately 1335 S 900 W 337 338 Westminster Park: 339 Parcels: 16-17-183-012-0000, 16-17-183-013-0000 340 341 Westpointe Park: 342 Parcels: 08-27-107-014-0000, 08-27-107-015-0000, 08-27-107-016-0000, 08-27-151-019-0000 343 344 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in 345 accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section 346 10-3-713. 347 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 348 2021. 349 ____________________________ 350 CHAIRPERSON 351 9 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 352 353 ___________________________ 354 CITY RECORDER 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 359 360 361 ____________________________ 362 MAYOR 363 364 365 366 ___________________________ 367 CITY RECORDER 368 369 370 (SEAL) 371 372 373 Bill No. ______ of 2021. 374 Published: _____________________. 375 376 377 378 379 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Boyd Ferguson Date: __________________ 5-24-21 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE:Public Benefits Analysis – USO Lounge at the Airport ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE United Service Organizations (USO) provides support to active US military service members, including the guard and reserve. The Administration has proposed the City provide space at the new airport to USO, who will prepare and staff the area with support for traveling active service members and their families. Amenities provided by USO will include entertainment, libations, snacks and wireless internet. The public benefits analysis is related to the space that would be provided without lease fees, and costs for other services (trash and utilities) rendered to the facility would be absorbed by the airport. Utah law requires the proposal to pass through the form of a resolution with a public hearing, in this case legislative functions of Salt Lake City with its jurisdiction over the airport. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND - The airport indicates that at 933 square feet, the space is too small to be used commercially, and to boot, it’s on the same floor as the other commercial uses. The annual value of the lease waiver to the airport is $23,000. (See Appendix C for details on the cost estimate.) - The lease is written for a term of five years, with two options for additional terms each of the same length. Renewal is at the city’s discretion. - The transmittal states the USO does not receive revenues from its services rendered at such a facility as the one being considered. - Costs for development and operation will be covered by USO. - Fees proposed for waiver include utility fees; the room is not metered separately from the airport. - For waivers to for-profit private entities, Utah law requires the following factors be considered. For waivers to non-profit entities, the practice of reviewing the factors is seen as a useful, but legally required, support (the following is paraphrased from the statutory reference on page 4 of the transmittal): Item Schedule: Briefing: August 24, 2021 Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 Potential Action: Sept. 21, 2021 Page | 2 o Specific benefits, including intangible ones, to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; o The City’s purpose in making the resources available at no cost, including an analysis of how the health, stability and comfort of the community will be enhanced; o Whether the assistance from the City to the other entity accomplishes goals such as economic development, job creation, or any other public purpose. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The transmittal indicates that community support is a component to the proposal gaining momentum. Council Members might wish to learn more about the local advocates, and the social history of the issue. 2. The Council might wish to ask about other USO Lounges in other airports, and how this proposal compares. 3. The Council might wish to discuss cost to the airport for providing the lease and other services in more detail. APPENDIX A Entering into the Facility Lease for the Lounge with USO at the Airport will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City and surrounding communities by demonstrating Salt Lake City’s support of all military service members and their families around the country who will fly through Salt Lake City for many years to come. (Transmittal, page 2) APPENDIX B Though space at the new Airport is still very limited, the limited space available best accommodates a use such as the Lounge at the Airport, which permits the City to respond to interest from the local community and meet a long-term goal for the City. (Transmittal, page 2) Lisa Shaffer (Jul 19, 2021 16:38 MDT)07/19/202107/19/2021 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge for 365 days per year. Currently, there are over 32,000 active Guard and Reserve service members residing in Utah. Due to space constraints and a previous lack of local interest, the Airport has historically not had a USO lounge. However, with the redevelopment of the Airport, limited space is now available for such a use. The space identified for the proposed USO lounge (the “Lounge”) is located post-security on the mezzanine (Level 3) of the Airport Terminal. It is currently vacant and used for the occasional meeting by Airport staff and tenants. It is approximately 933 square feet, which is not sufficient nor in the appropriate level of the Airport to be used for a non-aeronautical (i.e. commercial) use. If authorized by City Council, the Airport will enter into a facility lease with the USO (the “Facility Lease”). The lease will have an initial five-year term with two, five-year renewal periods that may be exercised at the Airport’s discretion. The USO will take occupancy of the space in as-is condition and will be required to obtain the funding necessary for all necessary physical space improvements, signage, and associated permits and approvals. When ready for operation and occupancy, USO will lead and direct the Lounge with one staffed employee, and volunteers from the local community much like the Airport does with its volunteer program. The Airport will retain the right to terminate the Facility Lease or relocate the Lounge with appropriate notice for the ongoing and orderly development of the Airport. Because the USO is a volunteer organization and staffs its lounges with volunteers, the USO would not be able to provide benefits to service members and their families without the City’s waiver of lease fees. Entering into the Facility Lease for the Lounge with USO at the Airport will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City and surrounding communities by demonstrating Salt Lake City’s support of all military service members and their families around the country who will fly through Salt Lake City for many years to come. It will further enhance the amenities available to travelers of the new Airport and will provide a venue that is customary in facilities such as the Airport. Though space at the new Airport is still very limited, the limited space available best accommodates a use such as the Lounge at the Airport, which permits the City to respond to interest from the local community and meet a long-term goal for the City. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports Shane Andreasen, Director of Administration & Commercial Services Megan DePaulis, Senior City Attorney DATE: July 7 , 2021 SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by United Service Organizations, Inc., in Exchange for a Below-Market Facility Lease of Mezzanine Level Office Space Located at the Salt Lake City International Airport _____________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The Administration recommends that City Council authorize it to enter into a facility lease agreement (“Facility Lease”) for 933 square feet of SLCDA owned mezzanine level office space CAUP-3-001 (“City Property”) at the Salt Lake City International Airport (“Airport”) with United Service Organizations, Inc., a Virginia not for profit entity (“USO”) for a fee of $1 a year, to facilitate the development and operation of a USO Airport Lounge (“Lounge”) for the benefit of active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families. The term of the Facility Lease will be five years, with two, five-year extensions that may be exercised in the City’s discretion. Though a formal study of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to USO is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because the USO is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property, so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Facility Lease for the below-market lease rates. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” There are statutory factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). However, it 2 is helpful to consider the same factors when providing a waiver to nonprofit entities as well. The factors are: (1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2) The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3) Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. The application of these factors to the waiver of lease fees under the proposed Facility Lease is discussed below. BACKGROUND USO Airport Lounges exist in over 100 airports around the world, including at most international airports across the United States. However, due to space constraints and a previous lack of local interest, the Airport has historically not had a USO. Some airport locations are pre- security while others are after security depending on space availability and the nature of the airport. With the Airport’s significant connecting passenger traffic, a post-security location for the Lounge would be more desirable and is therefore being proposed for the Airport. Locations in airports are built-out and improved by donations and volunteers, operationally funded by local and national donations, and have a volunteer workforce. They provide active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families an area for comfort no matter where their journeys are taking them, or why. Although staffed by volunteers from a day-to-day perspective, the USO will have at least one full time paid manager responsible for the overall operation. Typical USO Lounges feature comfortable furniture, donated snacks, beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge for 365 days per year. With the opening of the new Airport, the Airport started to receive feedback about the lack of a USO airport lounge. With that community interest, the USO also received community feedback about the desire to develop and operating an airport lounge at the Airport. With the redevelopment of the Airport, limited space is now available for such a use. The space identified for the Lounge is located post-security on the mezzanine (Level 3) of the Airport Terminal. It is currently vacant and used for the occasional meeting by Airport staff and tenants. It is approximately 933 square feet, which is not sufficient nor in the appropriate level of the Airport to be used for a non-aeronautical (i.e., commercial) use. 3 TERMS OF THE LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED Upon City Council approval, the Airport will enter into the Facility Lease with USO. The Facility Lease will have an initial five-year term with two, five-year renewal periods that may be exercised at the Airport’s discretion. USO will take occupancy of the space in as-is condition and will be required to obtain the funding necessary for all necessary physical space improvements, signage, and associated permits and approvals. When ready for operation and occupancy, USO will lead and direct the Lounge with one staffed employee, and volunteers from the local community much like the Airport does with its volunteer program. The Airport will retain the right to terminate the Facility Lease or relocate the Lounge with appropriate notice for the ongoing and orderly development of the Airport. In addition to below-market rent the Airport will provide utilities, which are not separately metered. All other costs associated with the development and operation will be paid by USO. This includes, among other things, janitorial expenses, employee badging, central receiving and distribution center fees invoiced by the Airport, storage space fees, if necessary, and all other costs. Any taxes related to the Facility Lease also will be the responsibility of USO. Because the USO is led by paid staff with a volunteer workforce that doesn’t receive revenues from any of the services it provides, the USO would not be able to operate at the Airport without below-market rents. Having the Lounge will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City, the state of Utah, and the surrounding communities in southwest Wyoming, southeast Idaho, eastern Nevada, and northwestern Colorado by providing a dedicated lounge area where active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families will be able to meet and relax together as they transit through the Airport. Currently, there are over 32,000 active Guard and Reserve service members residing in Utah. Those individuals do not currently have a location in the Airport where they can find rest and respite before a deployment, on their journey home from one, or wherever else their travels may have taken them. Therefore, having the Lounge at the Airport will enhance the health, moral well-being, peace, and comfort of these residents of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah. Since airports are where these individuals spend quite a bit of time as they serve their missions, having a USO will add one more passenger amenity that is currently lacking at the Airport and one that is typically provided at an airport of Salt Lake City’s size and importance. It will also provide a new and unique connection to the region and its residents, and former military members as they volunteer with the daily operation of the USO. The Lounge will provide for additional professional-level job creation, in addition to numerous volunteer opportunities. CONCLUSION Entering into the Facility Lease with USO at the Airport will benefit the residents of the City, the state, and surrounding communities by demonstrating the Salt Lake City’s support of all military service members and their families around the country who will fly through Salt Lake City for many years to come. It will further enhance the amenities available to travelers of the new Airport and will provide a venue that is customary in facilities such as the Airport. Having both the space available to accommodate a Lounge at the Airport, and the interest from the local community has been a long-term goal for the City. It further establishes Salt Lake City as the 4 gateway to the world, especially for members of the military who may transit the Airport for some of their most life-changing moments. RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021 A Resolution Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge Operated by United Service Organizations, Inc., a Nonprofit Corporation, at the Salt Lake City International Airport WHEREAS, United Service Organizations, Inc., a nonprofit corporation (“USO”) advances the City’s goals of safety, health, moral well-being, peace, comfort and convenience for the residents of Salt Lake City by providing a comfortable lounge area in airports for military service members and their families; and WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the USO airport lounge (“USO Lounge”) will be active military service members from Salt Lake City, Utah generally, and the surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the USO will operate the USO Lounge with volunteer efforts and a paid staff member; and WHEREAS, the below-market lease fee waiver to the USO will facilitate the development of the USO Lounge, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to the USO in the form of lease fee waiver for a five to fifteen-year facility lease at the Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(v) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in 2 satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. Adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ______________________ Chairperson Attest: ___________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form: ___________________________ Senior City Attorney CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Jennifer Bruno DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: State Infrastructure Bank Application ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal from the Administration to obtain a $7 million loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB), to finance a 926 stall parking structure located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South, which would support the ongoing development of a mixed use neighborhood in that area known as the Industry Neighborhood. The loan would be repaid with transportation funds pledged by the State in HB 244 from the 2021 legislative session1. This includes a one-time distribution to SLC of $1.1 million, and annual distributions of $1.1m for the next 15 years (subject to the availability of funds). If the Council is supportive, the accounting step will be processed in a future Council budget amendment, and tracked in funds outside of the regular General Fund (Transportation and Debt Service funds), to ensure transparency in future years. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed loan application, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal and adopt a resolution at the next meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A. The City is electing to pursue this funding tool for the first time, at the suggestion of State partners. The State Infrastructure Bank provides loans to local governments for transportation or transit related projects, via a prioritized application process at the State level. B. The public benefits of using this funding tool for this specific project are outlined in more detail on pages 3-5 of the Administration’s transmittal. Some highlights include: 1 https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0244.html Item Schedule: Briefing: August 24, 2021 Set Date: n/a Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 a.The proposed parking structure would support a mixed use neighborhood known as “Industry” that is adaptively reusing some historic warehouses in the area, and is adding 300,000 square feet of office, 375 units of housing (including some at 60-80% AMI), a 68 key hotel, and 40,000 square feet in retail. b.The total cost of the parking structure is estimated at $28 million. The $7 million in funding from the City/State (25% of total project cost) would assist in dedicating some stalls to public parking, as well as providing an upgraded design to allow conversion to a non-parking use in the future as motor vehicles become less integral to the neighborhood and City overall. C. Under the proposal the City would obtain a $7 million loan from the State Infrastructure Bank at a rate of 1.96% and a 15 year repayment term. a. Annual payments would be approximately $543,000 per year. b. A different source of State transportation funding would be allocated to the City to cover these repayments ($1.1 million in the first year, and $1.1 million per year for the next 15 years). This is also set forth in HB 244. c. In future years if the State decides not to make these allocations or does not have sufficient funding, the City general fund would be the “backstop” for repayment of the loan. D.The funding set forth in HB 244 is in excess of what would be needed to pay off the loan to the State Infrastructure Bank (approximately $550,000 per year). The Administration has indicated that the City could choose to pay off the loan faster, because there is “subject to available funding” language for future years and this could save some interest expense. The City could also identify other eligible projects that might fit within the general category of transportation priorities to fund after the loan is repaid. Note: staff would need to consult with City and State attorneys to determine eligible projects, as there are a variety of funding streams addressed in the legislation with various requirements. E. Funding for Salt Lake City is located on lines 295 and 307 of the legislation located here: https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0244.html POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to ask if the developer has determined how many of the proposed parking stalls will be available to the public in initial phases, and if there will be a charge for those stalls? 2.The Council may wish to ask about the housing component of the development, specifically the proposed mix of affordable/market rate units or if that has been determined by the developer yet? 3.Would the Council like to reach out to State partners to align potential future applications with other City transit/transportation policy goals? 4.Would the Council like to schedule a discussion with the Administration about how to prioritize using any potential excess dollars from this allocation, particularly as it relates to the City’s other transportation policy goals? Would it make sense to include State partners in that discussion? 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021 (Authorizing a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan for a Neighborhood Parking Structure Located between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and 700 South) WHEREAS, Utah Code section 72-2-202 created a revolving fund called the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund (the “SIB Fund”) and authorized the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) to use moneys in the SIB Fund to make infrastructure loans to cities for transportation projects, including the construction or improvement of parking facilities; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City) applied for a $7,000,000 infrastructure loan to finance a portion of the cost of a neighborhood parking structure, a 926-stall garage, located between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and 700 South in Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2021, the Transportation Commission approved that $7,000,000 loan (the “SIB Loan”) to the City for the Project; and WHEREAS, the SIB Loan will bear interest at rate of 1.96 percent per annum, the SIB Loan term will be 15 years, the first payment will be due May 31, 2022, and the City will pledge all or a portion of its sales tax revenue as a revenue source to repay the SIB loan; and WHEREAS, to secure the repayment of the SIB Loan, the City will pledge the funds allocated to it by H.B. 244 (2021), consisting of (1) a one-time distribution to the City of $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2020-2021 and (2) an annual distribution to the City of $1,100,000 for the next 15 years, beginning on or after July 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, Utah Code section 72-2-204 requires that the City, before obtaining the SIB Loan, (1) publish its intention to obtain the SIB Loan in accordance with the publication of notice requirements of Utah Code section 11-14-316 and (2) adopt an ordinance or resolution authorizing the SIB Loan; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Utah Code section 72-2-204(6), the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the City Council”) desires to authorize the City to enter into the SIB Loan for the Project and approve the City entering into a loan agreement and other loan-related documents in connection with the SIB Loan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City to enter into the SIB Loan for the Project and approves the City entering into a loan agreement and other loan-related documents in connection with the SIB Loan. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah on__________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _______________________________ Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___________________________ Boyd Ferguson MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _________________________ Date Received: __________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 3, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion and consider obtaining a $7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) to finance a neighborhood parking structure, a 926 stall garage, located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. BUDGET IMPACT: If approved, a loan will bear an interest rate at or above the market interest rate. The loan term will not exceed 15 years. The amortization schedule is attached. The date of the first payment will be no later than the completion date of the project or the date the facility is opened for public use. The City indicated to the State that it pledges all or a portion of sales tax revenue as a revenue source to the repayment of the loan. To secure the repayment of the loan, the City intends to pledge the funds allocated by HB244. HB 244 made two allocations to Salt Lake City: 1. A one-time distribution to Salt Lake City in the amount of $1,100,000, subject to availability of funds. This is for the fiscal year 2020-2021. 2. An annual distribution of $1,100,000 to Salt Lake City, for the next 15 years, subject to availability of funds. This is for a fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2021. The above-mentioned funding will be deposited in the Transportation Fund is a separate cost center. It will then be transfer to the Debt Service Fund to pay for the outstanding debt including interest. rachel otto (Aug 3, 2021 14:43 MDT)08/03/2021 08/03/2021 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council August 2, 2021 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Overview Q Factor and BCG Holdings, along with Catalyst Investments as the primary capital partner, currently control over five acres of former industrial land between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. Located in the heart of City’s Granary District and in one of Utah’s designated opportunity zones, this underutilized site is dubbed the INDUSTRY Neighborhood. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use series of developments anchored by the adaptive- reuse INDUSTRY SLC, a modern office project. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood builds on the 2016 Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan’s vision of “a district where historic grit and modern refinement meet”. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood will include over:  300,000 SF of modern office in a former Silver Foundry with 100,000 Complete as of March 2020.  375 units of mixed-income residential housing  68 key Hotel  40,000 SF Retail  926 parking stalls parking in addition to neighborhood retail and other amenities. Parking Structure Overview The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, a 926-stall garage, represents a key initial milestone in providing the parking necessary to accommodate INDUSTRY SLC’s ultimate buildout of 300,000 square feet by adaptively reusing an existing building. Critically, the parking structure will also serve to provide parking for several other projects in the neighborhood, including exclusive parking for a 60-80% AMI housing development directly to the North, market rate housing to the Southwest, and the adaptive reuse project currently being entitled and developed by Lake Union Partners and the Evo Group directly to the East. Recognizing the current demand for parking coupled with the anticipated underutilization of parking structures in the future due to transit improvements in the neighborhood with the 400 West UTA TRAX/Retail expansion, this structure is being designed and built to allow for future adaptive reuse. The total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is anticipated to be $28,000,000M. The assistance requested for the structure is $7,000,000 – which will be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. The project currently sits shovel ready and is currently navigating the City’s entitlement process. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council August 2, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Application Prioritization Process The Utah State Infrastructure Bank provides loans and credit enhancement to local government for transportation or transit related projects. These loans and credit enhancements are prioritized based on the Utah State Infrastructure Bank’s following: application prioritization criteria: 1. Does the proposed transportation project encourage, enhance, or create economic benefits to the State or political subdivision? Yes. a. Project Economic Impacts: The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will support over 300,000SF of office, 375 residential units, 68 key hotels, and 40,000SF of retail in Salt Lake City’s Granary District. This equates to over 200 temporary construction jobs between 2018-2022 and 500 permanent jobs and 500 residents. The total project cost of the parking structure, office, multifamily and retail is roughly $271,750,000. b. Political Subdivision Plans: Salt Lake City has had the Granary District identified as a CRA project area that began collecting tax increment in year 2000 with a planned expiration year of 2023. The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s 2015-2109 Strategic plan calls for active, mixed use, and multi modal corridors that emphasize transit, creative uses of the public right-of-way, and a high-quality pedestrian environment. The development goals of the Agency in this district are to support adaptive reuse of contributing structures with new infill development that supports commercial, residential, and light industrial uses. c. Transit Planning: Currently almost all the Granary District is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, with most of the housing and jobs in the neighborhood outside walking distance to transit. The parking structure is aligned with Salt Lake City’s 2008 Downtown in Motion, the 2015 Downtown Master Plan and the 2017 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan, which identifies an extension of the TRAX Red Line along 400 South from Main Street to 600 West and a second loop along 400 West connecting to the 900 South TRAX station. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council August 2, 2021 Page 4 of 5 *Taken from 2015 Downtown Master Plan. 2. Will the loan or assistance enable the project to proceed at an earlier date than otherwise possible? Yes. The estimated total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure sits at $28,000,000. Given the current economic climate with COVID-19 and other challenges in the debt markets – public assistance for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure would allow for the project schedule to proceed Spring 2021. 3. Will assistance from the SIB foster innovative public-private partnerships and attract private debt and equity investment? Yes. The parking structure currently is part of a larger qualified opportunity zone investment that has raised over $30M to-date in equity for the INDUSTRY Office, INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, and mixed income multifamily projects. The project also includes a debt partner that is currently deploying on the INDUSTRY Office component and is anticipated to be attracted to the INDUSTRY Neighborhood parking Structure. 4. Does the transportation project provide benefit to the state highway system, including safety and mobility improvements? Yes. The parking structure is located just directly south of the 600 South I-15 off ramp entrance into Salt Lake City in between 400W and 500W. It is intentionally placed on the interior of new midblock private right-of-way, maximizing the current street frontage along 500 West, 600 South, and 700 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council August 2, 2021 Page 5 of 5 South for a variety of mixed-use residential and retail projects, and intentionally wrapping or shielding the parking structure with other more aesthetically pleasing structures that also contribute to safety and mobility improvements along 600 South. 5. Does the project financing include local or private participation? Yes. It includes local private participation via the qualified opportunity zone fund that has been established for project area. It is anticipated that local public financing will be used to further support transportation and utility infrastructure upgrades and affordable housing. 6. Does the project provide intermodal connectivity with public transportation, pedestrian, or non-motorized transportation facilities?’ Yes. 500 West and the expansion of the existing Elder court will serve to create additional public space and new midblock connections for pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, and vehicles. In lieu of sprawling surface parking lots, this parking structure will allow for additional infill on the other sites immediately adjacent. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will also include the Elder Court midblock connection between 600 and 700 South, creating a new pedestrian corridor with softscape improvements in an area with limited shade and greenways. While the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, the project is being purposefully built to anticipate the future TRAX expansion along 400 West. cc: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Danny Waltz, Steven Bagley 1 of 2 Loan Agreement for the State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund 4/12/2021 State of Utah Department of Transportation Loan Agreement State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund THIS LOAN AGREEMENT made and entered into on August 2, 2021, by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as “UDOT”, and Salt Lake City, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as the “Local Agency.” RECITALS WHEREAS, the Local Agency has applied for an infrastructure loan fr om the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund. WHEREAS, the purpose of this infrastructure loan is to construct a new Salt Lake City parking structure within the Local Agency jurisdiction. WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has approved the infrastructure loan application on August 2, 2021. THIS LOAN AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions of UDOT loaning the money from the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund to the Local Agency. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. UDOT will loan the Local Agency $7,000,000.00 from the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund to enable the Local Agency to construct the parking structure facilities referenced above within the Local Agency jurisdiction. 2. The Local Agency shall only use funds for transportation projects as described in Utah Code Section 72-2-201. 3. At the end of the transportation project, all unused funds will be applied to the principal amount. 4. The interest rate will be 1.96% per annum interest with a loan duration of FIFTEEN years. 5. Local Agency will pay the principal and interest according to Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference. The Local Agency will use funds from Utah Code Section 72-2-121(4)(l) to pay the loan. The first payment referenced in Exhibit A will be made on or before May 31, 2022. All subsequent payments will be made on or before May 31 of each year until the loan is paid in full. 6. In the event the Local Agency is 30 days delinquent with a payment on a due date as shown in Exhibit A, UDOT will request that the State of Utah withhold B&C road funds allocated to the Local Agency and deposit the money into the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund until the payment or loan has been satisfied. UDOT will not issue any more loans to Local Agency while the loan is in default. 7. If Local Agency breaches any terms of this Agreement, UDOT may seek any legal or equitable remedy to obtain compliance or payment of damages. In the event an action is filed in district court, the venue shall be Salt Lake County, Third District Court. 2 of 2 Loan Agreement for the State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund 4/12/2021 SLC Corp. Utah Department of Transportation By Date By Date Becky Bradshaw, UDOT Finance Director By Date By Date Recommended for approval Lyle McMillan, UDOT Director of Strategic Investments By Date By Date Title/Signature of additional official if required UDOT Comptroller Office 8. Local Agency represents that notice was published of its intention to obtain an infrastructure loan at least once in accordance with the publication of notice requirements under Section 11-14-316; and adopted an ordinance or resolution authorizing the infrastructure loan in compliance with Utah Code Section 72-2-204(4). 9. Each party to this Agreement shall designate a representative as the contact to address questions and issues as they arise under this agreement. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah both as to interpretation and performance. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counter parts by the parties. 12. Each party represents that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement. 13. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall supersede all offers, negotiations and other agreements with respect thereto. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by an authorized representatives of each party. This Agreement will become effective when all parties have signed. The effective date of this agreement is the date this Agreement was signed by the last party. Page 1 of 1 Amortization Chart HELP © 2008 Vertex42 LLC Loan Amount (pv)7,000,000 Interest Rate (rate)1.96% Total # of Periods (Nper)15 Payment per Period 543,149.39$ Total Interest Paid 1,147,240.91$ [42] Period Payment Amount Interest Cumulative Interest Principal Principal Paid Balance 7,000,000.00$ 1 543,149.39 137,200.00 137,200.00 405,949.39 405,949.39 6,594,050.61 2 543,149.39 129,243.39 266,443.39 413,906.00 819,855.40 6,180,144.60 3 543,149.39 121,130.83 387,574.23 422,018.56 1,241,873.96 5,758,126.04 4 543,149.39 112,859.27 500,433.50 430,290.12 1,672,164.08 5,327,835.92 5 543,149.39 104,425.58 604,859.08 438,723.81 2,110,887.89 4,889,112.11 6 543,149.39 95,826.60 700,685.68 447,322.80 2,558,210.68 4,441,789.32 7 543,149.39 87,059.07 787,744.75 456,090.32 3,014,301.01 3,985,698.99 8 543,149.39 78,119.70 865,864.45 465,029.69 3,479,330.70 3,520,669.30 9 543,149.39 69,005.12 934,869.57 474,144.28 3,953,474.98 3,046,525.02 10 543,149.39 59,711.89 994,581.46 483,437.50 4,436,912.48 2,563,087.52 11 543,149.39 50,236.52 1,044,817.97 492,912.88 4,929,825.36 2,070,174.64 12 543,149.39 40,575.42 1,085,393.40 502,573.97 5,432,399.33 1,567,600.67 13 543,149.39 30,724.97 1,116,118.37 512,424.42 5,944,823.75 1,055,176.25 14 543,149.39 20,681.45 1,136,799.82 522,467.94 6,467,291.69 532,708.31 15 543,149.39 10,441.08 1,147,240.91 532,708.31 7,000,000.00 0.00 #N/A ------ -1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 0 5 10 15 20 $ Period (Payment Number) Loan Amortization Chart Balance Cumulative Interest Principal Paid http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/simple-amortization.html © 2005 Vertex42 LLC Signature: Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _________________________ Date Received: __________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 7, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion and consider obtaining a $7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) to finance a neighborhood parking structure, a 926 stall garage, located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. BUDGET IMPACT: If approved, a loan will bear an interest rate at or above the market interest rate. The loan term will not exceed 15 years. The amortization schedule is attached. The date of the first payment will be no later than the completion date of the project or the date the facility is opened for public use. The City indicated to the State that it pledges all or a portion of sales tax revenue as a revenue source to the repayment of the loan. To secure the repayment of the loan, the City intends to pledge the funds allocated by HB244. HB 244 made two allocations to Salt Lake City: 1. A one-time distribution to Salt Lake City in the amount of $1,100,000, subject to availability of funds. This is for the fiscal year 2020-2021. 2. An annual distribution of $1,100,000 to Salt Lake City, for the next 15 years, subject to availability of funds. This is for a fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2021. rachel otto (Jun 8, 2021 14:36 MDT)06/09/2021 06/09/2021 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council June 7, 2021 Page 2 of 5 To further secure the repayment of the loan, in a separate agreement between the RDA and the developer, the developer will pay to the RDA amounts equal to the amounts paid by the City to the State on the SIB loan. In turn, under an interlocal agreement between the City and the RDA, the RDA will transfer those developer payments to the City to reimburse the City for the City’s repayments to the State on the SIB loan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Overview Q Factor and BCG Holdings, along with Catalyst Investments as the primary capital partner, currently control over five acres of former industrial land between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. Located in the heart of City’s Granary District and in one of Utah’s designated opportunity zones, this underutilized site is dubbed the INDUSTRY Neighborhood. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use series of developments anchored by the adaptive- reuse INDUSTRY SLC, a modern office project. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood builds on the 2016 Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan’s vision of “a district where historic grit and modern refinement meet”. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood will include over:  300,000 SF of modern office in a former Silver Foundry with 100,000 Complete as of March 2020.  375 units of mixed-income residential housing  68 key Hotel  40,000 SF Retail  926 parking stalls parking in addition to neighborhood retail and other amenities. Parking Structure Overview The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, a 926-stall garage, represents a key initial milestone in providing the parking necessary to accommodate INDUSTRY SLC’s ultimate buildout of 300,000 square feet by adaptively reusing an existing building. Critically, the parking structure will also serve to provide parking for several other projects in the neighborhood, including exclusive parking for a 60-80% AMI housing development directly to the North, market rate housing to the Southwest, and the adaptive reuse project currently being entitled and developed by Lake Union Partners and the Evo Group directly to the East. Recognizing the current demand for parking coupled with the anticipated underutilization of parking structures in the future due to transit improvements in the neighborhood with the 400 West UTA TRAX/Retail expansion, this structure is being designed and built to allow for future adaptive reuse. The total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is anticipated to be $28,000,000M. The assistance requested for the structure is $7,000,000 – which will be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council June 7, 2021 Page 3 of 5 for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. The project currently sits shovel ready and is currently navigating the City’s entitlement process. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Application Prioritization Process The Utah State Infrastructure Bank provides loans and credit enhancement to local government for transportation or transit related projects. These loans and credit enhancements are prioritized based on the Utah State Infrastructure Bank’s following: application prioritization criteria: 1. Does the proposed transportation project encourage, enhance, or create economic benefits to the State or political subdivision? Yes. a. Project Economic Impacts: The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will support over 300,000SF of office, 375 residential units, 68 key hotels, and 40,000SF of retail in Salt Lake City’s Granary District. This equates to over 200 temporary construction jobs between 2018-2022 and 500 permanent jobs and 500 residents. The total project cost of the parking structure, office, multifamily and retail is roughly $271,750,000. b. Political Subdivision Plans: Salt Lake City has had the Granary District identified as a CRA project area that began collecting tax increment in year 2000 wit h a planned expiration year of 2023. The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s 2015-2109 Strategic plan calls for active, mixed use, and multi modal corridors that emphasize transit, creative uses of the public right-of-way, and a high-quality pedestrian environment. The development goals of the Agency in this district are to support adaptive reuse of contributing structures with new infill development that supports commercial, residential, and light industrial uses. c. Transit Planning: Currently almost all the Granary District is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, with most of the housing and jobs in the neighborhood outside walking distance to transit. The parking structure is aligned with Salt Lake City’s 2008 Downtown in Motion, the 2015 Downtown Master Plan and the 2017 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan, which identifies an extension of the TRAX Red Line along 400 South from Main Street to 600 West and a second loop along 400 West connecting to the 900 South TRAX station. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council June 7, 2021 Page 4 of 5 *Taken from 2015 Downtown Master Plan. 2. Will the loan or assistance enable the project to proceed at an earlier date than otherwise possible? Yes. The estimated total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure sits at $28,000,000. Given the current economic climate with COVID-19 and other challenges in the debt markets – public assistance for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure would allow for the project schedule to proceed Spring 2021. 3. Will assistance from the SIB foster innovative public-private partnerships and attract private debt and equity investment? Yes. The parking structure currently is part of a larger qualified opportunity zone investment that has raised over $30M to-date in equity for the INDUSTRY Office, INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, and mixed income multifamily projects. The project also includes a debt partner that is currently deploying on the INDUSTRY Office component and is anticipated to be attracted to the INDUSTRY Neighborhood parking Structure. 4. Does the transportation project provide benefit to the state highway system, including safety and mobility improvements? Yes. The parking structure is located just directly south of the 600 South I-15 off ramp entrance into Salt Lake City in between 400W and 500W. It is intentionally placed on the interior of new midblock private right-of-way, maximizing the current street frontage along 500 West, 600 South, and 700 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council June 7, 2021 Page 5 of 5 South for a variety of mixed-use residential and retail projects, and intentionally wrapping or shielding the parking structure with other more aesthetically pleasing structures that also contribute to safety and mobility improvements along 600 South. 5. Does the project financing include local or private participation? Yes. It includes local private participation via the qualified opportunity zone fund that has been established for project area. It is anticipated that local public financing will be used to further support transportation and utility infrastructure upgrades and affordable housing. 6. Does the project provide intermodal connectivity with public transportation, pedestrian, or non-motorized transportation facilities?’ Yes. 500 West and the expansion of the existing Elder court will serve to create additional public space and new midblock connections for pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, and vehicles. In lieu of sprawling surface parking lots, this parking structure will allow for additional infill on the other sites immediately adjacent. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will also include the Elder Court midblock connection between 600 and 700 South, creating a new pedestrian corridor with softscape improvements in an area with limited shade and greenways. While the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, the project is being purposefully built to anticipate the future TRAX expansion along 400 West. cc: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Danny Waltz, Steven Bagley 1 of 2 Loan Agreement for the State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund 4/12/2021 State of Utah Department of Transportation Loan Agreement State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund THIS LOAN AGREEMENT made and entered into on [Date], by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as “UDOT”, and Salt Lake City, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as the “Local Agency.” RECITALS WHEREAS, the Local Agency has applied for an infrastructure loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund. WHEREAS, the purpose of this infrastructure loan is to construct a new Salt Lake City parking structure within the Local Agency jurisdiction. WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has approved the infrastructure loan application on [Month Day], 2021. THIS LOAN AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions of UDOT loaning the money from the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund to the Local Agency. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. UDOT will loan the Local Agency $7,000,000.00 from the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund to enable the Local Agency to construct the parking structure facilities referenced above within the Local Agency jurisdiction. 2. The Local Agency shall only use funds for transportation projects as described in Utah Code Section 72-2-201. 3. At the end of the transportation project, all unused funds will be applied to the principal amount. 4. The interest rate will be 1.96% per annum interest with a loan duration of FIFTEEN years. 5. Local Agency will pay the principal and interest according to Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference. The Local Agency will use funds from Utah Code Section 72-2-121(4)(l) to pay the loan. The first payment referenced in Exhibit A will be made on or before May 31, 2022. All subsequent payments will be made on or before May 31 of each year until the loan is paid in full. 6. In the event the Local Agency is 30 days delinquent with a payment on a due date as shown in Exhibit A, UDOT will request that the State of Utah withhold B&C road funds allocated to the Local Agency and deposit the money into the Transportation Infrastructure Loan Fund until the payment or loan has been satisfied. UDOT will not issue any more loans to Local Agency while the loan is in default. 7. If Local Agency breaches any terms of this Agreement, UDOT may seek any legal or equitable remedy to obtain compliance or payment of damages. In the event an action is filed in district court, the venue shall be Salt Lake County, Third District Court. 2 of 2 Loan Agreement for the State Infrastructure Bank Loan Fund 4/12/2021 8. Local Agency represents that notice was published of its intention to obtain an infrastructure loan at least once in accordance with the publication of notice requirements under Section 11-14-316; and adopted an ordinance or resolution authorizing the infrastructure loan in compliance with Utah Code Section 72-2-204(4). 9. Each party to this Agreement shall designate a representative as the contact to address questions and issues as they arise under this agreement. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah both as to interpretation and performance. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counter parts by the parties. 12. Each party represents that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement. 13. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall supersede all offers, negotiations and other agreements with respect thereto. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by an authorized representatives of each party. This Agreement will become effective when all parties have signed. The effective date of this agreement is the date this Agreement was signed by the last party. [LOCAL AGENCY Utah Department of Transportation By Date By Date Becky Bradshaw, UDOT Finance Director By Date By Date Recommended for approval Lyle McMillan, UDOT Director of Strategic Investments By Date By Date Title/Signature of additional official if required UDOT Comptroller Office Page 1 of 1 Amortization Chart HELP © 2008 Vertex42 LLC Loan Amount (pv)7,000,000 Interest Rate (rate)1.96% Total # of Periods (Nper)15 Payment per Period 543,149.39$ Total Interest Paid 1,147,240.91$ [42] Period Payment Amount Interest Cumulative Interest Principal Principal Paid Balance 7,000,000.00$ 1 543,149.39 137,200.00 137,200.00 405,949.39 405,949.39 6,594,050.61 2 543,149.39 129,243.39 266,443.39 413,906.00 819,855.40 6,180,144.60 3 543,149.39 121,130.83 387,574.23 422,018.56 1,241,873.96 5,758,126.04 4 543,149.39 112,859.27 500,433.50 430,290.12 1,672,164.08 5,327,835.92 5 543,149.39 104,425.58 604,859.08 438,723.81 2,110,887.89 4,889,112.11 6 543,149.39 95,826.60 700,685.68 447,322.80 2,558,210.68 4,441,789.32 7 543,149.39 87,059.07 787,744.75 456,090.32 3,014,301.01 3,985,698.99 8 543,149.39 78,119.70 865,864.45 465,029.69 3,479,330.70 3,520,669.30 9 543,149.39 69,005.12 934,869.57 474,144.28 3,953,474.98 3,046,525.02 10 543,149.39 59,711.89 994,581.46 483,437.50 4,436,912.48 2,563,087.52 11 543,149.39 50,236.52 1,044,817.97 492,912.88 4,929,825.36 2,070,174.64 12 543,149.39 40,575.42 1,085,393.40 502,573.97 5,432,399.33 1,567,600.67 13 543,149.39 30,724.97 1,116,118.37 512,424.42 5,944,823.75 1,055,176.25 14 543,149.39 20,681.45 1,136,799.82 522,467.94 6,467,291.69 532,708.31 15 543,149.39 10,441.08 1,147,240.91 532,708.31 7,000,000.00 0.00 #N/A ------ -1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 0 5 10 15 20 $ Period (Payment Number) Loan Amortization Chart Balance Cumulative Interest Principal Paid http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/simple-amortization.html © 2005 Vertex42 LLC Signature: Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _________________________ Date Received: __________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 26, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion and consider obtaining a $7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) to finance a neighborhood parking structure, a 926 stall garage, located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. BUDGET IMPACT: If approved, a loan will bear an interest rate at or above the market interest rate. The loan term will not exceed 15 years. Date of the first payment will be no later than the completion date of the project or the date the facility is opened for public use. The City may pledge all or a portion of sales tax revenue as a revenue source to the repayment of the loan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Overview Q Factor and BCG Holdings, along with Catalyst Investments as the primary capital partner, currently control over five acres of former industrial land between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700 South in Salt Lake City, UT. Located in the heart of city’s Granary District and in one of Utah’s designated opportunity zones, this underutilized site is dubbed the INDUSTRY Neighborhood. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use series of developments anchored by the adaptive- reuse INDUSTRY SLC, a modern office project. rachel otto (May 26, 2021 17:04 MDT) 05/26/2021 05/26/2021 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council February 25, 2021 Page 2 of 5 The INDUSTRY Neighborhood builds on the 2016 Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan’s vision of “a district where historic grit and modern refinement meet”. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood will include over:  300,000 SF of modern office in a former Silver Foundry with 100,000 Complete as of March 2020.  375 units of mixed-income residential housing  68 key Hotel  40,000 SF Retail  926 parking stalls parking in addition to neighborhood retail and other amenities. Parking Structure Overview The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, a 926-stall garage, represents a key initial milestone in providing the parking necessary to accommodate INDUSTRY SLC’s ultimate buildout of 300,000 square feet by adaptively reusing an existing building. Critically, the parking structure will also serve to provide parking for several other projects in the neighborhood, including exclusive parking for a 60-80% AMI housing development directly to the North, market rate housing to the Southwest, and the adaptive reuse project currently being entitled and developed by Lake Union Partners and the Evo Group directly to the East. Recognizing the current demand for parking coupled with the anticipated underutilization of parking structures in the future due to transit improvements in the neighborhood with the 400 West UTA TRAX/Retail expansion, this structure is being designed and built to allow for future adaptive reuse. The total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is anticipated to be $28,000,000M. The assistance requested for the structure is $7,000,000 – which will be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. The project currently sits shovel ready and is currently navigating the City’s entitlement process. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Application Prioritization Process The Utah State Infrastructure Bank provides loans and credit enhancement to local government for transportation or transit related projects. These loans and credit enhancements are prioritized based on the Utah State Infrastructure Bank’s following: application prioritization criteria: 1. Does the proposed transportation project encourage, enhance, or create economic benefits to the state or political subdivision? Yes. a. Project Economic Impacts: The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will support over 300,000SF of office, 375 residential units, 68 key hotel, and 40,000SF of retail in Salt Lake City’s Granary District. This equates to over 200 temporary construction jobs between 2018-2022 and 500 permanent jobs and 500 residents. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council February 25, 2021 Page 3 of 5 The total project cost of the parking structure, office, multifamily and retail is roughly $271,750,000. b. Political Subdivision Plans: Salt Lake City has had the Granary District identified as a CRA project area that began collecting tax increment in year 2000 with a planned expiration year of 2023. The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s 2015-2109 Strategic plan calls for active, mixed use, and multi modal corridors that emphasize transit, creative uses of the public right-of-way, and a high-quality pedestrian environment. The development goals of the Agency in this district are to support adaptive reuse of contributing structures with new infill development that supports commercial, residential and light industrial uses. c. Transit Planning: Currently almost all of the Granary District is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, with most of the housing and jobs in the neighborhood outside walking distance to transit. The parking structure is aligned with Salt Lake City’s 2008 Downtown in Motion, the 2015 Downtown Master Plan and the 2017 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan, which identifies an extension of the TRAX Red Line along 400 South from Main Street to 600 West and a second loop along 400 West connecting to the 900 South TRAX station. *Taken from 2015 Downtown Master Plan. 2. Will the loan or assistance enable the project to proceed at an earlier date than otherwise possible? Yes. The estimated total project cost for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure sits at $28,000,000. Given the current economic climate with COVID-19 and other challenges in the debt markets – public assistance for the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure would allow for the project schedule to proceed Spring 2021. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council February 25, 2021 Page 4 of 5 3. Will assistance from the SIB foster innovative public-private partnerships and attract private debt and equity investment? Yes. The parking structure currently is part of a larger qualified opportunity zone investment that has raised over $30M to-date in equity for the INDUSTRY Office, INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure, and mixed income multifamily projects. The project also includes a debt partner that is currently deploying on the INDUSTRY Office component and is anticipated to be attracted to the INDUSTRY Neighborhood parking Structure. 4. Does the transportation project provide benefit to the state highway system, including safety and mobility improvements? Yes. The parking structure is located just directly south of the 600 South I-15 off ramp entrance into Salt Lake City in between 400W and 500W. It is intentionally placed on the interior of new midblock private right-of-way, maximizing the current street frontage along 500 West, 600 South, and 700 South for a variety of mixed-use residential and retail projects, and intentionally wrapping or shielding the parking structure with other more aesthetically pleasing structures that also contribute to safety and mobility improvements along 600 South. 5. Does the project financing include local or private participation? Yes. It includes local private participation via the qualified opportunity zone fund that has been established for project area. It is anticipated that local public financing will be used to further support transportation and utility infrastructure upgrades and affordable housing. 6. Does the project provide intermodal connectivity with public transportation, pedestrian, or non-motorized transportation facilities?’ Yes. 500 West and the expansion of the existing Elder court will serve to create additional public space and new midblock connections for pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, and vehicles. In lieu of sprawling surface parking lots, this parking structure will allow for additional infill on the other sites immediately adjacent. The INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure will also include the Elder Court midblock connection between 600 and 700 South, creating a new pedestrian corridor with softscape improvements in an area with limited shade and greenways. While the INDUSTRY Neighborhood Parking Structure is more than ¼ mile from a bus or transit stop, the project is being purposefully built to anticipate the future TRAX expansion along 400 West. Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application Transmittal to City Council February 25, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Proposed Repayment Structure Based on the project meeting the criteria outlined in existing RDA programs and policies, the state infrastructure bank fund will allow for this shovel-ready project to break ground and the tax increment to repay the state funds at low interest/risk to Salt Lake City. cc: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Danny Waltz, Steven Bagley Signature: Email:jessi.eagan@slcgov.com 2021 Drought Response and Water Supply and Demand Planning Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities City Council Work Session August 24, 2021 Drought Response is Meeting Goals of Water Shortage Contingency Plan •City Code: Water Shortages Chapter 17.16, Article II •Five stages with increasing restrictions and response measures. •Stage 2 declared May 27th –goal is to reduce 5%-15%. •Since Stage 2 Declaration: 5% reduction, likely more by the end of the irrigation season. •Since July 1 st, 15% reduction •Saved more than 900 million gallons (more than Mt. Dell capacity) 2 3 2020 Water Conservation Program Highlights •Outreach •Effective collaboration and coordination across partner-City public facilities to reduce water use •Water Checks (178 so far this year) and WaterMAPS in progress •Economics •Localscapes and Flip Your Strip landscape rewards program expanded into service area •SLC Turf Trade Seed sales and irrigation device rebates launch September •Pilot CII Audits and Fixture program •Utility •Concord Lift Station Landscape Upgrade nearing completion; 50% water reduction •Water Audit and Loss control program in progress •Law and Policy •Landscape and water waste codes survey in progress •Research and Metrics •Golf Turf Study: 6+ acres of native/adaptive grasses planted •CII Water use analysis ongoing Planning for Growth: Water Supply and Demand Plan through 2060 •Guides decisions and strategies related to water resources, water demand, conservation, infrastructure, and risk •Addresses: •Regulatory and legal requirements •Land use changes and growth •Climate change impacts •Major components include: Projections through 2060; Water Demand Planning Scenarios; Climate Change; Risk and Redundancy Factors •Last updated in 2019 5 Service Area and Population through 2060 Service area of 141 square miles, includes portions of other cities Population projections include resident population and employment projections Expected population increase by more than 100,000 people by 2060 Evaluated land use changes –NWQ, prison, and densification 6 Projected Annual Water Supply and Demand Scenarios 7 Projected Peak Day Water Supply and Demand Scenarios 8 Risk and Redundancy Planning through 2060 •Single Source Loss •Loss of a groundwater well or equivalent quantity •Catastrophic Source Loss •For annual supply, loss of Big Cottonwood Creek or equivalent quantity •For peak day, loss of Parleys, or equivalent quantity •Climate Change •Planning scenario loss of 15% of water supplies due to climate impacts 9 Water Supply and Demand Plan Conclusions 10 •Set new conservation targets •Implement additional conservation measures New 2020 Conservation Plan addresses these recommendations Conservation •All identified water supplies will be needed ULS and ASR should be developed by 2025 •New wells should be developed between 2026 and 2036 •Other new sources (reuse and surface water) could be longer depending on conservation measures Water Supplies •Decreases in supply and increases in demand are anticipated. Ongoing monitoring and studies are recommended, and changes to this plan may be necessary as a result Climate Change ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 16, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Lisa Shaffer, CAO _____________ SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation: Stephen Meyer STAFF CONTACTS: Lisa Shaffer lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com Garrett A. Danielson Garrett.danielson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment RECOMMENDATION: Following advice and consent, appoint: Stephen Meyer, Director – 911 Dispatch Department BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen is currently the President of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials. As well as the President of the National Emergency Number Association Alaska Chapters, where he spends a good deal of time advocating for reform in Alaska’s 911 systems. He has worked with various high level officials across not only the state, b ut the nation, in order to promote better technology and working conditions for front line dispatchers. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 17, 2021 14:07 MDT) Lisa Shaffer (Aug 17, 2021 14:07 MDT) 08/17/2021 08/17/2021 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 In addition to his positions doing advocacy work, he manages the Kenai Emergency Communications Center in Kenai, Alaska. During his time at this agency he implemented numerous technology solutions that not only benefited their citizens, but led to better more efficient working conditions for their employees. In addition to technology upgrades he has been able to work with his staff to find unique outside the box solutions for scheduling that allow them to have more time off to enjoy with their friends and families, while maintaining the proper level of service for residents. Stephen was able to accomplish this without the need to add any additional FTE’s to the current year’s budget. Overall, Stephen has served 11 years in Public Safety Communications. Stephen started as a front line Dispatcher and worked his way up to Communications Training Officer, Shift Supervisor, Terminal Agency Coordinator, various boards and working groups related to 911, and 911 Communications Managers. Stephen currently holds a Registered Public Safety Leader certification from the Association of Public Communications Officials. This is a lengthy twelve month course that is geared towards management of large public safety dispatch centers. He plans on pursuing his degree in Public Administration. Stephen is married with 6 children. His family is very excited and eager to begin their journey to Salt Lake City and they look forward to becoming passionate productive citizens of the community.