Loading...
08/24/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING August 24,2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Amy Fowler,Chair District 7 James Rogers,Vice Chair District 1 Dennis Faris District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Generated:12:40:42 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/ Based on feedback we have received,we will be going back to our regular Formal Meeting format.Public hearings will be heard in the order on the agenda followed by a general comment session later in the meeting. Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,March 16, 2021. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1-B4 will be heard as one public hearing 1.Grant Application:2022 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA)Grant –Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.If awarded,this grant would fund equipment/supplies,technical assistance training,and two full time employee positions.Funding will also support overtime for outside agencies that participate in the task force.The Salt Lake City Police Department has assumed fiduciary responsibilities for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force and applied for the funding to help support the task force for calendar year 2022. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 24,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2.Grant Applications:2021 School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant –State of Utah,Department of Workforce Services The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services.If awarded,this grant would fund YouthCity 2021 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park,Liberty Park,Central City, Ottinger Hall,Sorenson Unity Center,and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 24,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3.Grant Application:2019 Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management/State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Emergency Management to the Utah Emergency Management.If awarded,this grant would fund projects in the following areas:law enforcement,terrorism prevention,planning,training and exercise,communications,special operations equipment and sustainment,information sharing and management,emergency response equipment and sustainment,and emergency recovery planning for the City. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 24,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4.Grant Application:2021 Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program –YouthCity Summer Snack Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah State Board of Education.If awarded,this grant would provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity 2021 summer programming at Central City Recreation Center, Fair Park,Fairmont Park,Liberty Park,Ottinger Hall,Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center,and Sorenson Unity Center. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 24,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 5.Resolution:Honorary Street Name “Pastor France Davis Way” The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would add the honorary street name “Pastor France Davis Way”on the block of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street,south of Calvary Baptist Church.This honorary street name would recognize Reverend France A.Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church,a predominately African American congregation,for over forty years.Reverend Davis was and still is actively involved in community affairs,serving on numerous state and local boards,providing counsel to community leaders,and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community.He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 17,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 17,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 24,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance:Goshen Street Alley Vacation The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would close and vacate a portion of a City-owned alley at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and approximately 1075 West as a public right-of-way.The applicant owns the adjacent lot north of the alley and would like to incorporate the alleyway with that lot.Petition No.:400-06-05 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 13,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 13,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance:Rosewood Park Street and Alley Vacation at 1400 North 1200 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate five unimproved City-owned alleys and six unimproved City-owned streets,situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West.The proposal would allow for the consolidation of property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects.Petition No.:PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 3.Ordinance:Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions.Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission,or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance.The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,who can appeal decisions,and when an appeal can stay a decision,modify City Code to align with State law,related case law,and make other clarifications to the appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance, including: •Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code,not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code,the Utah Constitution,Utah common law or federal law. •Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant,City board or officer,or “an adversely affected party”to comply with new State Code. •Eliminate automatic stays of decisions.An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay”(a hold on further proceedings on a matter)when appealing an administrative decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00352 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 4.Resolution:Capital Improvement Program Projects The Council will consider adopting a resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program,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 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business.Comments are limited to two minutes.) E.NEW BUSINESS: 1.Advice and Consent:Director of 911 Dispatch Department -Stephen Meyer The Council will consider approving the appointment of Stephen Meyer 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 Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider options. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Resolution:Public Benefits Analysis -Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge The Council will set the date of Tuesday,September 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting 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. 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 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 2.Ordinance:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan The Council will set the date of Tuesday,September 21,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan.Some major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to how the City chooses lighting in public spaces based on pedestrian activity and transportation needs,as well as identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.The plan was reviewed by the Council previously and has since been reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission as well. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021 and Tuesday,August 17,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 21,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Staff Recommendation -Set date. H.ADJOURNMENT: 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. PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,March 16,2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination and Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). The following Council Members were present: Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,James Rogers Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson –Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno –Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto –Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer –Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Amanda Lau –Public Engagement &Communication Specialist,Ben Luedtke –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Brian Fullmer –Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Robert Nutzman –Administrative Assistant,Sam Owen –Public Policy Analyst,DeeDee Robinson –Deputy City Recorder,Ben Kolendar –Economic Development Director,Blake Thomas –Community &Neighborhoods Director,Chief Mike Brown –Police Chief,Debra Alexander –Human Resources Director,Mary Beth Thompson –Chief Financial Officer,Tony Milner –Housing &Neighborhood Development Policy &Program Manager, Allison Rowland –Public Policy Analyst,Lani Eggertson-Goff –Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development,Nick Norris –Planning Division Director,Paul Nielson –Senior City Attorney Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~2:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,January 12,2021;Tuesday,February 2,2021;Tuesday,February 9,2021; Tuesday,February 16,2021;Tuesday,March 2,2021;and Tuesday,March 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Kate Bradshaw (Holland &Hart Law Firm,contract lobbyist)provided Legislative session overview,including: •Bill follow requests/bills introduced/number of bills passed were down from previous years. •Lobbying team worked on 167 bills (active)with more immediate impacts/policy considerations by the City (out of a total of 539 tracked/evaluated for impacts to the City) •Senate Bill (SB)243 (impacting Inland Port/Point of Mountain Authorities)–Influence sponsors to keep Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)standards currently in place for remote meetings,and add language regarding tax-increment only for projects in municipal boundaries,allowance for City to participate/weigh in on projects. •SB204 (affecting business licensing/“other”permitting outside of permits/land-use permits)–did not pass during final hours of session. •House Bill (HB)217 (impacting housing/transit development zones)–a continuing area of policy the Legislature expected to evolve,with the lobby team expecting to engage further on this issue to ensure it met City policy directives. •Law enforcement bills and homelessness/housing bills were the two biggest areas of the 2021 session. Rachel Otto made Council Members aware that further information regarding law enforcement legislation was provided during the last Racial Equity in Policing (REP)Commission meeting and Staff was currently available for further questions. Council Member Fowler thanked Kate Bradshaw and her team for their efforts during this years legislative session,and ensuring the priorities of the City were recognized;advancing policies on equity/diversity,and protecting City residents. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 2 2.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:20 p.m. 30 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 Minutes: Mayor Mendenhall briefed the Council on the following: COVID-19 Updates •On-going work with Salt Lake County to monitor local data •City/County continuing to show a downward trend in positive cases •Proposing to request the County continue its mask mandate •American Rescue Plan:($87 million)allocation to be focused on equitable economic recovery,resident stability/opportunity,and ensuring City was serving its employees/residents/businesses,funding likely to be used for:revenue replacement, household assistance,infrastructure/including digital,etc.,next steps included:continue gathering feedback from department leadership (needs),present spending plan to Council for input and revision,hold public hearings on spending plan per Councils direction,etc.(funding to expire in 2024). Community Commitment Plan (CCP)Updates •Program began last fall (2020)with various service provider partners •CCP commitment:treating all people with respect,maintaining public spaces that are clean/safe/accessible,and utilize law enforcement interventions to address criminal behavior –not punish poverty. •CCP partners included:City HEART team,Volunteers of America,SL County Health Department,Downtown Alliance,etc. •Information regarding recent resource fairs and coordinated outreach locations/numbers of people reached/offered services •CCP staffing resources included :HEART Team (resource fairs/outreach efforts), Advantage Services (supports trash pickup/camp abatements),Police resources (ensuring County health workers are able to do their work w/out harassment/interference by third- party agitators),more services needed system-wide (City not controlling the homeless service system,but invested as much as possible) •City invested over $65 million to affordable housing since 2016 –only City with a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 3 designated funding stream for affordable housing (Budget Amendment No.7 included over $6 million in rental assistance for City residents) •Addressing displacement/gentrification in the City with a Council funded gentrification mitigation study last fiscal year Police Department Update •Budget Amendment No.7 included items related to policing,including:staffing related to encampments/health department safety,and shifts in staffing the Communications Director and the Internal Affairs Director. •What happened during a camp abatement:County Health Department was mandated to address public health concerns,posting notices at least 24 hours in advance,did not remove belongings unless left behind,Salt Lake City was involved in organizing outreach workers to offer services,SLC Police ensure the area was clear for workers and heavy equipment,did not cite people for camping,and helping maintain a closed area. •Police Department staffing adjustments within Budget Amendment No.7: Communications Manager –changing to at-will/appointed instead of career service employee,and Internal Affairs Manager –changing to at-will/appointed instead of career service employee (not assigned to a current Police Department officer). Blake Thomas provided information regarding the displacement/gentrification study, including:scope being crafted now and would be reviewed by Human Rights Commission/Council in the coming weeks,when finalized/released the study would likely take 6-9 months to complete,and current coordination with the Attorney’s Office for immediate policy solutions to help with displacement. Rachel Otto provided information on encampments and the 500 more cleanings projected for FY 2021,and how it was determined on how many Police officers attend to camp clean- ups/abatements (dependent on intelligence gathered prior to these events),and constitutional rights regarding homeless encampments/enforcing camping ordinances. Katherine Lewis provided information regarding: •Pandemic Emergency Powers Amendments –House Bill (HB)294 –state of emergency/executive order pursuant to emergency termination thresholds:1)The state’s 14-day case rate was less than 191 per 100,000 people,2)statewide 7-day average ICU utilization was less than 15%,and 3)Department of Health provided notice that 1,633,000 prime doses of COVID-19 vaccine had been allocated to the state.(When these thresholds were met the declaration of local emergency would automatically terminate –the City’s declaration of local emergency for COVID-19 was currently still in place). •HB294 being significant to the City due to a series of declarations (relating to COVID-19) being issued last year (waiving certain ordinances,deferring City loans,allowing business to operate outside,waiving of certain City donation processes,etc.(these would also terminate when thresholds were met). •Attorneys office compiling a list of the remaining proclamations and would come back to the Administration/Council with suggestions/ideas regarding codifying them to keep them in place. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 4 Other items of note included: •Public health order for K-12 schools could remain in effect until (at latest)July 1,2021. •Statewide mask requirements terminated on April 10,2021 (50 person gathering unable to socially distance could have a mask mandate and local health department with approval of County legislative body could issue a mask requirement –but all mandates terminated when thresholds mentioned above were met) •Determination by the public body to hold in person meetings,regardless of declaration of emergency (not tied to the thresholds above). Councilmember Mano requested that if a list of emergency declaration items to be adopted/codified was created (relating to COVID-19)to consider including other declarations of emergency such as the windstorm and earthquake of 2020.Ms.Lewis said they could be included but reiterated that the earthquake and windstorm did not contain exercises of emergency authority/powers like ones related to COVID-19,only emergency declarations for the purposes of federal aid. 3.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:50 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 Minutes: Allison Rowland provided updates relating to the Racial Equity in Policing (REP) Commission,including:upcoming REP meeting for March 17,2021 (sub-committees:school safety,officer training,policy &practices),next full commission meeting was on March 24, 2021,and noted the REP commission was alerted of the Councils agenda topic regarding Officer Recruitment,Hiring and Promotions and invited to submit comments/questions at the next Work Session meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 5 4.Informational:Policing Discussion:Officer Recruitment,Hiring and Promotions ~3:10 p.m. 45 min. The Council is holding an ongoing series of discussions about policing and related topics in the City.This briefing focuses on Human Resources and Police Department policies and practices that guide the process to recruit new officers,determine which candidates are hired and how existing officers are promoted. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Benjamin Luedtke provided a brief overview of the presentation,explained the purpose of today’s discussion (providing more information to the public and the Council on existing programs/practices/policies,etc),and noted that in December 2020 the Council eliminated the Civil Service Commission and adopted an ordinance establishing merit based recruitment/promotion processes for Fire &Police. Debra Alexander and Mike Brown provided information regarding: •Overview of hiring/recruitment of police officers (process included a partnership between Human Resources,SLC Police Department,and Peace Officer Standards & Training/POST and involved more testing components than typical recruitment) •Recruitment process,including purpose (attracting diversity,facilitating inclusion and community representation/ensuring equal opportunity),and components (outreach, community meetings/mentoring/internships,applying to be an officer,and continuous recruitment –always seeking applications/apply at any time) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 6 •Qualifying to be a an SLC Police Officer included confirming candidate meets standards of SLCPD (City job minimums)and POST with the following considerations for applicants:communicating job requirements,accessibility (citizenship,language, physical limitations,etc.),pre-testing questionnaire •Testing to be a SLCPD officer included assessing candidates character,ability to respond to situations,determining organizational fit,identifying bias or extremism •Phases of Testing:Phase I included physical testing,written testing,establishing veterans/Explorer preferences,phase II included initiate comprehensive background checks (both Utah POST and internal SLCPD background checks),oral interview, truthfulness verification (voice stress or eye detect),phase III included finalization of background checks,psychological testing (multiple),and interview with a psychologist. •Testing process aspects for lateral applicants •Hiring to be a SLCPD Officer included an interview with Chief/designee,new recruitment rules (established February 2021)allowing for expanded opportunities,and conditional offer letter of employment based on successful completion of medical exam/drug screen •Next steps included new recruits (new hire/lateral)begin 10 months of training (22 weeks of POST certification,and 18 weeks of Field Training Assessment (FTO)). Councilmember Wharton requested more information regarding how the City was different from other entities regarding the recruitment and hiring process.Ms.Alexander said the psychological testing SLCPD employed was not always done by other agencies,as well as the written test (having unique aspects)was unlike most law enforcement issued tests.She added she would provide more information to the Council. 5.Tentative Break ~3:55 p.m. 20 min. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 7 6.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.7 for Fiscal Year 2020-21 ~4:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will be briefed about Budget Amendment No.7 for the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed amendment includes $6 million from the U.S.Treasury Department for rental assistance, funding to host the National League of Cities Conference in November 2021,an outdoor business activity assistance pilot program,and a needs assessment of the Police Department, among many other items. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,April 6,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 20,2021 Minutes: Benjamin Luedtke provided a brief overview of the budget amendment,indicated this was the first briefing,provided a graphic summarizing how the City was using Federal funds this fiscal year (FY)(funding,amount,sources,spent on –totaling $113,192,904 M received),noted an update to impact fees for Fire and Parks sections of impact fee plan with Police impact fees having $104,000 scheduled to expire between now and October,and reviewed new full-time employee (FTE)position requests. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 8 Mr.Luedtke reviewed the following items: •A-1 National League of Cities Conference –$300,000 (General Fund) for conference at Salt Palace Convention center (organizing,managing,and hosting) •A-2 World Trade Center Membership –$50,000 (General Fund)for City to become a member of world trade center (highest level –ambassador) •A-3 Encampment Reestablishment Prevention –$650,000 (General Fund)for police officer voluntary overtime shifts providing security to Health Department employees/social workers as part of the Community Commitment Program •A-4 Emergency Management Moved to Fire Department –$31,844 (General Fund)to move Emergency Management Division from Police Department to Fire Department (including a new Fire Captain position,existing employee salary increases, etc.) •A-5 Outdoor Business Activity Assistance Program –$100,000 (General Fund)for outdoor business activity pilot program (dining and retail establishments) •A-8 U.S.Department of the Treasury;Emergency Rental Assistance – $6,067,033 (Misc.Grants)for household assistance (rent,utilities-basic only,and rent arrears)–90%to be used for direct financial assistance/10%to be used for housing stability services (case management,administrative costs) Rachel Otto provided an explanation of the position request for Community Outreach-Equity &Special Projects Coordinator and its relation to the Human Rights Commission that was also under the Mayors Office. Ben Kolendar provided an explanation of the position request for Business Development Division Director (Economic Development)–focused on grants,policies and art,day to day of business development and how it differed from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)position,information regarding forgivable loans vs.grant concept for the new pilot program (Item A5),and eligibility criteria for forgiveness. Straw Poll:Support for approving the Administration’s suggested new positions/early hire advertising.All Council Members were in favor. Tony Milner and Lani Eggertsen-Goff provided information (from Item A8)regarding expansion of eligibility:prioritized for 50%AMI,low-income/homeless being eligible,reliance on the proposed State website to attract applicants/assist with applying for assistance,funding having no caps on rental assistance,providing up to 12 months of rent, Councilmember Johnston inquired about reporting regarding who would be utilizing funds and what funds were being used,and if these funds could be used for temporary housing (regarding Item A8).Mr.Milner said residents would be tracked/verified for eligibility within the City,additional State &County funds were available if City funds were to be exhausted, and information would be gathered regarding households receiving assistance and would be provided to the Council once obtained.He noted that the program requires a lease in place/potential lease,therefore not eligible for temporary housing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 9 Straw Poll:Support for partnership with the State for administering financial assistance.All Council Members were in favor. Mary Beth Thompson reviewed sales tax revenue/distribution charts: •Sales tax revenue updated (July –December FY 2021)with a percentage change of $137,000 (from 2020 to 2021) •Projected remainder of the FY –$3.8 M above budget •Top 5 sectors of sales tax revenue,including:retail trade,wholesale trade, accommodations/food services,manufacturing,real estate/rental/leasing •Revenue projections update including:property tax,sales and use tax,sales and use ½cent,franchise tax –totaling $381,424 •Revenue for licenses and permits,intergovernmental,interest income,parking enforcement fees –totaling a deficit of $4,478,428. 7.Informational:Housing Authority Update ~5:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from Dan Nackerman,the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City on recent plans,projects and reports.The Housing Authority is a federally-funded agency that provides rent subsidies and promotes affordable housing for income-eligible people in Salt Lake City. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Allison Rowland provided an introduction and brief overview of the presentation. Daniel Nackerman (Executive Director,Housing Authority of Salt Lake City),provided information and spoke on the following: •Introduction of current board members, •Presentation of the draft annual report for 2020,including:programs (vouchers,veterans supportive housing,etc.)and properties, •RAD Conversion Program (Rental Assist Demonstration):HUD housing program converting old public housing into Section 8 housing, •Current Housing Authority activities including:new and existing properties (City Plaza, Freedom Landing,Valor Apartments,Capitol Homes Apartments,Pamela’s Place, Spark!,etc.), •Next year’s goals,including:landlord incentives,start-up of home buyers,acquisitions, continued support for seniors/families/chronically homeless), •Agency overview/background, MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 10 •Affordable housing being the agency’s primary mission, •2021 Budget Information,including:Operating Expenses –total $41,391,398,and Operating Revenue –total $41,637,944, •Homeless response,including programs &properties:rapid rehousing,family homeless prevention,landlord assurance program,landlord outreach and incentives,assistance with security deposits,family self-sufficiency program,and homeless response services at Sunrise Metro (278 residents were served by Sunrise Metro case management staff, approximately 31 residents maintained employment throughout 2020/COVID), •Total housed through vouchers (5,920)and total housed through Housing Authority properties (3,220), •Agency accomplishments/challenges, •COVID response included:no evictions,seniors protected,vaccinations on-site,etc., •New efforts included:better success rates for housing navigators,support for inclusionary zoning,job training,first-time ownership,etc.). 8.Ordinance:Shared Housing Zoning Text Amendments Follow-up Briefing (formerly Single Room Occupancy or SROs)~5:30 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a new proposal for Shared Housing zoning text amendments.The proposed amendments would redefine what was previously Single Room Occupancy (SRO)housing to Shared Housing,and defines it as a residential building,or part of one that contains smaller housing units consisting of one or more sleeping rooms and contains either a private kitchen or private bathroom,but not both.In the updated proposal,units could contain multiple sleeping rooms,rather than limiting the unit to one sleeping room. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 14,2020;Tuesday,October 6,2020;and Tuesday,March 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 6,2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,October 20,2020 and Tuesday,November 10, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Minutes: PULLED –Item postponed to a future agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 11 Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Minutes: Item not held. 10.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; •Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC)Reappointments •Council/School Board Leadership Meeting; •Sugar House S-Line configuration;and •Scheduling Items. Minutes: See Announcements MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 12 11.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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 13 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. Minutes: Start time:6:23 pm Council Members in Attendance:Ana Valdemoros,Daniel Dugan,James Rogers,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Darin Mano,and Amy Fowler. City Staff in Attendance:Mayor Mendenhall,Blake Thomas,Katherine Lewis,Lehua Weaver,Jennifer Bruno,Lisa Shaffer,Nick Norris,Brian Fullmer,Sam Owen,Rachel Otto,Allison Rowland,Paul Nielson,Robert Nutzman,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Cindy Lou Trishman Councilmember Wharton moved and Councilmember Mano seconded the motion to close the Closed Session.A roll call vote was taken,all present voted aye. Closed Session ended at 6:47 pm Sworn Statement Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to enter into Closed Session for §52-4-205(l)(c)strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;and 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. AYE:Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Andrew Johnston,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,James Rogers Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 14 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 15 Meeting adjourned at 6:47 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held 16 March 2021. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,March 16,2021 16 Item B1-B4 Page 1 1 8 4 1 3 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B1 through B4. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B1 through B4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: August 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD 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 www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Aug. 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 1.2022 Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) Grant – Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force Purpose/Goal of the Grant: The Salt Lake City Police Department continues to assume fiduciary responsibilities for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force and applied for funding to help support the task force for calendar year 2022. If awarded, the grant will continue to fund three existing positions (narcotics K9 officer, office facilitator and contracted financial manager). Funding will also support investigative and support overtime, vehicle leases, travel, confidential informant funds and supplies. (See below for additional details.) Grant Amount: $703,757 Requested by: Police Department Funding Agency: Office of National Drug Control Policy in conjunction with Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force Match Requirement: - 0 – Page | 2 Additional Details: (provided by the Administration) Personnel: $210,030 (SLCPD K9 officer, office facilitator and contracted state coordinator/financial manager) Benefits: $116,797 Overtime: $140,000 Travel: $50,750 (administrative, training and investigative) Services: $68,800 (vehicle leases, communication services, visual aids and transcriptions, K9 maintenance) Supplies: $11,700 (office supplies, investigative supplies and K9 supplies) Other: $144,400 (administrative costs and obtaining evidence) Additional information provided by the Administration in response to questions from Council Staff: a.Given that the K9 program is currently on hold, will the funds be allocated differently? Or, are the narcotics canines still in service? The RMHIDTA K9 is a narcotics K9 assigned at the DEA and is still in service. b. Could you please share a status update on the K9 program about how many officers and K9s are on leave or assigned to other duties? This information will be compiled and sent to Council. It is not applicable to this grant funding. c.The CDC recently announced that overdose deaths nationally increased by almost 30% year over year from 2019 to 2020. Has the metro task force observed corresponding increases in drug trafficking? Any context about how the pandemic impacted drug trafficking and enforcement in the Salt Lake metro would be helpful information to share with the Council. Here is some data provided by the DEA: •2018 to 2019 largest increase in death rates involving synthetic opioids occurred in the West (67.9%) •2019 over 70,000 drug overdose deaths occurred in U.S. – over 70% of those involved a opioid •2020 over 87,000 drug overdose deaths – largest number ever recorded in 12 month period •Deaths involving synthetic opioids increased over 60% in 2020 •Remains the primary driver behind drug overdose •As heroin overdose deaths decreased – fentanyl deaths increased (more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 – 125% increase) •Fentanyl seizures significantly increased in 2020 in dosage units across Utah. Page | 3 •The amount of fentanyl seized by dosage units more than tripled in 2020 compared to the combined amount from 2019. •The amount of fentanyl by pounds almost doubled from 2019 to 2020. Here is a link to some recent news stories as well: https://kutv.com/news/addicted-utah/how-covid-19-impacted-substance-use- issues https://kutv.com/news/addicted-utah/overshadowed-by-opioids-experts-say- meth-is-the-next-epidemic-to-address https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/overshadowed-by-opioids-experts-say- meth-is-the-next-epidemic-to-address-05-19-2021 Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens, Mike Brown, Jennifer Covino, Shellie Dietrich, Tim Doubt, Elizabeth Gerhart, Mark Kittrell, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Kory Solorio, Lehua Weaver FROM: Jordan Smith DATE: June 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area – Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force FUNDING AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy GRANT PROGRAM: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area REQUESTED AMOUNT: $742,477 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force SPECIFICS:  Equipment/Supplies  Technical Assistance (Training)  Provides 2.0 FTE Position  Existing  New  Overtime  Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Funds salary and fringe for existing Salt Lake City PD K9 officer and officer facilitator II, assigned to task force. Funding will also support overtime for outside agencies that participate in the task force.  Match Required: N/A  In-Kind and/or  Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department has assumed fiduciary responsibilities for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force and applied for the following funding to help support the task force for calendar year 2022: • Personnel: $210,030 (SLCPD K9 officer, office facilitator and contracted state coordinator/financial manager) • Fringe: $116,797 • Overtime: $140,000 • Travel: $50,750 (administrative, training and investigative) • Services: $68,800 (vehicle leases, communication services, visual aids and transcriptions, K9 maintenance) • Supplies: $11,700 (office supplies, investigative supplies and K9 supplies) • Other: $144,400 (administrative costs & obtaining evidence) Item B1-B4 Page 1 1 8 4 1 3 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B1 through B4. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B1 through B4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: August 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD 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 www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Aug. 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 2.2021 School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant – State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, grant funds will be used to provide salaries and benefits for four group facilitators, professional fees, contract services, as well as materials and supplies for YouthCity 2021 summer programming at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. Grant Amount: $199,980 Requested by: Division of Youth and Family, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Funding Agency: Utah Department of Workforce Services Office of Child Care administering Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Act-Child Care Development Match Requirement: - 0 - Additional information provided by the Administration in response to Council Staff’s questions: Page | 2 a.Are there any goals or metrics for this grant? Yes, our focus this summer is to focus on Social Emotional Learning. The University of Utah will provide an assessment at the end of the summer session. b.If the grant is not awarded, then would service levels be reduced for the YouthCity program? How would the program adjust if this grant funding is not available? The grants funds have been awarded. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Kim Thomas, Lorna Vogt, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: May 14, 2021 SUBJECT: School-age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2021 FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Workforce Services Office of Child Care administering Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Act-Child Care Development Fund GRANT PROGRAM: School-age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2021 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $199,980 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Services | Division of Youth and Family Services COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: May 14, 2021 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance  Provides 50 Seasonal  Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Positions are Group Facilitators □ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS:  The Division of Youth and Family Services requested $199,980 to provide YouthCity 2021 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center.  There are no match requirements.  A summary of the proposed grant budget is below. Category Amount Salaries $128,700 Fringe $9,845 Communications $1,800 Materials and Supplies $54,635 Professional Fees & Contract Services $5,000 Total $199,980 Item B1-B4 Page 1 1 8 4 1 3 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B1 through B4. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B1 through B4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: August 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD 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 www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Aug. 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 3.2019 State Homeland Security Program Grant – Utah State Department of Emergency Management Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund projects in law enforcement terrorism prevention, interoperable communications, special operations equipment and sustainment, information sharing and management, emergency response equipment and sustainment, and emergency recovery plan development for the City. Grant Amount: $64,256 Requested by: Fire Department Emergency Management Services Division Funding Agency: State of Utah Department of Emergency Management Match Requirement: - 0 - Additional information provided by the Administration in response to questions from Council Staff: Could you please elaborate on the proposed emergency recovery plan? For example, is the recovery plan applicable to all hazards/disasters or specific to a certain type, how would the community be able to provide input into the recovery plan, what would the City Council role be (provide early feedback in the process, eventually adopt the plan, etc.), is the City required to have a recovery plan? Page | 2 a. This particular funding had an emphasis on terrorism and impacts from Mass Casualty Incidents. b. So the particular line item that discusses funding for planning is to improve our current plans by developing and/or enhancing plans or protocols related to mass casualty response including training of the new pieces. c. At different times of a plans lifecycle there is involvement from Council, other Departments, outside Stakeholders, etc. This usually occurs during the initial development of a plan or when there is a significant updates to the whole. For instance when our current operations plan was updated to include ADA requirements. d. One piece of the plan or an addendum doesn’t normally rise to that level of review. e. We have several different types of plans: mitigation, operations, earthquake annexes, etc. f. As part of our transition to the Fire Department, plans will be under review in the near future. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jensen, Rachel Otto, Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Shaffer, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Elizabeth Gerhart, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez,Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Lehua Weaver FROM: Sarah Behrens DATE 25 May 2021 SUBJECT: 2019 State Homeland Security Program FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Emergency Management GRANT PROGRAM: State Homeland Security Program AMOUNT REQUESTED: TBD DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Emergency Management COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: NA SPECIFICS: Technical Assistance (Training) Equipment Only Provides FTE Position(s) Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required __ ____________ In- Kind and Cash New Program (City not performing function now) GRANT DETAILS: Each year, Salt Lake County distributes State Homeland Security funds for the Region 2. Due to the pandemic, notification of the 2019 allocation was delayed. Salt Lake City’s allocation has yet to be determined. Item B1-B4 Page 1 1 8 4 1 3 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B1 through B4. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B1 through B4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: August 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD 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 www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Aug. 24, 2021 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 4.2021 Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program – YouthCity Summer Snack Program Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to offset the cost of daily snacks for youth participating in YouthCity summer programming at Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, Fairmont Park, Sorenson Unity Center, and the Northwest teen programs. Grant Amount: $15,000 Requested by: Division of Youth and Family, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Funding Agency: Utah State Board of Education administering the U.S. Department of Agriculture funding Match Requirement: -0- Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Kim Thomas, Lorna Vogt, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: May 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Summer Food Service Program 2021 FUNDING AGENCY: Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding GRANT PROGRAM: Summer Food Service Program 2021 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $12,280 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Services | Division of Youth & Family Services COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: April 30, 2021 SPECIFICS:  Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS:  The Division of Youth and Family Services requested $12,280 to provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity 2021 summer programming at Central City Recreation Center, Fair Park, Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, and Sorenson Unity Center. Item B5 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: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Honorary Street Name Recognizing Pastor France Davis MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the resolution. MOTION 2 I move the Council close the public hearing and reject the resolution. MOTION 3 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 4 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Honorary Street Name Recognizing Pastor France Davis BRIEFING SUMMARY Council Members did not express any questions or concerns about the proposed honorary street name. The public hearing is set for August 24, 2021. The following information was provided for the August 17, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to add the honorary name “Pastor France Davis Way” to the block of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street. The congregation of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the Mayor’s Office propose adding the honorary street name. Pastor Davis served the congregation for more than forty years. In addition, Pastor Davis has provided significant community service. Among his many roles serving the broader community are: o member of several state and local boards o Core Commission Member of the City’s Commission of Racial Equity and Policing o provided counsel to community leaders o adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program Item Schedule: Briefing: August 17, 2021 Set Date: August 17, 2021 Public Hearing: August 24, 2021 Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Page | 2 The Attorney’s Office noted while the proposed honorary street name is not a permanent change, the asset naming ordinance in City Code has a list of prohibited names for permanent asset naming. Included in the list are “the name of a religious leader, unless such leader is recognized solely for the leader’s civic contribution.” The Mayor’s Office stated the proposed honorary street name is to recognize and honor Pastor Davis for his contributions to the community. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed honorary street name, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed honorary street name? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Pastor Davis received numerous awards and honorary degrees for his service to the community including: o Utah Humanities Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities o Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of Progress Award o Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College, Dixie State University, Utah Valley University, Weber State University, and Snow College Using the previous honorary street name (Harvey Milk Boulevard in 2016) as a guide, staff proposes the following process: Submit proposed honorary naming to public for feedback. Be clear Council is seeking feedback (it’s not a vote). o Mail notification about the proposed honorary naming to property owners abutting the street which would be affected. (Mayor’s Office to contact abutting property owners) o Welcome any comments via email, phone, written letters, etc. Hold a public hearing. Council will vote to approve or deny the request. The Administration estimates a total of $288.00 to produce and install two street signs at the State Street and Main Street intersections with Harvard Avenue. Costs for the signs and installation will be donated to the City. There are currently several City streets with honorary names (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. (600 South), Cesar Chavez (500 South), Rosa Parks (200 East), John Stockton (300 West – a state road), Karl Malone (100 South), Harvey Milk (900 South)). RESOLUTION NO. ___ OF 2021 (Changing the name of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street, on an honorary basis, to “Pastor France Davis Way”) WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is good cause to change the name of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street, on an honorary basis, to “Pastor France Davis Way” without changing the official name or designation of the street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City that: 1. Honorary Street Name Change. The name of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street shall be and is hereby changed on an honorary basis to “Pastor France Davis Way”. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this ____ day of _____, 2021 Salt Lake City Council _______________________________________ Amy Fowler, Council Chair Attest: _____________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Approved as to form: ________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Aug 2, 2021 11:07 MDT) 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: July 19, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Honorary Street Name “France Davis Way” STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff, Rachel.otto@slcgov.com Hailey Leek, Special Projects & Equity Coordinator, hailey.leek@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item RECOMMENDATION: The congregation of the Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the Office of the Mayor proposes adding the honorary street name “France Davis Way” on the block of 1050 S between State Street and Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would recognize Reverend France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Churc h, a predominately African American congregation, for over forty years. BUDGET IMPACT: Estimated minimum of $506.00 will be needed. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Reverend France A. Davis, a native of Georgia, has resided in the state of Utah since 1972. He earned a Master’s degree in Communications from the University of Utah, Master of Ministry Degree from The Nazarene University Nampa , Idaho, and for over forty years served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation. This is especially remarkable given the fact that Calvary Baptist Church was established 122 years ago. In addition to meeting the spiritual needs of his congregants, Reverend Davis was and still is actively involved in community affairs, serving on numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to community leaders, and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community. He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. Reverend Davis was an adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program and the Honors program for more than four decades. He was awarded Emeritus Professor status at the en d of spring semester 2014. Lisa Shaffer (Jul 19, 2021 16:39 MDT) 07/19/2021 07/19/2021 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 Included among the many awards given to Reverend Davis over the years is the Utah Humanities Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities, the Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of Progress Award, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College, Dixie State University and the University of Utah, Honorary Degrees from the University Utah, Southern Utah University, UVU, Dixie, Weber and Snow College. Reverend Davis has also contributed to the community as a Member of the Board of Corrections and later Chairman. Reverend Davis served as a member of the Utah State Board of Regents for 10 years serving as Vice Chair the last year of his tenure, Founding Chair of UOIC (Utah Opportunities Indu strialization Training Center). In recognition of his dedicated service to humanity and his ongoing work as an educator, social justice advocate, and religious leader in the state of Utah, the Pastor France A. Davis Scholarship was established to aid deserving Utah students pursue their educational goals. In the tradition of ministerial leaders such as Benjamin Mays, Howard Thurman , and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Pastor Davis has been actively involved in the in the quest for social justice for all of hum ankind. Although Pastor Davis wears many hats and is well recognized in the community, he has always striven to further improve his knowledge and skills in human relationships and providing guidance for others. See Addendum A “Memorandum” dated July 6, 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 ADDENDUM A 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 Memorandum To: Salt Lake City Council From: Date: July 6, 2021 Re: France Davis Way ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The congregation of the Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the Office of the Mayor proposes adding the honorary street name “France Davis Way” on the block of 1050 S between State Street and Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would recognize Reverend France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Churc h, a predominately African American congregation, for over forty years. There are currently several City streets with honorary names (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. (600 South), Cesar Chavez (500 South), Rosa Parks (200 East), John Stockton (300 West – a state road), Karl Malone (100 South, and Harvey Milk Boulevard (900 South between 1100 East and 900 West)). City crews would produce and install street signs in the impacted area, and the Mayor’s Office will notify the surrounding businesses and residents of the proposed honorary street name . Criteria for consideration of honorary naming • Whether an individual is a city, state or nationally recognized person who has improved the quality of life for the public. • A significant historic feature or event. • An individual or group who has made exceptional contributions to the city. The City Attorney’s Office reported the C ity has considerable latitude on how to process honorary street renaming petitions since they are not addressed in Salt Lake City Code. It was suggested the Council and the Mayor’s Office follow steps in previous street renamings in order to be consistent. Cost of signs Administrative Staff provided information on the cost of street signs. • Large signs 48” x 24” arterial signs $109.00/each o signs on mast arms in larger intersections • Since the City shop produces signs one at a time by cutting the lettering and applying them in layers there is no economy of scale. 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 Engineering stated there will need to be 2 large signs for the proposed area. Installation costs are estimated to be $70 for a total cost of $288.00. France Davis Background Reverend France A. Davis, a native of Georgia, has resided in the state of Utah since 1972. He earned a Master’s degree in Communications from the University of Utah, Master of Ministry Degree from The Nazarene University Nampa, Idaho, and for over forty years served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation. This is especially remarkable given the fact that Calvary Baptist Church was established 122 years ago. In addition to meeting the spiritual needs of his congregants, Reverend Davis was and still is actively involved in community affairs, serving on numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to community leaders, and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community. He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. Reverend Davis was an adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program and the Honors program for more than four decades. He was awarded Emeritus Professor status at the en d of spring semester 2014. Included among the many awards given to Reverend Davis over the years is the Utah Humanities Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities, the Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of Progress Award, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College, Dixie State University and the University of Utah, Honorary Degrees from the University Utah, Southern Utah University, UVU, Dixie, Weber and Snow College. Reverend Davis has also contributed to the community as a Member of the Board of Corrections and later Chairman. Reverend Davis served as a member of the Utah State Board of Regents for 10 years serving as Vice Chair the last year of his tenure, Founding Chair of UOIC (Utah Opportunities Indu strialization Training Center). In recognition of his dedicated service to humanity and his ongoing work as an educator, social justice advocate, and religious leader in the state of Utah, the Pastor France A. Davis Scholarship was established to aid deserving Utah students pursue their educational goals. In the tradition of ministerial leaders such as Benjamin Mays, Howard Thurman , and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Pastor Davis has been actively involved in the in the quest for social justice for all of hum ankind. Although Pastor Davis wears many hats and is well recognized in the community, he has always striven to further improve his knowledge and skills in human relationships and providing guidance for others. Item C1 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: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Goshen Street Alley Vacation 400-06-05 MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 I move the council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Goshen Street Alley Vacation 400-06-05 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY The applicant spoke in favor of closing and vacating the alley. There were no other public comments. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the July 13, 2021 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 13 Council briefing a Council Member asked if the alley continues beyond the applicant’s rear property line. Planning staff clarified the alley does not continue beyond the applicant’s property. The property behind the applicant and in line with the alley is privately owned. The following information was provided for the July 13, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a City-owned alley at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075 West in City Council District Two. The subject alley is Item Schedule: Briefing: July 13, 2021 Set Date: July 13, 2021 Public Hearing: August 17, 2021 Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Page | 2 approximately 15’ wide, 138’ long (2,070 square feet) and dead ends in line with the applicant’s western property boundary as shown in the image below. A former intersecting north-south alley segment along this boundary was vacated in 1962. This is an old application on which the Council was initially briefed in 2007. At that time, an adjacent property owner on the south side of the alley wanted to purchase half the alley. That property is in a different subdivision from which the alley was created. According to a Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office interpretation of City code, when alleys are vacated they must be conveyed to abutting property owners within the subdivision from which it was originally dedicated. Utah court case law supports this position. In the period since the Council was first briefed on this alley closure, the adjacent property south of the alley was sold and the current owner is supportive of the alley closure with the applicant receiving the alley property (see email from adjacent property owner to the south included as attachment A). Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition for alleys (see pages 4-5 below). For alleys abutting low density residential areas (single-family, duplex or twin homes), the alley is vacated and deeded to abutting property owners. Since the applicant is the only abutting property owner within the subdivision from which the alley was originally created, if the subject alley vacation is approved by the Council the alley property will be deeded to them. The previous City Council staff report is included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation. Aerial view with the subject alley highlighted in yellow. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure request? ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 3-5 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. ALLEY DISPOSITION PROCESS In order for the City to dispose of its interest in an alley, it must be demonstrated at least one of the following criteria is satisfied: A.Lack of Use-it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B.Public Safety-existence of the alley substantially contributes to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C.Urban Design-Continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D.Community Purpose-Petitioners propose to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Planning staff evaluated the application and found the alley meets Standard C, and does not serve as a positive urban design element. They further determined the proposed alley closure complies with all City Code requirements for an alley closure. The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or Page | 4 D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; Page | 5 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. Page | 6 Attachment A From: Miles Hunter <milesphunter@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:25 PM Subject: Fwd: (EXTERNAL) status of alleyway vacation petition \ alleyway located between 750 S Goshen St and 740 S Goshen St, 84104 To: <nong000001@gmail.com> Hi Soulasaith and Tair, The email below contains the information about the petition status for the alleyway's vacation. We totally understand that the alleway will be deeded entirely to your property. I'm sorry that your petition wasn't advanced in the past. If you choose to proceed with this petition, we will completely support you. Either way, we'll consider this space as yours. We will install a fence in the future, but just in the back portion of our yard (to have a secure place to let the dog out). The markers along our property are a fenceline marker and were certified to be three inches inside our property. We'll make sure all fencing, plants, etc. won't encroach on the alleyway property. Thank you both. And thank you to your family. For being such kind, gracious neighbors. Your welcome of us and your generosity has been so lovely. Thank you. Our garden is starting to get going! We have A LOT of chard, arugula, kale, and spinach right now. Would you and your family like any? I'll happily harvest and stop it over to you! Best, Miles & Isai 750 S Goshen 801-599-4624 milesphunter@gmail.com SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: SUBJECT: •I STAFF REPORT BY: AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: AND CONT ACT PERSON: NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: POTENTIAL MOTIONS: April 10, 2007 Petition No. 400-06-05 -A request by M. Kiphibane, requesting the vacation and closure of the alley property located at 740 South Goshen Street (approximately 1075 West) in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of way. Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst District 2 Community Development Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Newspaper advertisement once a week for 4 weeks prior to the Public Hearing 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West. And/or 3. ["I further move that the Council"] request that half of the subject alleyway be deeded to each abutting property owner, pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney. Or 4. ["I further move that the Council"] request that the full width of the alleyway be deeded to the petitioner. FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION: During the Council work session briefing, the Council discussed the issue of disposition of this alley property. Council requested that the City Attorney investigate the matter and issue an opinion on whether the property owner to the south has legal claim to the subject alley, even though the property is technically outside of the boundaries of the subdivision. The Attorney's Office has since indicated that they believe the property owner to the south does have legal claim, as there is no physical barrier between this property owner and the subject alleyway, and as the property owner to the south has been using the alleyway for secondary access to their property. The Attorney's Office therefore recommends that the alleyway be disposed of in the typical fashion, with half of the alleyway being deeded to each abutting property owner. 1 ,, The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on February 6, 2007. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A In this case the major policy issue before the Council, in addition to the alley vacation decision, is whether or not to deed the entire alleyway to the petitioner, as is requested (and as is recommended by Planning Staff), or to follow the typical alleyway vacation procedure, which is to deed half to the alleyway to each abutting property owner. 1. Typically an alleyway that is vacated is divided equally between the two adjacent property owners. If the property owners wish to deed the entire alley to one property owner or the other, this is done through a private transaction after the alley vacation process. 2. It is Planning Staff's position that because the property owner to the south is not a part of the subdivision in which the subject alleyway is a part, and have access to their lot through other means than the alleyway, they have no legal claim to the alleyway. 3. The property owner to the north is technically the only abutting property owner in the subdivision. 4. The property owner to the South has expressed an interest in splitting the alleyway. 5. Planning Staff indicates in the Council Transmittal that in a subdivision situation (as this is), it has been City practice to distribute the alleyway to the abutting owners in the subdivision, and not other abutting owners if they are outside the subdivision. Council Staff has asked for past examples of this situation, and Planning Staff has provided an example of this situation, dated May of 1995. i. The ordinance (no. 32of1995) states "title to the vacated property shall be quit-claimed to the abutting properties in the Country Club Place Subdivision from which the alley was dedicated." ii. The Council may wish to discuss this example further, to determine if there were factors that made this determination more clear (abutting property outside of the subdivision may or may not have had access to the alleyway). 6. See Matters at Issue for a further analysis of this situation. B. Key points in the Administration's transmittal are the following: 1. The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City close the alleyway located in Block 3 of the Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way. The subject alley runs directly south of the petitioner's property, located at 740 South Goshen Street (approximately 1075 West). The petitioner would like to combine the full alleyway with his lot in order to expand a single-family residential dwelling. 2. The alley was part of the original Seventh South Subdivision, platted in 1893. The majority of the alleyway (running north-south) was vacated in 1962. The subject alleyway runs east-west. 3. The property to the north of the subject alleyway (the petitioner's property) is part of the original subdivision. 4. The property directly to the south of the subject alleyway is not part of the original subdivision. The abutting property owner to the south has indicated (in statements at the Planning Commission hearing and in the letter dated April 6, 2006 in the 2 transmittal) that she has been using the alleyway as an alternate access point for her back yard. 5. The abutting property owner directly to the South has expressed a desire to either not vacate the alleyway, or split the alleyway between the abutting north and south properties. The Planning Commission and staff is recommending that the alleyway be deeded only to the abutting property owner to the north, as they are the only abutting property owner inside the subdivision, and are therefore the only abutting· property owner with a legal claim (see the Matters at Issue section of this staff report, page 2, for detail). 6. The Planning staff report notes the following findings: i. Closing the subject alley would not deny sole access to any adjacent property. 11. The applicant is willing to purchase the southern half of the property at fair market value (see Budget Related Facts, below, for detail). iii. No abutting property owner, with legal standing, intends to build a garage requiring access from the alley property. 7. Planning staff evaluated the application per Salt Lake City Code Section 14.52.020 "Method of Disposition" and determined that the alley meets Standard C, which states that "the continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element." C. The petitioner's property is zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). All of the surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The surrounding land uses in all directions are single-family residential. D. The street property requested for closure is approximately 15 feet wide and 138 feet long (2,070 square feet). E. All necessary City departments and divisions reviewed the petition and no negative comments were received. Public Utilities did note that it is within the floodplain which will ultimately affect the development of the property. F. On March 24, 2006 the Poplar Grove Community Council reviewed the request. They supported the vacation as long as the adjacent landowners were in support. It was noted in their letter to Planning that they assumed that Planning would not have submitted the petition to them for consideration unless all property owners were in support. Information was provided to the contrary by the abutting property owner to the south (see below), at the Planning Commission hearing, after the Poplar Grove Community Council heard the petition. G. On June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The property owner to the south spoke at the hearing and expressed an interest in obtaining half of the alley to straighten the property line and provide a secondary access to her property. She stated that her preference was not to have the alley vacated at all, but that if it is, she would prefer to receive a part of it to maintain her secondary access. Minutes from the hearing indicate that Planning staff clarified that the Planning Commission is responsible only to decide whether or not the alley is needed for public use, and that the disposition issue can be determined at the time of the City Council Public Hearing. However, the motion adopted by the Planning Commission did address to whom the alleyway should be deeded. The Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to "vacate and close the subject alley and deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 3 1. That the proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method expressed in Section 14.52.020. 2. That prior to any building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventy South Subdivision, including the alley property. " H. Planning Staff has indicated in subsequent conversations with Gouncil Staff that the intent of the Planning Commission was not to decide to whom the subject alleyway should be deeded, even though the motion language does state the intent to deed the alleyway to the petitioner. The ordinance drafted by the Attorney's Office is deliberately silent on the issue of to whom the alleyway should be deeded. I. An ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney's office subject to conditions of approval identified by the Planning Commission. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. State Code states the following with regard to alley or street vacations. The Council may wish to discuss in particular, subsection 2 below, with regard to the potential options for the eventual deeding of this alleyway, since the Planning Commission's recommendation appears to be at odds with this statute. "72-5-105. Highways, streets, or roads once established continue until abandoned -- Temporary closure. ( 1) All public highways, streets, or roads once established shall continue to be highways, streets, or roads until abandoned or vacated by order of a highway authority having jurisdiction or by other competent authority. (2) (a) For purposes of assessment, upon the recordation of an order executed by the proper authority with the county recorder's office, title to the vacated or abandoned highway, street, or road shall vest to the adjoining record owners, with 112 of the width of the highway, street, or road assessed to each of the adjoining owners." 2. Currently neither the City Code (14.52.010), nor the Council's Official Policy on Alley Vacations and Street Closures defines exactly how an alley is to be divided after vacation in different situations (abutting residential properties in different subdivisions, abutting residential properties in the same subdivision, etc.). a. The Council may wish to discuss and incorporate an official policy statement on the matter and/ or request that the Attorney's Office provide a draft ordinance or policy statement for Council consideration. b. Staff's experience is that typically in the case of an alley vacation, V2 of the alleyway is deeded to each abutting property owner. c. Planning Staff has provided an example (Ordinance no. 32 of 1995) in which an alleyway was vacated and deeded only to the abutting property owners in the subdivision from which the alleyway was dedicated (see Key Elements, A.5.). 3. The Council may wish to also consider the adopted policy statement below (in section A.3.iii.3. of the Master Plan and Policy Considerations, Council Policy for Processing Alley Closure Petitions) "The Council. .. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear access to residences and for accessory uses ... " 4 4. Should the Council elect to limit the legal claim to receive property to only those within the same subdivision, this could be further clarified in City ordinance or policy. 5. A letter from the Assistant City Attorney, dated February 8, 1983 (submitted to Council Staff by the petitioner after the Council received the Administration's Transmittal), addressed to Property Management regarding a previous petition about the same alleyway, states the following: ,, "The alleyway was dedicated as a part of the Seventh South Subdivision ... therefore, upon vacation of the alley, ownership of the entire alley will revert to the Abbots (staff note: the previous owners of the petitioner's propertt;) rather than the usual instance of each abutting owner receiving one-half interest." • Council Staff notes that State Statue may have been different as of the date of the letter. Current State Statue appears to support the opposite conclusion. POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 1. Ask the attorney's office for a formal review of the petition and issue a formal legal opinion with regard to how the alley should be disposed of, in accordance with current State statute. And/or 2. Close the alley and deed the entire alley to the petitioner (may conflict with current state statute and may conflict with past practice). And/or 3. Close the alley and deed 1/2 of the alley to the petitioner and 1/2 of the alley to the property owner to the south (conflicts with Planning Staff's recommendation and may also conflict with past practice). And/or 4. Ask that the Administration incorporate the official City alley disposition practice into City code. Or 5. Do not close the alley. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council's adopted alley closure policy (2003) states the following: 1. Modes of Disposition -The City may dispose of its entire legal interest in an alley by closure and sale or by vacation. It may dispose of less than its entire legal interest by, for example, revocable permit, license or joint use agreement (referred to as "partial disposition"). 2. Policy Considerations -The City will not consider disposing entirely or partially of its interest in an alley unless it receives a petition in writing which positively demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: 5 i. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property, for example, appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist. 11. Public Safety. The property is contributing to crime, or unlawful activity or unsafe conditions. m. Urban Design. The property does not serve a positive urban design element. ,, iv. Communitt; Purpose. The petitioners are proposing restricting the general public from use in favor of a community use such as a community play area or garden. 3. Processing Petitions -There will be three phases for processing petitions under this section involving, respectively, the City Administration, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council. i. Threshold Determination. The City Administration will determine whether or not the petition meets the following requirements: 1. procedural: The petition must: a. bear the signatures of no less than 80% of neighbors owning a fee simple interest in a property which abuts the subject property; b. affirm that written notice has been given to all fee simple owners of property within and contiguous with the block or blocks within which the subject property is located; c. provide documentation that the proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate Community Council or Neighborhood organization; d. show that the necessary City processing fee has been paid. 2. substantizie: If the petition meets the procedural requirements, the Administration will determine that: a. The City Police and Fire Departments and the City Transportation Division and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the disposition of the property; b. The petition meets at least one of the stated policy considerations; c. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any property; d. The petition will not result in any property being land locked; and e. The disposition will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, for example, applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. ii. City Administration. 1. The Administration will deny the petition if it does not meet the requirements stated in Policy Considerations section; or 2. The Administration: a. may for appropriate consideration, grant a partial disposition if the petition meets the requirements stated in B 1 of this section; or 6 b. if it concludes that vacation or closure and sale is the appropriate disposition, refer the petition to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council for final consideration. iii. City Council. The City Council will consider petitions for vacation or closure and sale which have been referred to it by the Administration as required by law. In addition to the consideration set forth above, the City '' Council: 1. will not act favorably on a petition if an opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, has made application for a building permit anytime before the Council acts favorably on the petition, and completes construction within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; 2. is more likely to act favorably on a petition for disposition of an entire property rather than a small segment of it; 3. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear access to residences and for accessory uses; 4. will follow the requirements of applicable law with regard to any requirement for consideration; and B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan (1995) indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an undesirable neighborhood element and invite burglary and vandalism, in addition to the problems that lack of maintenance can cause. The Master Plan further states that unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of a petition for vacation by the abutting property owners. C. The Open Space Master Plan identifies the Jordan River Parkway (which is nearby the subject alleyway) as an open space corridor, but does not identify the subject alleyway as a future trail or access point. D. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. is aesthetically pleasing; 2. contributes to a livable community environment; 3. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: A The Administration's transmittal notes that the applicant has stated an intent to purchase the southern half of the alleyway for fair market value. Typically payment is only required for vacated and closed alleyways acquired by non-residential abutting property owners. In this case, the applicant will be deeded the northern half of the alleyway (as per the typical residential alleyway disposition procedure) and will purchase the southern half. Property Management has indicated that the reason it was determined that the petitioner would pay for the southern half is because of the "extra" 7.5 feet that they are receiving because they are the only abutting property owner within the subdivision, and the added value that this 7 will create for their property. The Administration's transmittal does not indicate how much the City will receive for this half of the alleyway (approximately 1,000 square feet). CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. '1 · • February 13, 2006 Petition submitted by property owner. • June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing. • July 19, 2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney. • July 20, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney. • January 12, 2007 Transmittal received in City Council Office. cc: Lyn Creswell, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Rick Graham, LeRoy Hooton, Tim Harpst, Max Peterson, Louis Zunguze, George Shaw, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie, Barry Esham, Marge Harvey, Lehua Weaver, Sylvia Jones, Jan Aramaki, Cindy Lou Rockwood, Janice Jardine File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Street Closures, Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 South Goshen (Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision) 8 This ad is also being e-mailed NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075 West pursuant to Petition No. 400-06-05. (M. Kiphibane) All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. Assisted listening devices or interpreting services are available for all public meetings. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). For further information, contact the TDD Number 535-6021. By order of the Salt Lake City Council, this 13th day of March, 2007. (P 07-4) KENDRICK COWLEY CITY RECORDER Publish: March 19, & 26 & April 2 & 9, 2007 C5357671L07 Sent to NAC 3-14-07 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: FROM: RE: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office~ Louis Zunguze, Community Development Dir ctor Petition 400-06-05 by Maylaykhone Ki phi bane, 7 40 Sou Goshen Street, requesting that the City vacate and close the alley property ocated in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com MAYOR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Maylaykhone Kiphibane, property owner at 740 South Goshen Street, is requesting that the City vacate the alley located in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way. The alley to the rear (west) of the Kiphibane property (740 Goshen) has already been vacated. The subject alley runs along the southeast border of the Seventh South Subdivision. Maylaykhone Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to the alley to the north and would like to combine the alleyway with that lot in order to construct a single-family residential dwelling. Analysis: Staff evaluated the application per Salt Lake City Code Section 14.52.020 "Method of Disposition" and determined that the alley meets Standard C, which states that "the continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element." Department/Division comments were solicited and no negative recommendations were received. Chapter 14.52 of the City Code establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Based on the analysis and findings discussed in the Staff Report (see pages 4-7 of Attachment 4b ), Staff recommends that the alley be vacated. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.CDM City Council policy indicates that should a residentially zoned alley such as the subject property be vacated, it is divided equally between the two adjacent landowners in accordance with Utah State Code Section 72-5. Traditionally, ifthe two property owners wish to further alter the resulting lot lines/alley division (to deed all of the alley to one property owner or the other), they have done so through private transaction after the alley has been vacated. Master Plan Considerations: Two Master Plan documents are applicable to this area. First, the land use policy document that guides development in this area is the West Salt Lake Master Plan adopted in 1995. The Plan indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also states that a lack of maintenance of alleys is a problem. The Master Plan indicates that unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of a petition for vacation by the abutting property owners (page 8, West Salt Lake Master Plan). Second, the Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway, which is identified as an Open Space corridor. PUBLIC PROCESS: This request was reviewed by the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 24, 2006. They supported the vacation as long as adjacent land owners were amenable. Letters were mailed to adjacent property owners outlining the alley vacation proposal on March 31, 2006. In a letter to the Planning Commission (see Attachment 4B, Exhibit 5) and at the Planning Commission Public Hearing held June 28, 2006, the owner of the property to the south of the alley, Ms. Gudmundson, expressed an interested in obtaining half of the alley to straighten out the property line and provide a second access from Goshen A venue to her property. She stated that she does not want the alley vacated, but if the alley is vacated, she would prefer to receive part of the vacated land to maintain secondary access to her property. The proposed alley closure was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on June 28, 2006. The Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street Page 2 of3 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. (The combination of lots is not directly related to the alley vacation; however, the consolidation will be necessary to eliminate lot lines in order to create the desired lot configuration that will allow the property owners to receive a building permit for the proposed home.) RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City- owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code defines a process for identification of surplus real property and provides guidelines for disposal of same based on the highest and best economic return to the city, stating that sales of city real property shall be based, whenever possible, on competitive sealed bids. Section 10-8-8 of Utah State Code indicates that a municipal legislative body may lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, narrow, extend, grade, pave, or otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues, boulevards, sidewalks, parks, airports, parking lots, or other facilities for the parking of vehicles off streets, public grounds, and pedestrian malls and may vacate the same or parts thereof, as provided in this title. Section 10-8-8.5 states that the action of the governing body vacating or narrowing a street or alley which has been dedicated to public use by the proprietor shall operate to the extent to which it is vacated or narrowed, upon the effective date of the vacating ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance thereof, and the relinquishment of the City's fee therein by the governing body, but the right of way and easements therein, if any, of any lot owner and the franchise rights of any public utility shall not be impaired. Section 72-5 states that title to vacated or abandoned highways, streets, or roads shall vest to the adjoining record owners, with 112 of the width of the highway, street, or road assessed to each of the adjoining owners. Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street Page 3 of3 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Petition 400-06-05; Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the City close the alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public ri~t-of-wzand declare the alley as surplus property Date: 2 :2£ ( O b l Contact Person: Doug Dansie Initiated by D City Council X Property Owner D Board I Commission 0Mayor D Other Completed Check List attached: X Alley Vacation D Planning I Zoning D Federal Funding D Condominium Conversion D Plat Amendment D Other Public Process: X Community Council ( s) X Public Hearings X Planning Commission D Historic Landmark Commission D HAAB review D Board of Adjustment D CityK.iosk D OpenHouse D Other Compatible with ordinance: Section 14.52 Phone No. 535-6182 Contact Person Maylaykhone Kiphibane D City Web Site D Flyers X Formal Notice D Newspaper Advertisement D City Television Station D On location Sign D City Newsletter D Administrative Hearing Modifications to Ordinance: None Approvals I Input from Other Departments I Divisions Division D Airport: X Attorney: D Business Licensing: X Engineering: X Fire: D HAND: D Management Services: D Mayor: D Parks: X Permits I Zoning: X Police: X Property Management: D Public Services: X Public Utilities: X Transportation: D Zoning Enforcement: DRDA: Contact Person Melanie Reif Craig Smith Brad Larson Ken Brown J.R. Smith John Spencer Brad Stewart Barry Walsh CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 c. Agenda: June 28, 2006 d. Minutes: June 28, 2006 5. Original Petition 1. Chronology Chronology February 13, 2006 Petition 400-06-05 submitted by property owner. March 20 -Apr. 4, 2006 Requested department input. March 24, 2006 March 31, 2006 June 13, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 19, 2006 July 20, 2006 Input requested from the Poplar Grove Community Council. Letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Notices mailed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. An ordinance was requested from the City Attorney. An ordinance was received from the City Attorney. 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List a. Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-06-05, an application by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the City close the east/west alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public right-of-way and declare the alley as surplus property. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: April 10, 2007 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you are the owner of a rental property, please inform your tenants of this hearing. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at 535-7971; TDD 535-6021. b. Mailing List Laser Mailing Labels Use template CEG03208 Jam-Proof 15111340050000 CORNEJO, JAVIER R & 717 s 1100 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340100000 15111340130000 SALT LAKE CITY 451 S STATE ST# 225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 15111340150000 LONG, RONALD D; ET AL 2719 w 9800 s SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 15111340180000 KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE 2128 w 14400 s BLUFFDALE UT 84065 15111340190000 GUDMUNDSON, KATHERINE R 752 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340310000 ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & HELEN N; 726 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340330000 CHADWICK, JOHN L 743 s 1100 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ~ Corporate j s 1 G N A r u 11 e ~Exoress'" 1v1 Jt. ~ \011fY\C\v1_ j D~LI ll' L/OD 5 SLI ur 10/C'-l 1.888.CE TODAY (238.6329) 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 c. Agenda: June 28, 2006 d. Minutes: June 28, 2006 a. Original Notice and Postmark fi~"' "'""'"~"" "'~ .. ;,,., '.,.,,.._... ,., ... ~" ' ,·. . ;;:~-' ' : 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. Cl.ct l l l V8 JJl Al!:) ;;Dpq lJUS 90v wool! ' ig<uis giuis tnnos l ~v UO!S!A!Q 'aU!UUUJd Al!'.) <})jU1 lJUS 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearing swill be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting, public comments are limited to three (3) minutes per person, per item. A spokesper- son who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments are wel- come and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken, the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation-no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757; TDD 535-6021. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 12, 2006. For additional information, please visit www.slcgov.com/ced/planning NOTE: 111e field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff-Doug Wheelwright at 535-6171 or doug.wheelwriqht@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.qreenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at 535-6398 or john.spencer@slcqov.com) a. One World Cafe and Sal! Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting ihai Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning purposes. The property is located at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff intends to approve the lease request. b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street right of way of 300 East Street. The abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property Management staff intends to approve the lease request. c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street to be used for outside dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement request. d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that Public Utilities approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen property, located at 3596 East Monza Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of the easement request. e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon Cove Court in Holladay City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request. f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard use permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at 3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. b. c. d. e. f. h. Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned Development approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a PL (Public Lands) Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development proposes more than one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006. (Staff -Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment homes and residential substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these specialty housing types, and clarify standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation of conditional uses once approval is granted. (Staff-Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com) Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 (preliminary condominium) -A request by Howa Capital to consider revisions to the planned development site plan and preliminary condominium plans that were approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2006, for property located generally on the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff-Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-05 -A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify minimum yard requirements to allow encroachments for proposed second-story balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at approximately 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y2 inches for a proposed mechanical building addition located in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff-Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray. mccandless@slcgov.com) Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining easVwest portion of an alley located at approximately 7 40 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning District. (Staff -Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential development located at 701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHFn RI 1c:1t..ii::c:c: b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 DATE: June 22, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for the June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting CASE#: APPLICANT: STATUS OF APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION: Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 400-06-05 Maylaykhone Kiphibane Adjacent land owner 740 S. Goshen Street June 28, 2006 PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: COUNCIL DISTRICT: PROPOSED USE(S): SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Approximately 0.05 acres District 2, Council Member Van Turner Alley vacation North R-1-5000 Single Family Residential South R-1-5000 Single Family Residential East R-1-5000 Single Family Residential West R-1-5000 and OS Open Space North Single Family Residential South Single Family Residential East Single Family Residential West Single Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting that the City close the alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public right-of-way and declare the alley as surplus property. (Exhibit 1 ). The subject right-of-way runs along the southeast comer of the block. Maylaykhone Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to the alley, and should the alley closure request receive approval, the alley property would become part of the adjacent lot to the north. The property owner to the south is not part of the original platted subdivision and has no legal claim on the alley. The alley to the rear of the property has already been vacated. Consistent with City Council policy, residential alleys are divided between the two adjacent landowners, however, since there is only one adjacent land owner in this instance, half the alley would be deeded to the adjacent landowner to the north and the other half would be sold to the petitioner at fair market value. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Chapter 2.58 of the code regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned real property. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 2 June 28, 2006 There are two master plan documents that are applicable to this area. The land use policy document that guides development in this area is the West Salt Lake Master Plan adopted in 1995. The plan indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also states that a lack of maintenance of alleys is a problem. The master plan indicates that unused alleys should be encouraged to be closed through an initiation of such action by the abutting property owners. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway which is identified as an Open Space corridor. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The alley was part of the original plat of the Seventh South Subdivision. The majority of the alley (north south portion) was vacated in 1962. The portion of the alley subject to this petition, (east-west) is on the south side of the subdivision and there is only one lot within the original subdivision that is adjacent to the alley. ACCESS: The alley as reflected on the plat runs west from Goshen Avenue. Access to the alley property is accessed from Goshen A venue. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS Summary of Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): a) Transportation: The Transportation Division has no objections pending approval of property owners and relocation of an adjacent drive. b) Building Services: No objection. c) Police: No objection. d) City Engineering: No objection. e) Property Management: Property Management has no objection. f) Fire: The Fire Department has no objection. g) Public Utilities has no objection but notes that it is within the flood plain which will ultimately affect the development of the property. h) Airport has no objection to the alley closure but will require avigation easement for new construction. i) Poplar Grove Community Council supported the petition assuming property owners were in support. j) Parks Division: No objections were received. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 3 June 28, 2006 In addition, all owners of property located in the block within which the subject alley property is located were notified of the proposed closure in a letter dated March 28, 2006 (Exhibit 5). One comment in opposition to the proposal was received to date. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of city owned alleys. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City- Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. If an alley is next to or abuts properties which are zoned for multi-family (3 or more units) residential use or other non- residential uses, the City typically retains title to the surplus property until the land is sold at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. All proceeds or revenue from the sale of any real property sold by the city is deposited in a surplus property account within the capital improvements fund of the general fund. City Council has the authority to allocate disbursements of these funds. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and positive determination of the following factors: Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears ofrecord or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 4 June 28, 2006 D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The requested alley closure satisfies policy considerations B and C. The applicant notes in a letter (Exhibit 1, the alley has never been used or maintained and it becomes a settlement for dangerous insects and rodents which can become a public health issue. Furthermore, the applicant questions the validity of the alley to serve a positive public purpose since the land consists of undisturbed earth and low growing weeds. The neighboring property owner to the south has been using the alley as a driveway, however, they have no legal standing to use the alley since their parcel is outside the original subdivision and they have other forms of access available to their property. Planning Staff, therefore, is of the opinion that the alley property in its current condition does not serve as a positive urban design element (Exhibit 6). Finding: The alley property is not usable as a public right-of-way nor does it serve as a positive urban design element. The request satisfies at least one of the policy considerations listed above, and as required by Section 14.52.02 of the City Code. Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department, Building Services, Engineering Division, Division of Transportation, Police Department, Airport and Property Management. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 3. Finding: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 5 June 28, 2006 Finding: The petition meets policy consideration C as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and as outlined above. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to close an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. Since the applicant owns all of the property abutting the alley and the property would become part of the internal circulation system of the consolidated lot, this consideration would not be an issue if the alley were vacated. The adjacent property owner to the south has used the alley, but is not part of the original subdivision and technically has no claim to use the alley for access to their property. The property owner to the south has other options for accessing their property. The property to the south is two separate parcels. A home is on the southern parcel and the northern parcel (adjacent to the alley) is vacant. Access would be available to the northern parcel with the creation of a new drive approach. Both parcels share the same street address. Finding: Closing the alley will not deny sole access to an owner of property adjacent to the alley. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: Should the alley be vacated, the applicant will combine all of their property, including the alley property by deed. Finding: The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The alley does not provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway and may not otherwise be integrated to a city trail system. Finding: The proposed disposition of the alley property will not result in a use that is inconsistent with pertinent or applicable policies of the City. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 6 June 28, 2006 Discussion: The applicant owns the property abutting the subject alley and there are no existing or proposed garages that require access from the alley. The adjacent property owner to the south has no legal standing to use the alley because their property is outside the original subdivision. The property owner to the south has other opportunities for access available to their vacant and developed land. Finding: No abutting property owner, with standing, intends to build a garage requiring access from the alley property. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: The larger alley (all other portions) has been vacated. This is the only portion of the alley remaining that is not vacated. Finding: The applicant's request is to vacate the entire alley consistent with City preference. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Discussion: The subject alley property will be entirely encompassed by the applicant's development on this block and integrated into the site plan for the proposed residential use. The adjacent property owner to the south has been using the alley but has no legal claim to the alley because they are outside the original subdivision. Finding: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses other than the petitioner's property. Section 14.52.040 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: High Density Residential Properties and Other Nonresidential Properties. If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other non- residential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the City of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. Discussion: The property is not zoned commercial or high density residential; the adjacent properties are zoned for single family homes. Finding: The applicant is entitled by Council policy to half the alley. It is proposed that the petitioner be required to pay fair market value for the other half of the alley property. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 7 June 28, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the analysis and findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and close the subject alley and deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. Doug Dansie Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 -Petition to Vacate Alley Exhibit 2 -Description of Alley Exhibit 3 -Departmental/Division Comments Exhibit 4 -Community Council Exhibit 5 -Letter to Property Owners and responses Exhibit 6 -Photographs Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 8 June 28, 2006 Exhibit 1 Petition to Vacate Alley Jul 2005 Petition No. --l--LL~--'-""'-"'~-"""~-----1 Alley Vacation or Closure 75""' Receipt No._____ ~~--j r. Date Received: --'"'4----'-''+-'~::...,-----l Reviewed By: _.....__._....__."""--'===-=-~---l Pro · ect Planner: VT Name of Applicant: !'Vi L 1,,. -· ~ \ / • r} · I Phone: -- -------.. V ''-~ ell" ~~<ik~· ~Y.::..~1-+'r~-' ~' r_:r-~-l_kl~R~-· _____ _.x ...... -"""O-'IL-·--__.,.<.3_4.._7_.__--')"-0.:....'•_, ~7.:....7..L--__ _ Address of Applicant: b 5 (f) i{ Ed·j-Son <Z>--f -MA SLG. E-mail Address of Applicant: D ~ 0 , ,,,, .-it' :1-~.,'Ii. h Cell/Fax: , (.1 VJ q IV <ZJ (jJ I tl; C\ (Ji) ( {'L<'J Name of Property Owner: Address of Property Owner: Email Address of Property Owner: 'n o•r. l!_ "' ,-;, ,...l\ll\ '"A e \.l h . Cell/Fax: ) i ,,..., '" r 0 77 I ' r 'll "-' ""~v v ~ ~ {l)\ _Qa , (t<h:'\1 ""'T I Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley? YesD Norn" If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at- tached process information sheet)? Yes D No D Please include with the application: 1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. 3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. 4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: a. Highlight the subject alley. b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. 6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. 7. Filing fee of$200.00, due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition Sidwell maps & names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 200 I South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Signature of Property~~ner ~--~-~----~~---------~~-~----­ Or authorized agent February 08, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: I, Malaykhone Tair Ki phi bane, am the owner of a property located on 740 South Goshen Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111. I would like to request to vacate or close the South side of the property. I believe that fifteen feet of the alley belongs to the Seventh South subdivision. Therefore, I submit an application along with the city plat map which shows that the alley was taken out from property of the 740 South Goshen Street. My intention is to close the alley for the purpose of making it a private right of way for continued use. Also, the alley has never been used or maintained. It becomes a settlement for dangerous insects and rodents, which can become a public health issue. Therefore, I would like to take care of it in order to maintain a clean neighborhood. I would like to claim the entire fifteen feet of the alley. Please consider my request and feel free to contact my husband at 801-347-5077. Thank you so much. Sincerely, }-{ °'-t c~ILUtAY~ l,( I -pl1 \' ~cvv'\JL Malaykhone Kiphibane REMARKS Petition No. f!00-06-05 By Maylaykhone Kiphihane Is requesting an Alley Vacation or Closure located at 740 South Goshen Street. Date Filed. ___________ _ Addre.r.r._·------------- Exhibit 2 Description of Alley VTDI 15-11-134-018-0000 DIST 13 KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE TAX CLASS 2128 w 14400 s UPDATE LEGAL PRINT P TOTAL ACRES REAL ESTATE BUILDINGS TOTAL VALUE BLUFFDALE UT 84065492128 EDIT 1 FACTOR BYPASS 0.22 27700 0 27700 LOC: 732 S GOSHEN ST EDIT 1 BOOK 9192 PAGE 8517 DATE 09/27/2005 SUB: 7TH SOUTH SUB TYPE UNKN PLAT 02/08/2006 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY LOT 1 S 1/2 OF LOT 27 & ALL LOT 28 BLK 3 SEVENTH SO SUB TOGETHER WITH 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON W 9192-8515 PFKEYS: l=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU lO=RXBK ll=RXPN 12=PREV SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GIS Map l lication Printed on: 6/14/2006 I I I ,, 12 ,, I I 05 ,.___--~--1-------< lf) ' ' )001 '-...... 47 95 __.~ 53 .,,..., __ T" I g1 1300031 I ->s-, l 30004: 6', -~3 __ 7 25 I 7 6 : 5 15 130007 1 130006 : 30008 I ST 1. 01 119 7 aJ 4 4 3 130 09 33 25 11 12 1341 l29 Lfl [\; ~ lD 10 ru ITT 9 r--- 8 7 0 rv " -rl 5 4 s 3 3.76 132009 133 100 58 25 33 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1~ 40 29 13, "004 134 034 134 tJ34 lfl ("\j -· 134005 22 23 134005 134031 [[) r--- OJ -?.7----------- -rl 28 LO LO ru . r--- 134018 lD " r <\ z w I if.) 0 (_) 0 3 386015 ill il\0.0'3 -rl 2 ~~L_, if 133011 0 \'> 148.Cl'9 (j1 ,"0 I::>-,, 1 0 '.\ 0/· ·~ ~ <{ 133012 138.09 31 30 29 33 33 25 ST 33 25 11 ID ru '1 ,,.) -~) .. -i."'111<5; 2~ ~ ~ «{3 _oc I I I I I I ~ 25 13 7 145.57 " lg; r---6 135035 (T) (T) lD 145.56 If) " 7 13503~" lf) r---r--- (T) 01 lf) 145.55 ' lf) ITT 4 135007 Lt ru r---I- ""1" lfl 3 I, . ru _::~o~~-'"OQJl ITT OJ 2 I"'- (') 145 5 I L r---~' I CD 135008 "'' I [\j "/ I lD (}}, I I I 130 lfl 12 135029 lfl I--lD lD I (') 130 [T) ;:) l[J ~'0 '\, II1 ,..._ '\, ,..._ 7 135031 ,'? () " "' c:J°"J \. ITT »~ s I m ~ a"' 2 ITT ,..._ ~ 'V ,..._ I- i;\ ,;f 135032 " I \f) I 130 8 ~ lD 135033 01 "' 0 9\ 3 . lO \ 7 66' 33' 25' zs' Z5' 25' 25' 25' ;?S' 25' 25' 33' 66' Wt7st 1087f.' .3.3' 25' ' t t _-.;-<:;· ' ,·. ~ 11 ·1z 12' ·J-4 15 1G f't 15 19 zo Z1 ~ " " 10 .33' 25' . . • // ,, ,, ,, zs' 3.3' -33' ;u' ~ ~ ~ ~ 138 1.5' 138' ' Iii 10 tlJ zz '<i ~ 'I) (It ~ 9 Z2' ~ ~ t\I Iii g \\\ 2.lt 1.i (It Ci) Cit ~ -z ' ~5 "i 'II II) Cl( ' ~ G ~ 5 ZG ~ Z'Z "l \\l '<) t\l ~ 1--~'~: --------< ' ,, 11 (It ZS ~- 138' 66' ..... t.: (') .____ ___________ --- "' ~ 3 Cl Cl 66' ~ 2 I c . 1og8 5B N. 83°10 >:-· -r· . '138' £ ast .J 09.4-0 ' ~ ~i-'.,,_,{9, ~,ill~~. ~ ..J{.¥-v~~. fl~ <?. 'W~ ,o.~ ~"'"A1'f~ CUo~, ,0 ;(i,c#nb~ ~ 1'~,C/C,vG~ ~ , \i&~e-~ 'W~»1os~j;t., 1:-f,~\',c,c S.1i".1io'W.1zs.1ft., tf~,4;Vi«-S.i"!is'q\,'. 90.SJt .• tf.,~s.o•oz''W. 5o~ ~:.'>.cMU 91'.S-'"io'S. ~~s.s&f,t., \f.,;CM«-&~x s,05~-t., tf.,~ S. o"oz''iv. 21si.tiJ~., tf.,.~&A-~-t rnsfx., tf,~~ x'4e ~ ~aX\! ~.o..fw eA.t\j SM'l;V~ ' ~ t-f~ J ,.f;,-0\IV~ ~~ ~'),()~~ '°J tf~e-.Ot1V~ lf:u.1ucf ;0Mf,,h,.w;US~ tl~, ~J-0,\1\1 ~: ,(M,J, \f0D.k \f:.">~ !.)~ ,f,~ ~'\< ,«J~ .oW~ ~ .<'JW ~fo,(, ~!LO~ ~ ~~ f,~M, ~ ~"~ t.vt-0;t>,0M'1<V=>. ,of A).;W ,o~~ 1:'.a,,~,o,c,b ,(;16 ~~ B-itlj e,OMN\,Vi.-C 91''6~ 12' ~ 159,i,a.wS /~ tf:lc.-tit~ 1v,a ~;\-0~ ;0f ~ ,-0J-~ b~~ .J',all.1:J~f,k;\I\/.)~, ~ .wNb: ~, ~ Vli.oMf:J k S-eM-tf., ~ ,€.\o4f:.'>~ eiv~, GGJ*· ,,,v,,tb~ .-~ 3'16J'*'· k~, ~ 91'.c/Vtf., & d)~, ' ,,,.,.,. .. " "" _,,, .( C\"f_ l<l'-'1. ·l 1',, 1' I I I I I I I 'I I 'I I I I I 11 I I ': \ \ \ \ • I lJ ... ~ .. "' .. ~ I z "-~ w 1.. n 1~ rf '1) " ' ~ o,, / \? t I ~ ~ ar· :J"" "' .;r· ,... .... ~ .., I I I I .. . . I Ly.,·i+i'B ·1 ----,,._ ~ I ., I .. I I :1-r ,~ -~ T-1*'··1ii' .. : : I {J ~ ' .. I ll, !I 10 J H ' !.E c d ,. ~ I .j ~: 1 ~ l ~ I 15 WHALOtiS __ _______!j__ 17 " • . • , .. .w ...... , r ~.J~~ 20 ·~ '::;uu 17 16 15 IA IJ 12 Exhibit 3 Departmental/Division Comments Not one bit From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:56 PM To: Smith, Craig Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. There are no other adjoining property owners in the subdivision (besides the petitioner) -do you have any objection to all of the alley going to the one property owner (through both vacation and sale of the property)? Doug From: Smith, Craig Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:51 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Doug, I have reviewed the petition 400-06-05 a petition to vacate an alley located approximately 740 South Goshen Street. Engineering has no interest in this alley and recommends it be split among the adjoining property owners. Doug -- I have no concerns (Larry Wiley) Doug, I do not have any concerns with this alley vacation request. J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Doug, Thank you for sending the review request for the above referenced alley vacation at 7 40 South and approximately 1080 West. This location is just inside the Salt Lake City airport influence zone "H", an area with height restrictions. An avigation easement is required in this zone only for new construction. There are no known impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. --Allen McCandless, Planning Manager Doug, While SLC Public Utilities has no objections to the vacation of the alley it is important that the Mr. Kiphibane be aware that this property or the vacant lot adjacent to it may not be developable. It is solidly in a FEMA flood zone A 1 (100 year frequency). The abbreviated r-_ile is that nothing habitable or mechanical can be built at or below the flood elevation. Interestingly, while I was writing you this note Mr. Kiphibane's house plans came to my desk. He seems to be aware of a flood issue, but it will require a certified survey by a licensed land surveyor to establish the true property elevation. The FEMA zones are in USGS coordinates, the house and property will be required to be shown in the same coordinate system. In addition to the flood zone issue Mr. Kiphibane's plans show a basement. This is an area of known high groundwater. Basements are only allowed if a professional geotechnical study demonstrates that the highest expected annual groundwater elevation is a couple of feet below the lowest finished floor. It is unlikely that this property will have a basement even if the flood zone elevation issue can be satisfied. My intent is not to be harsh with proposed house, but to protect this and future owner's of the property from heavy financial losses associated with wet basements or flooding. Also, SLC has adopted the FEMA flood management rules as ordinance. Approvals have to meet the guidelines or it puts all city properties at risk of loosing their subsidized FEMA flood insurance. I will discuss these issues with Mr. Kiphibane, but will you also mention that these are very large issues that threaten the viability of this project. Thanks, Brad This is a copy of our GIS map showing the flood zone (the hashed area): Dear Mr. Dansie and Mr. Stewart, Salt Lake County's nearest flood control facility is south of the proposed easement vacation. We also do not show any storm drain mains in this area. The County would not oppose vacating the easement. I am copying several other people with this reply that may want a better understanding of these issues. As stated in Mr. Stewart's response, FEMA requires "the lowest livable space" of residential structures to be above the 100 year flood elevation. This definition extends to basements or even garages that could be finished or remodeled into living space. Failure to comply with this, and other NFIP development requirements could result in suspension of national flood insurance policies for City residents. The City should also be made aware of a discrepancy between the currently effective FEMA Flood Maps and recently produced surveys throughout the county. There is a vertical shift of approximately 3 feet between the current effective maps and the preliminary revised flood maps for SL County. This is due to a change in the datum reference. The FEMA Flood Maps issued through May 15, 2002 use the NAO 1927 -NGVD 1929 datum which is about 3 feet lower than the preliminary maps (or recent surveys) which use the NAO 1983 -NAVO 1988 datum. The lowest living space of any residential structure must be above the adjusted flood elevation. In general, State law requires County Government to mitigate flood hazards and County Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 08) lists sixty different creeks, canals and piped systems identified as "County Wide" flood control facilities. Any activity of any kind that has the potential to interfere with, damage or destroy these facilities is required to obtain a County Flood Control Permit. County standards also require a twenty foot setback from the top of the bank (or outside edges of piped or culvert systems) so that Crews can use heavy equipment to maintain these facilities. To learn more about the County's Flood Control Permit Program, please visit http://www.pweng.slco.org/flood/html/permits.html. sincerely, Donald "Chris" Springer, Permit Specialist Salt Lake County Public Works Engineering 2001 South State Street, Suite N3100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-4600 (801) 468-2779 (Office) (801) 468-2586 (FAX) Doug, The Fire Department has no objection to the above named petition. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Deptartment 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 bradley.larson@slcgov.com ----Original Message----- March 21, 2006 Doug Dansie, Planning Re: Petition 400-06-05 to vacate an alley at 740 South Goshen Street for Maylaykhone Kiphibane. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: We have reviewed this alley closure under another Name and petition. See letter attached. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Scott Weiler, P.E. John Spencer, Property Management Lex Traughber, Planning File September 21, 2005 Lex Traughber Planning Division 451 South State St, Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition# 400-05-28 Alley Closure and Vacation by Helen N. Abbott at 726 So. Goshen Street. Dear Lex: The City Transportation Division has completed its review of Petition# 400-05-28 Alley Closure and Vacation. Review comments are as follows: The Transportation Division recommends approval of the proposed alley vacation and closure subject to the following: 1. The applicant must have approval from all abutting property owner for the alley vacation and closure. The two properties on the north side 726 and 732 South (Abbott properties) and the south side of the alley 750 and 752 So. 2. There is an existing drive approach that needs to be removed and relocated in coordination with future development of this vacant lot. 3. All utilities and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the entity concerned. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Barry D. Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Lynn Curt, Surveyor Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Peggy Garcia, Utilities File Exhibit 4 Community Council Alley Vacation I Closure Community Council I Citizen Group Input TO: Mike Harman, Chair Poplar Grove Community Council, 1044 West 300 South SLC, UT 84104 FROM: Doug Dansie, Planning Division Staff DATE: March 24, 2006 RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting the Salt Lake City approve an Alley Vacation I Closure for the alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen and approximately 1075 West. As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from the Poplar Grove Community Council. The purpose of the Community Council review is to inform the community of the project and solicit comments I concerns they have with the project. The Community Council may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. (Please note that the vote in favor or against is not as important to the City Council as relevant issues that are raised by the Community Council.) I have enclosed information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. The applicant will also present information at the meeting. If the Community Council chooses to have a project presented to them, the applicant will only be required to meet with the Community Council once before the Planning Staff will begin processing the application. The Community Council should submit its comments to me, as soon as possible, after the Community Council meeting to ensure there is time to incorporate the comments into the staff report to the City Council. Comments submitted too late to be incorporated into the staff report, can be submitted directly to the City Council, via the Planning Division, for their review prior to the City Council Public Hearing .. I will attend the meeting to answer any questions and listen to the comments made by the Community Council members if so desired. Following are City adopted criteria that the City Council will use to make their decision. The City's technical staff will review the project to ensure it complies with adopted policies and regulations. Input from the Community Council I citizen groups can be more general in nature and focus on issues of impacts to abutting properties and compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff is not looking for you to make comments on each of the below listed criteria, but general comments should pertain to the criteria listed below. 1. The request is made due to one of the following concerns: Lack of Use; Public Safety; Urban Design; Community Purpose; 2. Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; 3. Vacating the alley will not result in any property being landlocked; 4. Vacating the alley will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 5. No opposing abutting property owner (if any) intends to build a garage requiring access from the property or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; 6. Vacating the Alley furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; 7. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Please submit your written comments to the Planning Division by mail at Salt Lake City Planning Division, 451 South State Street, Room 406, SLC, UT 84111, by Fax at (801) 535-6174 or via e- mail to me at doug.dansie@slcgov.com. If you have any questions, please call me at 535-6182 or via e-mail. COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMENTS: The above referenced applicant, met with the ___________________ Community I Neighborhood Council on ___________________ . Approximately people attended the meeting. Those in attendance made the following comments relating to the project. In general, was the group supportive of the project? Signature of the Chair or Group Representative Doug, I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. The Poplar Grove Community Council did discuss this petition as voted to support the vacation of the alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Some of the issues discussed included how alleys are used for criminal activity, and not maintained properly by the city. Members of the council were concerned that all property owners that were effected were in agreement with this petition, and the assumption was that this petition would not have even been considered if there were property owners that were not in favor of this action. If that assumption is incorrect, then the Community Council would want to reconsider their support. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Mike Harman (801) 521-6908 Exhibit 5 Letter to Property Owners and responses March 28, 2006 Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received petition 400-06-05 from Maylaykhone Kiphibane requesting an alley to be vacated at 740 South Goshen Street. The City's formal process for relinquishing its interest in an alley next to or abutting single-family residential property is called an Alley Vacation. If the City determines that it should vacate an alley, the land is typically distributed to the owners of property, within the original subdivision, abutting the alley. In this instance, there is only one property owner within the subdivision adjacent to the alley (the other adjacent property owner is outside the originally platted subdivision.) When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as an alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by the proposed closure. The applicant and other interested parties will have an opportunity to address the members of the boards and present any additional information and/or concerns they may have regarding the request. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The intent of this letter is to notify you of the proposed disposition of a City owned alley and request initial comments concerning this issue. Please send any comments you may have in writing to the Planning Division before April 14, 2004. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 535-7625. Thank you, Doug Dansie Principal Planner 451 S. State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 doug.dansie@slcgov.com REDDY, KRIS KIPHIBANE, MALA YKONE CORNEJO, JAVIER R & 900 CAROLAN A VE 2128 w 14400 s MARIAA;JT BURLINGAME, CA BLUFFDALE, UT 717 s 1100 w 94010-2633 84065-4921 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104-1441 MONTOYA, GUY PERSEVERE LLC CHADWICK, JOHN L 720 s 1100 w 730 s 1100 w 743S llOOW SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 8410-1440 84104-1440 84104-1441 CASIAS, FRANCES; TR WHARFF, DA YID R MILLER, LINDA L 1055 w 700 s 1105 w 700 s 726 S GLENDALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104-1414 84104-2409 84104-2412 ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & JT GUDMUNDSON, KATHERIN HOBBS, CHARLES J & N 726 S GOSHEN ST 752 S GOSHEN ST 756 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 84104 84104 MOSES, JOHN W & ROCIO; JT SALT LAKE CITY PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY 764 S GOSHEN ST MANAGEMENT CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY UT 451 S STATE ST225 451 S STATE ST225 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-3102 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY LONG, RONALD D; ET A CO RPO PROPERTY 2719 w 9800 s MANAGEMENT SOUTH JORDAN UT 451 S STATE ST225 84095-3346 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-3102 8013250144 Avalon Health Care 02 ~2 pm 04-12-2006 April 06, 2006 To: Salt Lake City Corporation: Regarding the petition 400-06-05 requesting the vacating of the alley at 740 South Goshen St., I would like to voice my opposition. This alley is used to gain access to my back yard. This alley has been used many times over the past years and is still in continuous use. I would like to be informed of any public hearings involving this matter so that I can attend and have my issues heard. Thank you, Kathy Gudmundson Property Owner at 752 Goshen St. 2 /2 / / Exhibit 6 Photographs 740 Goshen 740 Goshen Entry to alley alley entry behind truck 752 Goshen (vacant portion) 752 Goshen (vacant) 752 Goshen (home and vacant) 752 Goshen home c. Agenda THIRD AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in the Third Floor Break Room. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff -Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karrvn.greenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at 535-6398 or john.spencer@slcgov.com) a. One World Cafe and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning purposes. The property is located at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff intends to approve the lease request. b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street right of way of 300 East Street. The abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property Management staff intends to approve the lease request. c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street to be used for outside dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement request. d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that Public Utilities approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen property, located at 3596 East Monza Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of the easement request. e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon Cove Court in Holladay City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request. f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard use permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at 3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned Development approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a PL (Public Lands) Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development proposes more than one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) b. Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006. (Staff -Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) c. Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment homes and residential substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these specialty housing types, and clarify standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation of conditional uses once approval is granted. (Staff -Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com) d. Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 {preliminary condominium) -A request by Howa Capital to consider revisions to th~QBJOP~f;liHi~ plan and preliminary condominium plans that were approved by the Planning Commiss'tci~rt-Arfrir'2&,1601f.r'o+-Property located generally on the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff -Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) e. Petition 410-06-05-/SSUES ONLY HEARING A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify minimum yard requirements to allow encroachment1:iQSI5:fflNEtJry balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at approximately 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com) f. Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y, inches for a proposed mechanical building addition located in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff -Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.com) g. Petition 400·06·05-A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of an alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R- 1/5000 Zoning District. (Staff-Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) h. Petition 410·06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential development located at 701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff -Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS d. Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Matthew Wirthlin. Peggy McDonough was excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander lkefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Marilynn Lewis, Ray McCandless, Doug Dansie, and Wayne Mills. DINNER A quorum was present at dinner, but no significant discussion was held. MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of an alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning District. {This item was heard at 8:47 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie presented a brief background to the petition. He displayed the original Seventh South Subdivision which was platted in 1893 with the alley included in the subdivision. Mr. Dansie stated that no department had issues with the vacation of the alley although some raised concern regarding the existing flood plane. He included that because the parcel on the south of the subject alley was not originally included in the subdivision, full rights to the alley belong to the parcel to the north. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and close the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1 . The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. Commissioner Diamond requested clarification regarding the position of the land owner to the south of the subject alley. Mr. Dansie stated that the land owner to the south is in opposition. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that another public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting to determine who receives the property, as the Planning Commission is responsible only to whether or not the alley is needed for public use. Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Maylaykhone Kiphibane. Ms. Kiphibane stated her desire to vacate the property to eventually build a home with the adjacent lot. She stated that the alley should belong to the subdivision in order to be efficiently maintained. Commissioner Forbis requested additional information from the applicant regarding the potential flood plane on the property. Ms. Kiphibane stated her awareness of the flood plane. Chairperson Noda requested comments from community council chairs and the public. Kathy Gudmundson, property owner of the south lot, stated that she uses the alleyway at times to access the rear of her property. She stated that when she signed the petition requesting a vacation of the alleyway, she had the understanding that the alley would be split to straighten out the property line. Ms. Gudmundson also stated that she would be interested in purchased the property if possible. Ms. Kiphibane stated that her first option, if they alleyway is divided, would be to buy the alley; as it is part of the subdivision. Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing. Based on the analysis, findings identified in the Staff Report, and the Staff recommendation, Commissioner Scott made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to vacate and close the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chambless. All voted "Aye". The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary 5. Original Petition Jul 2005 Alley Vacation or Closure Petition No. ~~~~~2..._~~-~ Receipt No. 7-.J Date Received: 'Y ->=t'--'"41--..::;_o~---~ Reviewed By: -'-"lvf-'--"'--'L_,· :...::~=""-"-j-"'~L._ __ 1 Pro· ect Planner: Address of Subject Property: VT (,fy Name of Applicant: M L ' k' · I Phone: ________ _ ''Y t'\.Y ~,_,'#<-· "--'--·__,,1·-tf""";f_,'""'1_r __ r_._·1_v1,,_1 y.._' ______ ~c ..... ~ .... D"""''_,_1_··_...,-'?_'±-L-17'---· _,'5~c::..·_~..:..1_.7.__ __ _ Address of Applicant: 3' e (!°' ,Cf. r: --1 ,.,-~_> I .LI! CJ-!::'., f::<--JJ--c·v1 :J__,,_Jt:'.I \YT z L-t I ' I Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Name of Property Owner: ··, L . · J Phone: Jv11I < t ph1 ~iU(; Address of Property Owner: I ·;. .-' ~ .. ':> Email Address of Property Owner: n ,.,... ,.,., n ~ (fi _ h Cell/Fax: :) i "t. ) 0 -7 7 ~on~ ._,.,,. 00 v :A .g Y"' -.Zr· , (...U•11 ..,- Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley? Yes 0 No (;"' If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at- tached process information sheet)? Yes 0 No 0 Please include with the application: 1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. 3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. 4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: a. Highlight the subject alley. b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. 6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. 7. Filing fee of $200.00, due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition Sidwell maps & names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Signature of Property Owner ------------------------------- Or authorized agent Please answer the following questions. Use an additional sheet if necessary. Please explain why you are requesting this alley vacation or closure and include the expected end result of the action, such as the alley becoming a private right-of-way for continued use or being closed off. If the applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the alley, please include the applicant's interest in the petition. Please explain how the proposed petition satisfies at least one of the following City policy considerations: A Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist or is unusable as a public right-of-way; B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. REMARKS Petition No. aoo-06-05 By Maylaykhane Kiphihane Is requesting an Alley Vacation or Closure located at 740 South Goshen Street. Date Filed ___________ _ Addreu_· ____________ _ 'I ' ' ' ~ Initials ~ /Jiii ·~ ~ &bf_" ~ feffi ~ 7ftsp,· 1iJ 7f14-P"' 7J? ~ ,ti 1/z</Y ~ 7f!d, _ff!2 7~ .J;{J -~ 7h 7µ¢ m PETITION N0./4~ -~~ -~S- PETITION CHECKLIST Action R~uired Petition delivered to Planning Pet;tlon assigned to: i),gj Awsltr Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover Chronology Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils Mailing Postmark Date Verification Planning Commission Minutes • Planning Staff Report Cover l~tter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is reootnillMlding. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. ~ Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action ------- Petition filed with City Recorder's Office Item C2 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: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: ROSEWOOD PARK STREET VACATION AND ALLEY VACATION (PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037) MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 I move the council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer, Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: ROSEWOOD PARK STREET VACATION AND ALLEY VACATION (PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037) PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE There were no public comments. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the August 17, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 20 Council briefing the Administration stated both Parks and Public Lands and Public Utilities will be working in the park. It was noted the park will be closed for a time during construction. Some upgrades include: New picnic table pads New ADA sidewalk connection New regulation soccer field Irrigation upgrades Fence improvements Sidewalk replacement Restoring parking lot Removal of dangerous softball field (one field will remain and a new backstop installed) Boring/tunneling beneath I-15 and the railroad Item Schedule: Briefing: July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: August 17, 2021 Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Page | 2 The following information was provided for the July 20, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal from City Real Estate Services to vacate five alleys and six streets within Rosewood Park at approximately 1400 North 1200 West in City Council District One. Rosewood Park was constructed in 1977 on part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887. The subdivision was platted for residential lots with alleys and streets servicing the parcels. The subject streets and alleys were never constructed and do not physically exist. Rosewood Park includes numerous parcels, streets, and alleys as shown in the image below. The Administration is requesting vacating these alleys and streets to consolidate them and the parcels within the park into one parcel. This will simplify the permitting process for future park improvements. City Planning staff noted the platted streets and alleys are not connected to any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property, or serve a connectivity function. Planning further noted the City’s Transportation Master Plan does not include proposals for the subject streets or alleys and vacating them will not negatively affect future area development. If approved by the Council, Planning advises the Administration to amend Section 15.04.350 Salt Lake City Code to include an updated description of Rosewood Park. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forwarded positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed street and alley vacations, and the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation after their public process. Aerial image of Rosewood Park showing proposed street vacations in red and alley vacations in blue Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed street and alley vacations, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. Page | 3 POLICY QUESTION 1.Is the Council supportive of vacating the subject streets and alleys in Rosewood Park? 2.Is the Council interested in an update of proposed improvements at Rosewood Park, and the extent to which these vacations/closures facilitate those improvements? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attachments E and F of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 31-35) are an analysis of factors related to the City’s street and alley closure policies. Planning staff found the proposed street and alley vacations comply with all factors. For the complete analysis, please refer to the transmittal. During City department review of the proposal no responding department found issues with the proposal. The proposed ordinance includes a requirement for parcels within Rosewood Park to be consolidated into one lot. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations during analysis of the project which are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please refer to pages 19-20 of the Administration’s transmittal. 1. City Goals and Policies None of the adopted City master plans providing guidance for Rosewood Park specifically address street and alley vacations. However, the Northwest Master Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, and Plan Salt Lake emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve facilities as the city grows. Planning found the proposed street and alley vacations will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner for the City to improve Rosewood Park. 2. Lack of Connectivity Streets and alleys dedicated in the subdivision were planned to service parcels within it. However, Rosewood Park was built on many of these parcels so they will not be developed. Rosewood Park has its own connections to the road network system that do not coincide with platted streets and alleys within the park. It is Planning staff’s opinion the subject streets and alleys are not needed. PUBLIC PROCESS December 2, 2019 – Notice of the project and request for comments sent to Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair responded to the request. December 12, 2019 – Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House. January 10, 2020 – Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys. January 22, 2020 – Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 26, 2020 – Street closure (closed to travel, but property remains a street) petition amended to street vacation (closed to travel and property no longer listed as a street). The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. Page | 4 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Page | 5 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. STREET CLOSURE PROCESS Street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for reference. 10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street. (1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public street in accordance with this section. (2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include: (a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is: (i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public street intersections; or Page | 6 (ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement; (b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities and culinary water or sanitary sewer facilities located within the bounds of the public street or municipal utility easement sought to be vacated; and (c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation. (3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-208 and determine whether: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and (b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. (4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and (b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. (5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the land is located: (a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or (b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and (ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated. (6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement that has been dedicated to public use: (a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in the vacated public street or municipal utility easement; and (b)may not be construed to impair: (i)any right-of-way or easement of any parcel or lot owner; (ii)the rights of any public utility; or (iii)the rights of a culinary water authority or sanitary sewer authority. (7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and complete a process to vacate some or all of a public street. (b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a): (i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing; (ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the extent: (A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27; (B)the easement is included within the public street; and (C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and (iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public street through a recorded plat or amended plat. (8)A legislative body may not approve a petition to vacate a public street under this section unless the vacation identifies and preserves any easements owned by a culinary water authority and sanitary sewer authority for existing facilities located within the public street. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Street Vacation and Alley Vacation STAFF CONTACT: Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com, (801)535- 7932 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the proposed street vacation and alley vacation. Upon completion of lot consolidation, Section 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS will need to be amended to reflect the changes to the description of Rosewood Park. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for street vacations and alley vacations within Rosewo od Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. The original Street Closure petition was amended to a Street Vacation petition. Rosewood Park is located at approximately 1400 N and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and encompasses approximately 28 acres. Rosewood Park was constructed in 1977 over a portion of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, that was originally platted for residential lots with alleys and March 22, 2021 streets servicing those parcels. These alleys and streets were never constructed and do not physically exist, but they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is broken up into numerous parcels due to the existence of these platted streets and alleys. The alley vacation and street closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the plat in order to consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to simplify the building permit process for future improvement projects. The platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property and would not serve a broader connectivity function. The City’s Transportation Master Plan does not show proposals for these roads or alleys and the deletion of these will have no adverse effects to any future development in the area. Rosewood Park, as well as the adjacent land to the north, are zoned OS Open Space, which would further limit other types of development of the area. Staff finds that the subject streets and alleys provide no significant pedestrian or vehicular connection and hinder the goals of adopted area master plans which emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve the facilities to match City growth. Once the streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are vacated and the parcels contained within are consolidated into a singular parcel, the Salt Lake City Ordinance Section 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS will no longer reflect an accurate description of Rosewood Park. Because of this, it is advised that Real Estate Services or the Parks Department seek an amendment to this section of the ordinance in order to update and reflect the correct description of Rosewood Park. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Staff held an Open House at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019. Staff discussed the project with attendees who generally supported the project. One comment was received that was in support of the project. • A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on January 22, 2020. No one from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • Due to the amendment of the Street Closure application to Street Vacation, a second public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on August 26, 2020. No one from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission Record (January 22, 2020) a) Hearing Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda and Minutes 4) Planning Commission Record (August 26, 2020) a) Hearing Notice b) Memo to Planning Commission c) Agenda and Minutes 5) Public Comments 6) Original Petition 7) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2021 (Vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city-owned streets, situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street) An ordinance vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city- owned streets situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 26, 2020 to consider a request made by Olga Crump with the Salt Lake City Capital Asset and Real Estate Services Division (“Applicant”) (Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037) to vacate five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city- owned streets; and WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petitions to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause to vacate the alleys and streets described below, and that vacating the city-owned alleys and streets described below will not materially injure the public interest or any person; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alleys. That five unimproved, city-owned alleys situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01037, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use as alleys. SECTION 2. Vacating City-Owned Streets. That six unimproved, city-owned streets situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01036, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use as streets. SECTION 3. Requirement. In connection with the adoption of this ordinance, the unimproved streets and alleys described herein and all lots adjacent to them constituting the land area of Rosewood Park shall be consolidated into one lot. The lot consolidation may occur concurrently with the recording of this ordinance or shortly thereafter. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney February 4, 2021 EXHIBIT “A” COMBINED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT ALLEYS AND STREETS Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 15, Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat, as recorded in Book 'A', Page '89', of Subdivisions in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office and running thence along the north line of 1400 North Street West 957.25 feet more or less to the west line of Mill Street; thence along said west line North 600.00 feet to the south line of 1500 North Street; thence along said south line East 1188.25 feet more or less to the west line of I-15 right-of-way and the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-23-379-002; thence along said west line the following 3 courses: 1) S21°11'30"E 25.00 feet to a 23,003.30 foot radius curve to the left; 2) along said curve 584.62 feet (chord bears S21°34'48"E 584.60 feet); 3) S22°35'00"E 117.04 feet to the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-002; thence West 60.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of Block 18, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence South 175.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-001 and the Southwest Corner of Lot 10, Block 18, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence West 440.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of Parcel # 08-26-126-012 and the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, Block 20, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence North 250.00 feet to the point of beginning. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 22, 2020 A. HEARING NOTICE B. STAFF REPORT C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD - AUGUST 26, 2020 A. HEARING NOTICE B. MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6. MAILING LABELS 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 November 1, 2019 Petitions received by the Planning Division. November 12, 2019 Petitions assigned to Chris Earl, Associate Planner, for staff analysis and processing. December 2, 2019 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair provided response to the request for comment. December 12, 2019 Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House. January 10, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys. January 22, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 26, 2020 Street Closure petition amended to Street Vacation. Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019- 01037 Rosewood Park Street Closure and Alley Vacation - A request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for alley vacations and street closures within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) a. Street Closure A street closure is required in order to remove the existing platted streets within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number PLNPCM2019-01036 b. Alley Vacation An alley vacation is required in order to remove the existing platted alleys within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number PLNPCM2019-01037 The property is located in OS Open Space and is located in Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at christopher.earl@slcgov.com The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Hearing Notice August 26, 2020 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report August 26, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Chris Earl, Associate Planner (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com Date: January 16, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2019-01036 – Rosewood Park Street Closure PLNSUB2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Alley Vacation Street Closure and Alley Vacation PROPERTY ADDRESS: Approximately 1400 N 1200 W MASTER PLAN: Northwest Master Plan; Rose Park Small Area Plan ZONING DISTRICT: OS Open Space OVERLAY DISTRICT: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District Zone H REQUEST: A request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for alley vacations and street closures within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council for the street closure request. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the requests. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the request to close the streets and vacate the alleys within Rosewood Park with the following conditions: • The closed streets and vacated alleys, as well as remaining parcels, will be consolidated into one parcel. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Property Photographs C. Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat D. Application Materials E. Analysis of Standards – Street Closure F. Analysis of Standards – Alley Vacation G. Public Process and Comments H. Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rosewood Park, developed in 1977, is located at approximately 1400 N and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and encompasses approximately 28 acres which is mostly grass (primarily used as soccer fields) but has amenities such as baseball and softball fields, a playground, tennis courts, a dog park and a skate park. The proposed street closure and alley vacation involves six unimproved streets and 5 unimproved alleys within Rosewood Park dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision. The subdivision was platted in 1887 but never developed as intended. No modifications will be made to Rosewood Park as part of these applications. Rosewood Park was constructed in a part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s subdivision that was originally platted for residential lots with alleys and streets servicing those parcels. Although these alleys and streets do not physically exist, they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is broken up into numerous tiny parcels due to the existence of these streets and alleys. The alley vacation and street closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the plat in order to consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to make it easier to obtain building permits for future improvement projects. When construction occurs on any property within Salt Lake City, a building permit is required. Building permits are issued based on the parcel in which the construction will occur. If construction will occur on multiple parcels, a building permit would be required for each parcel and zoning regulations would apply to each individually. It was a common practice for the City to construct parks or other public facilities over multiple parcels and right-of-ways when the City owned all of the land within the development. Because a separate permit must be pulled for each parcel, this would often create problems when trying to meet zoning requirements such as setbacks or lot coverage for each of the separate parcels within the development. Building within public right-of-ways can also present challenges since permissions could be required from Salt Lake City Engineering or Real Estate Services Department in order to build within these right-of-ways. With the large number of parcels that exist within Rosewood Park, an improvement project could require multiple permits. Tracking multiple building permits through the permitting * Existing parcels within Rosewood Park process as well as the inspections process is a daunting task. One that would be streamlined if only one permit were required. If Rosewood Park were to be consolidated into one singular parcel, it would greatly increase the ease and efficiency of obtaining and tracking building permits as well as meeting the standards for zoning requirements. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: Consideration 1: City Goals and Policies Although none of the City master plans that provide guidance for these properties specifically address street closures, the Northwest, Rose Park Small Area, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plans and Plan Salt Lake help to determine if the request is in line with city goals and is in the city’s best interest. The Northwest Master Plan, adopted in 1992, recognizes the importance of recreation to the residents of Salt Lake City. It was indicated that with increased population, there is a need for new recreational facilities as well as improvements to existing facilities. The current Northwest Master Plan intends to continue the efforts to meet recreational needs outlined in the 1977 Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation Plan and the 1980 Northwest Master Plan. The citywide master plan, Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, contains sections that align with the Northwest Master Plan vision. One of the guiding principles of that plan is to protect and enhance existing parks, recreational facilities and trails allowing for modifications to enhance usability and promote activity. The City’s Major Street Plan, approved in 2018, which is part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan, shows that the platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park do not exist nor are they proposed for the future. This suggests that these alleys and streets are not crucial to current or future transportation goals. These adopted plans emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve the facilities to match City growth. This proposal will make the permitting process easier for future improvements and will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner in which the City can improve Rosewood Park. Consideration 2: Lack of Connectivity The streets and alleys dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision were planned to service the parcels that were platted within the subdivision. However, Rosewood Park has been built in place of a number of these parcels. Because of the existence of the park, the parcels will no longer be developed as intended and the need for the streets and alleys no longer exist. The parcels that neighbor the park to the south are now part of a number of amendments of the Rose Park Plat. Development in the area did not follow the street pattern the plat created, leaving the dedicated streets and alleys disconnected from a road network system. Rosewood Park currently has its own connections to the road network system that do not coincide with any platted street or alley within the park, and thus, the platted streets and alleys are not needed. The parcels to the north of Rosewood Park are currently undeveloped. When development does occur on these properties, it will be limited due to the parcels being zoned OS Open Space, but they will have access to the road network system via 1200 W. The alleys and streets within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any type of future development to the east due to the I-15 freeway that abuts along the eastern edge of these properties, further decreasing their need. DISCUSSION: The Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision was recorded in 1887 before the existence of the current adopted master plans that effect future growth of the area. Since the recording of the plat, there has been a stronger emphasis for recreational facilities for the growing number of residents. Rosewood Park was built over these streets, alleys and parcels which was common in the past making their existence unnecessary and a hindrance to the future improvements of the park. With Rosewood Park in place along with the current Open Space zoning, there is an unlikeliness that the park will be redeveloped and puts in question the likelihood of these streets and alleys ever being developed as intended. The public benefit of maintaining these dedicated streets and alleys in its current situation is close to none because they only exist on paper and therefore, do not serve a transportation or public purpose. That is especially relevant when considering that with the current development, these “paper streets” have become obstacles to future improvement to Rosewood Park. Eliminating these dedicated streets and alleys could help in fulfilling the goals of applicable master plans. NEXT STEPS: After the Planning Commission reviews the request, their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council will make the final decision with respect to these requests. ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP 1200 W Dupont Ave N N Rosewood Park Rosewood Park Rose Park Golf Course ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS Photos of the grassy areas of Rosewood Park including baseball/softball fields and soccer fields Skate Park Playground Tennis Courts Dog Park Houses on Dupont Ave and their rear yards that abut Rosewood Park 1200 W looking north adjacent to Rosewood Park Rosewood Park access to 1200 W ATTACHMENT C: KINNEY AND GOURLAY’S SUBDIVISION PLAT ATTACHMENT D: APPLICATION MATERIALS ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – STREET CLOSURE In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy that includes the following provisions: Factor Analysis Finding 1. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. The platted streets which were never constructed do not provide access to adjacent private property and do not serve a broader connectivity function. Due to the design of the park and the surrounding development, the streets as depicted in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat would not provide connection to any established development or right-of-way. Complies 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. This application was initiated in order to consolidate Rosewood Park into one parcel for ease of permitting for future improvement projects to the park. No property will be sold and will remain under City ownership. Complies 3. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Adopted master plans take into consideration the need for recreation facilities and the ability to provide improvements to existing facilities. As discussed in the Key Considerations of this staff report, the streets in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision exist as a platted streets, but not as a physical streets. The platted streets, alleys and parcels make the permitting process difficult due to the need to pull permits for each individual parcel when improvement is required. The permitting process can be simplified by consolidating the parcel into one parcel. The parcel cannot be consolidated until the streets have been closed. A simplified permitting process will allow for a more streamlined and cost- effective approach to improvement projects; which will help achieve the goals set forth by the adopted master plans. Complies 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the The alternative to this request is to maintain the property as it currently exists. However, this makes improvement projects more difficult Complies closure of the street. and there is no public benefit since these dedicated streets do not physically exist and do not serve a transportation or public purpose. Eliminating these streets would allow for easier improvement to occur once the property is consolidated and help achieve city goals. ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – ALLEY VACATION Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, VACATION or Abandonment of City Owned Alleys The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use: The city’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The applicant cites policy considerations A – Lack of Use, C – Urban Design and D – Community Purpose in their narrative. The applicant states that the streets and alleys exist on the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat but were never constructed and do not physically exist. In addition, the argument is made that the existence of the streets and alleys, along with the many parcels that exist along with the streets and alleys, create complications for project permitting that are costly and time consuming to navigate. The streets and alleys are not needed for the design of the park and hinder improvements efforts. Finding: The proposed alley vacation complies with policy consideration A – Lack of Use and C – Urban Design, as discussed in this staff report. 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions – Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Rationale Finding 1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; No objections were received from City Department review. Complies 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Consideration A: Lack of Use The platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property and would not serve a broader connectivity function. The City’s Transportation Master Plan does not show proposals for these roads or alleys and the deletion of these will have no adverse effects to any future development in the area. Consideration C: Urban Design Keeping the platted streets and alleys would be a hindrance to urban design. Because of the development that has occurred around Rosewood Park, the undeveloped streets and alleys have been left disconnected, and would make it difficult to develop the parcels as they currently exist. These constraints most likely would not create a cohesive design with the current surrounding development. Consideration D: Community Purpose The petitions align with adopted master plans regarding improvement to public recreation facilities by helping improvement efforts within Rosewood Park by simplifying the permitting process through the removal of streets and alleys which will allow for lot consolidation. With Rosewood Park being one singular parcel, permits will be simpler to obtain making for more cost effective and time efficient improvements to the park. Complies 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; The petition will not have an impact with accessing any surrounding property or development of the subject area. Complies 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Landlocked parcels will be created by the removal of the streets and alleys within Rosewood Park. Because of this, a lot consolidation will be required. Once the consolidation is complete, the one remaining parcel will have street frontage along 1200 W. Complies 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; No pedestrian paths, trails or walkways or any other alternative transportation use will be affected by the disposition of the alley property. Complies 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; No opposing property owners have been identified. No permits have been proposed or issued for garages that require access from the subject property. Complies 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and The entirety of all streets and alleys will be disposed and no partial segments shall remain. Ordinance 54 of 1955 vacated the west line of Mill Street to the west line of Marion Street from the north line of 1100 N to the north line of 1300 N, leaving segments of alleys and streets remaining. These petitions would complete the closure and vacation process and remove all remaining Complies streets and alleys, 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. There are no residences within the subject area. Complies ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to this project: Public Notices: − Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils on December 2, 2019 in order to solicit comments. No comments were received. − Open House notice was mailed on November 21, 2019. − Open House was held at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019. Staff discussed the project with multiple attendants and received one written comment. The comment received was generally in favor of the project. Public Hearing Notice: − Public hearing notice mailed on January 10, 2020. − Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on January 1o, 2020. − Sign posted on the property on January 12, 2020. Public Comments: − At the time of the publication of this staff report, one public comment was received and is attached to this report. Any comments received after the publication of this staff report will be forwarded to the Commission. ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Transportation, Building, Zoning, Fire and Police found no issues with the request. Public Utilities, Engineering and Sustainability provided no comments. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes August 26, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AMENDED This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) August 26, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-08262020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning Planning Commission Meeting will begin at 5:30 pm Approval of Minutes for AUGUST 12, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019- 01037 2. West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268 3. Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - Ryan McMullen, Applicant, is requesting Design Review approval for a proposed 71-unit mixed use building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South by the name of “Izzy South.” The Applicant is requesting a modification of the maximum height requirement to accommodate architectural features on the front-facing façade of the proposed building. The property is zoned CB (Community Business) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00222 4. Gateway Storage Planned Development at approximately 134 South 700 West - Austin Lundskog, Applicant, is requesting Planned Development and Design Review approval of a proposed self-storage facility 103,500 sq. ft. in size at approximately 134 South 700 West. The property is zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00182 and PLNPCM2020-00399 5. Stanford Commons Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 2052 E Michigan Avenue – Jessica Sluder from Alta Development Group, LLC, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at the above listed address. The proposal includes demolishing the discontinued pool area on the site and subdividing the property into four (4) lots for a proposed construction of three (3) single-family attached dwellings. The proposed project is subject to the following petitions: a. Planned Development – Planned Development is requested to modify the required front yard setback, grade changes greater than four feet (4’) within a required yard and required lot area from 3,000 square feet to approximate lot area ranging between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet for the new lots. Case number PLNPCM2020-00230 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Preliminary Plat approval is needed to create four (4) new lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00231 The property is zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) 6. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB- UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328 7. ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 & PLNPCM2020-00454 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Wednesday, August 26, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Adrienne Bell was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; and Rosa Jimenez, Administrative Secretary. Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Directory provided participation information for the public. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:32 PM MOTION 5:32:41 PM Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the August 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. Commissioner Urquhart abstained from voting as she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 7-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:09 PM Chairperson Bell was not present for the said meeting. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:17 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided the commission with updates on projects that the commission has previously seen that are now up before the City Council. 5:40:09 PM Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation. 5:41:16 PM Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535- 7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-01037 Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 2 Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING 5:46:07 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 5:46:51 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for street vacation and alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the street vacation and alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:19:41 PM 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 5. MAILING LABELS GATEPARK CORPORATION 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GUADALUPE HOLDING COMPANY 1385 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CANAL STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TESORO LOGISTICS OPERATIONS LLC PO BOX 592809 SAN ANTONIO TX 78259 DAVIS STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOSE M NEGRETE; MARGARITA C GUERRERO (JT)1246 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ANTHONY J BONNER; TAYLEE A FOULGER (JT)1236 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1230 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EBRIMA BAH; SUKAINATOU JALLOW (JT)1222 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ROBERT S BLACKHAM; SUZANNAH C BLACKHAM (JT)1216 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 VIRGILIO G MERCADO; ROSELIA MERCADO (JT)1206 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL J BASSETT; CHRISTINE M BASSETT (JT)1323 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TIFFANY K BARNES 648 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CLARISSA AVILA; JESUS AVILA (JT)1316 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SARAH CHALUPA; NATHAN J OMANA (JT)1333 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 NATHAN R KENNARD 1319 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GILBERT A ULIBARRI; EVELYN E ULIBARRI (JT)1198 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSEPH R BOOROM; NINA L BOOROM (JT)13073 S CHARING WY RIVERTON UT 84065 RUDY PEREZ 271 E MILLPOINT PL SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 KEVIN S BAKER; JENNIFER L BAKER (JT)1166 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ELAINE TUCK FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/25/2018 1154 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL BAILEY; KRISTINA BAILEY (JT)1142 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRIAN D ANDERSON 1130 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1120 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FRED TOMINAGA & BETSY M TOMINAGA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/201 8066 TOP OF THE WORLD DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1127 N COLORADO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RAQUEL GAMEZ; JOSE A GAMEZ (TC)1082 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 STEVEN L MELLEN; BROOKE W MELLEN (JT)1072 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BEAU DELAMARE; AMY DELAMARE (JT)1064 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RIN FM TRST 1056 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL H DIXON; SHEILA F DIXON (JT)1048 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1038 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RICK L JACKSON; SUZANNE B JACKSON (JT)1028 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CELESTE T ROSENLOF; BRANDEN D ROSENLOF (JT)1018 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DIXIE L F SORENSEN; RICHARD B SORENSEN (JT)1008 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HAL T PECK 996 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KIMBERLY YOUNG; ANDREW YOUNG (JT)1334 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SHANNON S BREA 1320 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LAURENT D COURTEILLE; SARAH A COURTEILLE (JT)1333 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JERRAD L HINKLE 1321 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 1334 CAPISTRANO LLC PO BOX 17843 HOLLADAY UT 84117 CLAY CHURCH; JESSICA CHURCH (JT)715 SUNDANCE HILLS RD DURANGO CO 81303 RESTORE UTAH, LLC 1600 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 RAMON VILLA VAZQUEZ; DE VILLA, IRMA RIOS VAZQUEZ (JT)1319 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WAYNE B LUECK 1334 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KYLE M NIXON; AGNES ROBL (JT)1320 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 G B NUGTER; MARIE F EATON-NUGTER (JT)1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARY LOUISE BARBER REVOCABLE TRUST 01/08/1996 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DAVID CRITTENDEN 1055 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CHAD T ANDERSON 568 E CARMEL DR MIDVALE UT 84047 ROSALINO SANTOS; DIONICIA FELIX (JT)1041 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1033 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARIA D GARDUNIO 1025 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GORDON H WELLINGTON; JONNIE MAE WELLINGTON (JT)1009 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MAKA A MANU; ANA M MANU (JT)1005 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 COLBY TAKAHASHI; JAZMIN TAKAHASHI (JT)995 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 820 N MAIN ST CENTERVILLE UT 84014 TAMMY GRAINGER 988 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WILLIAM BACUS; DALENE BACUS (JT)1332 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LYNNE E WOLF; MYRLE B ANDERSON (JT)1324 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1316 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSE T HERNANDEZ; MARCELINA HERNANDEZ (JT)1306 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 1510 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1468 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1490 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1209 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1316 N VALENTINE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1333 N BUCCANEER DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1198 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1188 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1178 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1112 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1100 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1092 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1334 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1322 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1333 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1319 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1334 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1320 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1055 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1049 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1321 N VICTORIA WAY Salt Lake City UT 84116 Chris Earl - Salt Lake City Planning Division PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Item C3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:August 24, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Administrative Decision Appeals PLNPCM2020-00352 MOTION 1 I move the council adopt the ordinance and include language requiring a hearing officer to make reasonable efforts to respond to a stay request within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. The potential addition in highlighted in red below. It is provided for reference – the Council does not need to read this in the adopting motion. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. If a stay is requested, the hearing officer shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the hearing officer does not decide a request for a stay within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. MOTION 2 I move the Council reject the ordinance. MOTION 2 I move the Council defer action to a future council meeting. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: August 24, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Administrative Decision Appeals PLNPCM2020-00352 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: Aug 17, 2021 Potential Action: Aug 24, 2021 Public Hearing Summary No one spoke during the August 17 public hearing. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. The following language requiring a hearing officer to make reasonable efforts to respond to a stay request within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, may be included if the Council wants it in the final draft. This was raised in the August 17 staff memo as well as at the start of the public hearing. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. If a stay is requested, the hearing officer shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the hearing officer does not decide a request for a stay within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. Motion 1 would direct staff to include this draft language into the final version of the ordinance if the Council is supportive of including it. Page | 2 The following information was provided for the August 17 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. Work Session Briefing During the work session briefing a question was raised if the ordinance identifies how long the hearing officer has to determine whether or not a stay is appropriate. It was suggested that a specified timeline should be included to provide certainty to the process. Planning Staff and the Attorneys’ Office drafted the following language that may be included if the Council wants it in the final draft The text in red is the proposed language for consideration: Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. If a stay is requested, the hearing officer shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the hearing officer does not decide a request for a stay within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. The Attorney’s Office said they did not included a strict requirement that the hearing officer decide on the stay request in the 10 day period in the because they are unable to identify a suitable consequence of not responding to the request that would preserve the statutory presumption that a municipal land use authority’s decision is presumed valid. The 10-day period also provides a definite period of time by when a decision will be made and that provides more predictability to the process. A motion will be prepared that would direct staff to include this draft language into the final version of the ordinance if the Council is supportive of it. The following information was provided for the July 20 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. Page | 3 The amendments clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision, modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to the “appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance, including: Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision. The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Key Changes A short summary of the key changes is provided below. See pages 2-5 of the Planning Commission staff report for full details. 1. Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. 2. State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants to comply with the current State Code allowance. The list of allowed appellants includes: o The land use applicant o City board or officer o An adversely affected party 3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a stay. o Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon submission of an appeal. o The proposal would no longer automatically stay a decision and instead require that an appellant formally request a stay. o The appellant would also need to justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary “to prevent substantial harm” to the appellant. o The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay. 4. Miscellaneous Changes Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language. o Removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts. Page | 4 o Reference the current types of City applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer has authority over. o Clarify that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section. o Delete reference to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those are intended to reflect a recently adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just not yet been incorporated or “codified” into the official city zoning text. o All the references to that entity were already deleted by another ordinance (5 of 2020). The strike-throughs shown in the legislative version of the ordinance related to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” are now redundant. When the code was being drafted, those changes just weren’t yet codified. Policy Questions: Are there any stakeholders the Administration reached out to, notifying them about the proposed changes? Would it be helpful if the billboard or cell tower companies were contacted directly to inform them of these changes? Are there any other groups who have commonly appealed administrative decisions that could be contacted to work through and/or address potential unintended consequences? SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests, WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an appeal authority; WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for filing appeals with the appeal authority; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding: 1. Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code; 2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this code; 3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where specifically authorized by a provision of this code. B. State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make determinations regarding any of the following: 1. Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide. D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees. C. Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 1. Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days; 2. Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 3. Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. D. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees: 1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 2. The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. E. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. If a stay is requested, the hearing officer shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the hearing officer does not decide a request for a stay within 10 days of the appeal being deemed complete, the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. G. Notice Required: 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b. The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code. H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. I. Standard of Review: 1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2. An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b. The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c. The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. J. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. K. Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. L. Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. M. Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law. N. Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. O. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 or its successor. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.160.30F. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 10, 2021 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, 801-535-7165, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed modifications to Chapter 21A.16 as recommended by the Planning Commission and Attorney’s Office. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposed ordinance includes changes to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative land use decisions. The proposal was initiated by the City Council in May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code being identified by the Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative Decision” appeals, particularly related to recent appeals regarding billboards. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator (City Staff) in the administration of the zoning ordinance. Administrative decisions include decisions on such processes as Planned Developments, Design Reviews, Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations to historic properties. Administrative decisions also include when City staff is administering the ordinance by directly issuing decisions on development proposals or permits, or when the Planning Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers on proposals. 12/4/2020 Lisa Shaffer (Dec 14, 2020 11:15 MST) 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to the “Appeals” chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments primarily do the following: • Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. • Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. • Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision. Other minor, miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and enforceability. The details of the code changes can be found in the staff report located in Exhibit 3b. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early notification and online Open House notices were e-mailed out June 18, 2020: o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage with the proposed code. o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee. o Staff attended the Sugar House meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. o No formal input was received from any community councils. o No public comments were received. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on October 14, 2020: o A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper, posted on City and State websites, and sent out on the Planning Division notification listserv on September 30, 2020. o No members of the public spoke at the public hearing. o Planning Commission members asked the City Attorney’s Office staff technical questions about the ordinance. o The Planning Commission passed a unanimous recommendation that the City Council approve the ordinance. EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission a) Newspaper Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda and Minutes d) Presentation Slides 4) Original Petition SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2020 (An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests, WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an appeal authority; WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for filing appeals with the appeal authority; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding: 1. Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code; 2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this code; 3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where specifically authorized by a provision of this code. B. State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make determinations regarding any of the following: 1. Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide. D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees. C. Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 1. Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days; 2. Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 3. Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. D. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees: 1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 2. The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. E. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. G. Notice Required: 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b. The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code. H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. I. Standard of Review: 1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2. An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b. The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c. The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. J. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. K. Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. L. Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. M. Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law. N. Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. O. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 or its successor. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.160.30F. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2020. Published: ______________. Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: _________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Date: ______________________ November 3, 2020   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2020 2 (An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code 3 pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) 4 5 An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of 6 Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 7 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to 8 consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend 9 Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and 10 WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a 11 positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and 12 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this 13 ordinance is in the city’s best interests, 14 WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance 15 to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land 16 use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; 17 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an 18 appeal authority; 19 WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that 20 specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; 21 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in 22 Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use 23 decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; 24   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for 25 filing appeals with the appeal authority; 26 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, 27 that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 29 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 30 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 31 amended to read as follows: 32 Chapter 21A.16 33 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 34 35 21A.16.010: Authority 36 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 37 21A.16.030: Procedure 38 21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 39 21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 40 41 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 42 43 A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of 44 this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations 45 regarding: 46 47 1. Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning 48 aAdministrator, or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or 49 enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning 50 Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, 51 administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;. 52 53 2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or 54 subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 55 this code; 56 57 3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 58 59 4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying 60 structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 61 “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 62   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 63 5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where 64 specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 65 66 B. State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or 67 make determinations regarding any of the following: 68 69 1. Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the 70 Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 71 administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 72 including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 73 constitutions and state and federal common law; 74 75 2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to 76 provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 77 federal common law; 78 79 3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. 80 81 An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 82 the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 83 84 C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer 85 has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 86 district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 87 decide. 88 89 D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has 90 authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 91 authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 92 the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 93 not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 94 exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 95 and decide. 96 In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 97 chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 98 modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 99 standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 100 this title. 101 As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 102 hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 103 Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 104 105 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 106 107   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 108 affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 109 decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 110 For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 111 the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 112 113 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 114 115 Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 116 cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 117 procedures: 118 119 A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning 120 administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 121 required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 122 appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 123 reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 124 accepted. 125 126 B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable 127 deadline, together with all applicable fees. 128 129 AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 130 are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 131 the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 132 including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 133 filing an appeal are as indicated below: 134 135 1. Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;. 136 137 2. Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;. 138 139 3. Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, 140 ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. 141 142 BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 143 144 1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 145 146 2. . The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for 147 providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title. 148 149 All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 150 until all applicable fees are paid. 151 152   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 153 appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 154 An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 155 stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 156 requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 157 Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 158 Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 159 Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 160 161 F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, 162 Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, 163 planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until 164 the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is 165 necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a 166 provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing 167 officer. 168 169 DG. Notice Required: 170 171 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning 172 aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing 173 in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set 174 forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 175 176 2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 177 pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the 178 appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. 179 180 a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 181 pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation 182 Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant 183 and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given 184 to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance 185 of the meeting. 186 187 b. The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the 188 aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum 189 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to 190 receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode. 191 192 3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 193 filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 194 withdrawn by the appellant. 195 196 EI. Standard oOf Review: 197 198   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this 199 section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal 200 Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and 201 standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 202 203 2. An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 204 cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 205 206 a. No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic 207 Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from 208 consideration below. 209 210 b. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 211 review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its 212 correctness. 213 214 c. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 215 uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or 216 it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. 217 218 FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 219 incorrect. 220 221 GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 222 The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 223 written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 224 may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 225 decision is rendered. 226 227 HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 228 oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 229 within ten (10) days of the decision. 230 231 IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 232 audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 233 planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 234 retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 235 request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 236 time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 237 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 238 provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 239 and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 240 contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 241 242   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 243 consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 244 hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 245 246 KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 247 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 248 a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 249 250 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 251 252 Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 253 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 254 Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 255 256 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 257 258 The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 259 officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 260 code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 261 The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 262 of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 263 District Court in any appeal of the decision. 264 265 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 266 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 267 follows: 268 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 269 270 A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 271 or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 272 based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 273 the decision. 274 275 276 277 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 278 section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 279 amended to read as follows: 280 Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 281 may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 282   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 283 outcome of the appeal. 284 285 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of 286 Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and 287 hereby is amended to read as follows: 288 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 289 A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the 290 planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 291 B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a 292 special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the 293 date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning 294 commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 295 21A.160.30F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 296 297 298 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 299 Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 300 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 301 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 302 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 303 conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 304 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 305 stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 306 under section 21A16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 307 decision. 308 309 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 310 the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 311 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 312 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 313   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 314 for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 315 provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 316 filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 317 of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 318 Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 319 SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 320 passage. 321 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. 322 323 324 ______________________________ 325 CHAIRPERSON 326 327 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 328 329 330 ______________________________ 331 CITY RECORDER 332 333 334 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 335 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 336 337 ______________________________ 338 MAYOR 339 340 ______________________________ 341 CITY RECORDER 342 343 344 (SEAL) 345 346 347 Bill No. ________ of 2020. 348 Published: ______________. 349 350 351 Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: _________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Date: ______________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 a. Newspaper Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes d. Presentation Slides 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment May 5, 2020 City Council initiates petition May 12, 2020 Petition assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner June 8, 2020 Draft ordinance prepared by Attorney’s Office June 18, 2020 Early notification notices sent to all recognized organizations and posted on City webpage for public input July 20, 2020 Staff attends Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting via web video conference to discuss proposal August 3, 2020 Early notification period ends September 30, 2020 Public hearing notice for Planning Commission meeting published in newspaper, posted on City/State notice websites, and sent out on Planning notification listserv. October 8, 2020 Staff report for the item is published October 14, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing held. Planning Commission passes unanimous motion recommending approval of the proposal 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON DATE and DATE at 7:00 p.m. public hearings will be held by the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance relating to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352. A proposed ordinance is before the Council to amend the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. This meeting will be electronic pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the meeting at a physical location may present a substantial risk to the health & safety (due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) of those who would otherwise be present at an anchor location, and pursuant to SLC Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit the website https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535- 7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. Publish: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 a. Newspaper Notice The Salt Lake Tribune Publication Name: The Salt Lake Tribune Publication URL: Publication City and State: Salt Lake City, UT Publication County: Salt Lake Notice Popular Keyword Category: Notice Keywords: plnpcm2020-00352 Notice Authentication Number: 202011250158583150503 3430682078 Notice URL: Back Notice Publish Date: Saturday, October 03, 2020 Notice Content Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, October 14, 2020, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions: 1. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to: http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLC tv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com. 1300772 UPAXLP Back PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 b. Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, 801-535-7165, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com Date: October 8, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in th e administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A.Proposed Code Text B.Existing Code Text C.Analysis of Standards – Zoning Text Amendment D.Public Process and Comments E.Department Review Comments Petition Description The City Council initiated a petition to amend the Appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance in May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code being identified by the Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative Decision” appeals. 1 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. Administrative decisions include such items as Planned Developments, Design Review s, Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations. These include when City staff is administering the ordinance by issuing decisions for these items directly or when the Planning Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily do the following: •Clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, •Modify who can appeal decisions to comply with State Code, and •Modify when an appeal can stay a decision to comply with State Code and case law. Other minor miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and enforceability. The changes are discussed in more detail in the Key Code Changes section below. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Notification of this proposal was sent out in June to all registered community councils to get community input and an online open house website was posted with the proposed draft and an overview of the proposal to get wider input. One community council (Sugar House) responded with a request to attend their Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting to go over the changes and staff attended that meeting. No other input has been received from community councils on the proposal. KEY CODE CHANGES: The below sections go over the primary code changes proposed with this amendment. 1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals 2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants 3.Stays of Decisions for Appeals 4.Miscellaneous Changes 1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals Proposed Change: •Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. 2 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Utah State Code requires that a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance, shall also establish one or more appeal authorities to hear and decide the following: (1) requests for variances under the City’s land use ordinance; (2) appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinance, and (3) appeals from certain fees imposed by the City, e.g. review of building plans and hook-up fees. Utah Code § 10-9a-701(1) Most applications the City receives, and most interpretations it must make on a day-to-day basis, concern interpretation and application of provisions of the City’s local land use ordinance (City Code). If an affected person disagrees with the City’s interpretation of a provision of the City’s local land use ordinance, such as a zoning setback requirement, they can appeal it to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer (the local land use appeal authority.) On occasion, the City will receive an application that requests a land use that is provided for in Utah Code, not City ordinance. For example, Utah Code provides for relocation of billboards, where specifically prohibited by the City’s local land use ordinance. These applications require the City to review the application and determine if the applicant meets the requirement s of a provision of state law, not City Code. In circumstances where the City has found the applicant does not meet the requirements of the provision, applicants have sought to appeal these decisions to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer. On occasion, the City’s hearing officers, over the objection of the City, have heard and issued decisions on these appeals. Neither Salt Lake City Code, nor Utah State Code, permit a City Hearing Officer to make these decisions. See Utah State Code § 10-9a-701(1) (requiring an appeal authority to hear appeals from a city’s land use ordinance); Salt Lake City Code 21A.16.010 & 020 (stating hearing officer’s authority is to hear appeals alleging an error in interpretation, administration or enforcement of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code). These appeals should be made directly to the State’s district courts. Thus, to remove any confusion, the amendments to the ordinance make clear the authority of the City’s hearing officers is limited to reviewing the City’s interpretation and application of provisions of the Salt Lake City Code, not provisions of State or Federal law. This clarification of the authority of the City’s Appeals Hearing Officers is specifically provided for and permitted by the provision of State Code requiring the City to establish a land use appeal authority. See Utah Code § 10-9a-701(4)(e) (stating a municipality may by ordinance “provide that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court.) The changes are shown starting on line 39 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants Proposed Change: •Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. This year the State Legislature with House Bill 388 adopted changes to Utah State Code section 10-9a-7 “Appeal Authority and Variances.” That code section authorizes cities to establish land use appeal processes. That code section includes provisions that also limit land use appellants to three entities. The code changes narrowed the list of the entities that can appeal land use decisions by making the following change to that list of possible appellants (strikethroughs show deleted text and underlines show new text): 3 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment The (1) land use applicant, (2) a board or officer of the municipality, or (3) [any person adversely affected by the land use authority's decision administering or interpreting a land use ordinance] an adversely affected party may… The entity defined as “any person adversely affected by the land use authority’s decision” was revised to the term “adversely affected party.” State Code then defines that term as: (2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who: (a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use application or land use decision; or (b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. While still using the term “adversely affected” it narrowly defines it to the two specific circumstances above in (a) and (b). The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants to comply with the current State Code allowance. The changes are shown starting on line 80 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals Proposed Change: •Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a stay. Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon submission of an appeal. A “stay” means that the decision is put on hold and no further proceedings can occur on the matter, pending a decision by the appeal authority on the appeal. For example, if the Planning Commission approved a development, but it was appealed and a stay was imposed, the developer couldn’t pull permits or start construction on their proposal. The current City Code also provides that an automatic stay can be released if the City’s Zoning Administrator (a member of City Planning staff) certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer that the stay would be against the best interest of the City. The proposal would change the code section to no longer automatically stay a decision and instead require that an appellant formally request a stay. The appellant would also need to justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary “to prevent substantial harm” to the appellant. The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay. This change is intended to reflect State Code (10-9a-801(3)(b)) and case law wherein the decision of the Planning Commission or Historical Landmark Commission (“land use authority”) is to be initially presumed to be valid by a court or appeal authority in reviewing an appeal. An automatic stay is contrary to that presumption and so the proposal would eliminate that automatic stay. Additionally, automatic stays incentivize appeals that have no merit and put applicants in a difficult position whereby City approvals may be put on hold for up to six months when there may be no justification for such a stay. The related changes are shown starting on line 129 of the redline draft in Attachment A. Other changes are included to other related sections of the code, such as the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission sections, to reflect and reference that change starting on line 231 and continuing to 292 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 4 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 4.Miscellaneous Changes Proposed Changes: •Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language The code includes other minor changes and clarifications to the appeals chapter. These include removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts. These changes begin on line 208 of the draft code in Attachment A. They also include changes to reflect and reference the current types of city applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer has authority over. Those changes are in the Authority section, starting on line 16 in Attachment A. Changes clarifying that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section, starting on line 96 in Attachment A. There are also deletions of the reference to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those are intended to reflect a recently adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just not yet been incorporated or “codified” into the official city zoning text. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and enforced. Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. 5 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment This attachment includes a “clean” version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines that show deleted and new text, and a “draft” version that identifies such deletions and new text with strikethroughs and underlines, respectively. 6 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding: 1.Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code; 2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this code; 3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where specifically authorized by a provision of this code. B.State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make determinations regarding any of the following: 1.Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 7 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version 2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide. D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees. C.Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days; 8 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version 2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 3.Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. D.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees: 1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 2.The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. E.No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. G.Notice Required: 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the 9 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code. H.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. I.Standard of Review: 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. J.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. K.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. L.Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. M.Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law. N.Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 10 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version O.Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 or its successor. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 11 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version B.Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.160.30F. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. 12 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 1 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 2 amended to read as follows: 3 Chapter 21A.16 4 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 5 6 21A.16.010: Authority 7 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 8 21A.16.030: Procedure 9 21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 10 21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 11 12 13 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 14 15 A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of16 this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations17 regarding:18 19 1.Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning20 aAdministrator , or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or21 enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning22 Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application,23 administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;.24 25 2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or26 subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 27 this code; 28 29 3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title;30 31 4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying32 structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 33 “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 34 35 5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where36 specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 37 38 B.State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or39 make determinations regarding any of the following:40 41 1.Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the42 Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter.43 13 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 44 including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 45 constitutions and state and federal common law; 46 47 2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to48 provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 49 federal common law; 50 51 3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law.52 53 An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 54 the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 55 56 C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer57 has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 58 district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 59 decide. 60 61 D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has62 authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 63 authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 64 the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 65 not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 66 exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 67 and decide. 68 In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 69 chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 70 modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 71 standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 72 this title. 73 As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 74 hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 75 Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 76 77 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 78 79 An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 80 affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 81 decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 82 For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 83 the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 84 85 86 87 88 89 14 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 90 91 Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 92 cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 93 procedures: 94 95 A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning96 administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 97 required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 98 appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 99 reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 100 accepted. 101 102 B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable103 deadline, together with all applicable fees. 104 105 AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 106 are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 107 the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 108 including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 109 filing an appeal are as indicated below: 110 111 1.Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;.112 113 2.Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;.114 115 3.Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant,116 ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.117 118 BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 119 120 1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and121 122 2.. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for123 providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title.124 125 All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 126 until all applicable fees are paid. 127 128 CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 129 appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 130 An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 131 stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 132 requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 133 Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 134 15 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 135 Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 136 137 F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant,138 Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator,139 planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until140 the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is141 necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a142 provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing143 officer.144 145 DG. Notice Required: 146 147 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning148 aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing149 in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set150 forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title.151 152 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or153 pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the154 appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent.155 156 a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or157 pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation158 Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant159 and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given160 to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance161 of the meeting.162 163 b.The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the164 aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum165 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to166 receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode.167 168 3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 169 filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 170 withdrawn by the appellant. 171 172 EI. Standard oOf Review: 173 174 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this175 section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal176 Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and177 standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below.178 179 16 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 2.An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 180 cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 181 182 a.No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic183 Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from184 consideration below.185 186 b.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall187 review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its188 correctness.189 190 c.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall191 uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or192 it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made.193 194 FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 195 incorrect. 196 197 GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 198 The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 199 written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 200 may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 201 decision is rendered. 202 203 HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 204 oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 205 within ten (10) days of the decision. 206 207 IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 208 audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 209 planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 210 retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 211 request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 212 time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 213 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 214 provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 215 and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 216 contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 217 218 JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 219 consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 220 hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 221 222 KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 223 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 224 a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 225 17 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 226 227 228 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 229 230 Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 231 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 232 Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 233 234 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 235 236 The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 237 officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 238 code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 239 The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 240 of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 241 District Court in any appeal of the decision. 242 243 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 244 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 245 follows: 246 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 247 248 A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 249 or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 250 based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 251 the decision. 252 253 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 254 section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 255 amended to read as follows: 256 Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 257 may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 258 filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 259 outcome of the appeal. 260 261 18 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 262 263 264 Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 265 A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the266 planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.267 B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a268 special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the269 date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning270 commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section271 21A.16.030F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision.272 273 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 274 Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 275 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 276 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 277 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 278 conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 279 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 280 stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 281 under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 282 decision. 283 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 284 the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 285 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 286 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 287 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 288 for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 289 provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 290 filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 291 of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 292 Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 293 19 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 20 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text CHAPTER 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SECTION: 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal Of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay Of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: As described in Section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator or the administrative hearing officer in the administration or enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the planning commission. The appeals hearing officer may hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions made by the historic landmark commission pursuant to Section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. In addition, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per Chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures", of this title. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A.Filing of Appeal: All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, including every theory of relief that can be presented in district court. The deadlines for filing an appeal are as indicated below: 1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days. 2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days. 3.Historic landmark commission: Thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. B.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for 21 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. C.Stay of Proceedings: An appeal to the appeals hearing officer shall stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the zoning administrator certifies in writing to the appeals hearing officer, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the zoning administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the city. D.Notice Required: 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer, a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.60 of this code. 3.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. E.Standard of Review: 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in Subsection E.2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. 22 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text F.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. G.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. H.Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. I.Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. The audio recording of each appeal hearing shall be kept for a minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the appeals hearing officer. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The appeals hearing officer may have the appeal proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. J.Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. K.Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of the decision. 23 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE 1.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the goals and policies the City’s plans. None of the existing adopted Salt Lake City master plans specifically address the proposed amendments. However, the changes clarify the code and remove conflicts to ensure that the ordinance is enforceable. Master Plan provisions involving land use are implemented through the zoning ordinance and so an enforceable zoning ordinance is consistent with the City’s Master Plans. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the appeals process will clarify processes and reduce legal issues with the code, which supports implementation of the City’s adopted plans and policies. 2.Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance by ensuring their enforcement and administration. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act (State Code). The proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and State Code, better allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. 3.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposal is consistent with and does not impact the enforceability of any existing appeal process references in any zoning overlays. The proposed amendments will impact appeals relating to all sections of the zoning ordinance, including any overlays. Various overlays reference the appeals process in the affected code sections. Those references will remain in place and will continue to be enforceable. 4.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, The proposed changes eliminate legal conflicts, The proposed changes eliminate legal conflicts in the code, allowing for better enforceability and administration of City Code provisions. Legal, enforceable code is a best professional practice in urban 24 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment professional practices of urban planning and design. improve enforceability and administration of City Code, and so implement best professional practices. planning. The regulation changes do not pertain to professional practices of design. 25 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal: •Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out June 18, 2020 o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee ▪Staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. o No formal input was received from any community councils. o No public comments were received. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: •Public hearing notice published to newspaper September 30, 2020 •Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on September 30, 2020 26 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This text amendment generally does not impact most other City departments and so other departments did not provide any concerns. Appeals can be submitted regarding building permits issued by Building Services; however, Building Services did not have any concerns with the changes. 27 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 c. Agenda/Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation October 14, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Union Pacific Hotel Time Extension Request - Mark Sanford, project representative, is requesting a one- year time extension for the Union Pacific Hotel Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review, located at 2 S. 400 West. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed to finalize financing for the proposed hotel project. The Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2018 for an 8-story, 225-room hotel to be located on the west side of the existing Union Pacific Railroad Station. All new construction in the Gateway- Mixed Use zoning district must be reviewed as a planned development. The subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2018-00617 & PLNSUB2018-00618 2. Edison House Conditional Use Time Extension Request - Bubba Holdings, LLC, applicant, request a one- year time extension for the Edison House Conditional Use at 335 South 200 West. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use on October 9, 2019. The project is a 3-story structure that would house a membership-based social club. In the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District, a Conditional Use review is required if a structure is 3 or more stories in height and contains commercial uses but no residential uses. Indoor and Outdoor Bar Establishments are also subject to a Conditional Use review in this zone. Building permit plans have been submitted but the applicant needs additional time to solve technical issues resulting from the permit plan review. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at (801) 535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019- 00671 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height & Grade Change Special Exceptions at approximately 333 N Federal Heights Circle - Scott and Jennifer Huntsman, the property owners, are requesting special exception approval to construct a new single-family detached structure that exceeds the maximum permitted building and wall height and maximum allowable grade changes in the FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District. The subject property is located at 333 N Federal Heights Circle and is currently vacant. The proposed structure will exceed the height limit of 28’ by 2’-8" at two points on the rear and middle of the structure. The requested grade changes in the rear yard will exceed the permitted 4 feet in the setback area and 6 feet in the buildable area. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 (Foothills Residential) zoning district and within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Kristina Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00639 2. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State Street - Aabir Malik, an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units on the upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439 3. Kozo House Apartments Design Review at approximately 157 & 175 North 600 West, & 613, 621, 625, & 633 West 200 North – A request by David Clayton for Design Review approval to develop a 312-unit mixed use building on six parcels located at 157 North 600 West, 175 North 600 West, 613 West 200 North, 621 West 200 North, 625 West 200 North, and 633 West 200 North. These properties are located in the TSA- UC-T Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum street facing façade length and to modify the spacing of building entrances. The project is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315 - 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00258 4. West End Rezone at approximately 715 W Genesee Ave - A request by Maximilian Coreth, property owner, to rezone the parcel located at approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue and a portion of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M- 1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020- 00268 5. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EXCERPT This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, October 14, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:56:09 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Neilson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Kristina Gilmore, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. ------------------------------------------- 8:43:00 PM Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on who oversees the hearing officer to determine whether the property analyzing City code issues versus State code issues • Clarification on the difference between applying State law and interpreting it PUBLIC HEARING 8:54:33 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 8:55:33 PM Commissioner Scheer stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 2 recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:57:50 PM PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 d. Presentation Slides Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Administrative Decision Appeals Zoning Text Amendment Planning Commission Admin. Appeals Text Amendment Appeals Chapter 21A.16 •Regulates appeals of administrative decisions Decisions by: •Planning Commission •Historic Landmarks Commission •Other Administrative decisions •Zoning Administrator/Planning Director/Staff •Appeals heard by an appointed Appeals Hearing Officer •Technical changes to Appeals chapter •Comply with recent state code and case law Planning Commission Admin. Appeals Text Amendment •Clarify authority of Appeals Hearing Officer •Authority over City code appeals only, not state code •Align allowed appellant definition with State Code •(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who: (a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use application or land use decision; or (b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. •Stays of decisions with appeals •Appeals will not automatically stay decisions •Appeals Hearing Officer would decide on stay requests from appellants •Appellant must demonstrate potential substantial harm •Other wording, clarification changes 4. ORIGINAL PETITION City Council Announcements May 5, 2020 For Your Information A. Billboard Ordinance Amendments 6:13:46 PM In October 2019, the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office let the Council know about areas of the City's zoning ordinances pertaining to billboards that need updating to be in line with state law. Those changes include: • amending the zoning code to remove the City billboard bank • clarify the scope of administrative land use appeals The City Council may wish to initiate a petition requesting those amendments be made. The Attorney’s Office would work with other City departments to process those changes and then transmit them to the Council for final consideration. ➢ If the Council supports this text amendment, it may officially be initiated during tonight’s (May 5) formal meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said the ordinance needed to be updated to adhere to State law. She said in order for this to go through the proper procedure, it would be best if the request was made by the Council. She said it was scheduled for action tonight during the formal meeting unless objections were raised. Councilmember Dugan asked if this would increase the chance for more billboards. Ms. Gust-Jenson said no. Council Members had no objections. 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 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. 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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:August 17, 2021 RE:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan NEW INFORMATION Pursuant to city resolution and state code, the City Council asked the Administration to present the Street Lighting Master Plan proposal to the City Planning Commission. The April 14, 2021 City Planning Commission forwarded the following along with a positive recommendation (i.e. a recommendation that the City adopt the plan & its accompanying documents): the Commissioner recommended that the Council “further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures and further understand that fully.” (Attachment 3) It’s the understanding of Council staff that the Department of Public Utilities is confident in the plan’s current recommendations and resources in the context of color temperature. The following reconstruction of feedback and new information might be helpful and draws from a technical memo (Attachment 2) prepared by the department & its consultant on the topic of light temperature and impacts to the following categories of organic life. The Department has communicated that the plan in its current state has adequate and appropriate control measures to mitigate impacts to humans and wildlife, such as its neighborhood-level evaluation and engagement recommendations for the process of developing lighting solutions for unique geographic areas throughout the city. -Birds: o “There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and mortality of migratory birds.” (Attachment 2, page 11, last paragraph). -Insects: o “One group where color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general, more attracted to blue, violet, and ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to different color temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This relationship has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific options for street lighting [citation omitted for clarity]. For nearly all [insect] organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts.” (Attachment 2, page 11, last full paragraph) Item Schedule: Briefing: August 17, 2021 Public Hearing: TBD Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 -Human beings: o “Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health point to the intensity thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human physiology, they demonstrate that melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or not measurable below approximately 5 [lux] [this is a technical measurement for one dimension of lighting intensity]. Since outdoor lighting rarely reaches these levels within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night and illumination under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux. A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to outdoor lighting would be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting… which then would be balanced against other guideposts.” (Attachment 2, page 11, first paragraph, emphasis added) Finally, dark skies interests have been referenced or represented as compelling for inclusion and serious consideration in the plan. The Department’s technical memo provides the following advice for technical implementation sensitive to dark skies interests: “The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS lamps, they must be 0% uplight [sic], 50% less bright, and with a [color temperature] of no greater than 3000 K.” (Attachment 2, page 12, last paragraph) In other words, for dark skies interests & for purposes of reducing impacts to organic life, the Department has represented that the plan allows for flexible and responsive implementation of lighting strategies to address a range of concerns, such as those listed as examples above. In the future, the Council might consider the following elements in the context of a potential motion considering adoption of the plan: -The Council could include legislative intent language that the “dark skies” mitigation criteria for “minimum impact on light pollution” be followed uniformly & that the department provide annual or bi-annual reports on locations where that guidance has been superseded by other constraints in the course of lighting implementation. -The Council could ask the Department to consider where impacts to wildlife can be reduced or eliminated, and provide a report on proactive lighting implementation that takes this value into account as the plan moves ahead. -The Council might ask the Department or Administration to consider options for evaluating impacts to insect communities as a result of City street lighting changes. -The Council might ask the Department to consider whether and where there are situations where residents or groups of residents could regularly experience lighting intensity from public fixtures at a level that would disrupt melatonin regulation. Attachments 1. Transmittal 2. Department correlation report 3. April 14, 2021 Planning Commission minutes Page | 3 PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE FEBRUARY 2021 BRIEFING ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the proposed Street Lighting master plan. The new plan synthesizes community feedback and technical advice into a document by which the department proposes to guide street lighting improvement and maintenance throughout the city. The plan seeks to create accommodation for different lighting needs and desires throughout the city. Adoption of the street lighting master plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year; however it is likely that deliberation on and adoption of the plan would pave the way for a new capital improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting enterprise fund. These subsequent phases would have budgetary impacts for the enterprise fund, as well as potential impacts to ratepayers. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND From the transmittal: “The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment Areas [SAA] to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.” The city provides different tiers of lighting service through the Street Lighting enterprise fund that the current system inherited from the previous SAA structure; for example, enhanced lighting areas in Rose Park, Yalecrest, and in the downtown area are assessed different rates for corresponding lighting service that varies from the basic streetlighting in most of the city. Additionally, the department maintains a private lighting program that receives a $20,000 annual grant from the general fund. This funding allows property owners to obtain matching funds from the city for private light installation in the public right-of-way. Maintenance of those private lights is the responsibility of the property owner, although the department facilitates access to a lighting contractor to support that. From the transmittal: “During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation [of new LED lights] began in the residential neighborhoods, there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.” To this end, the plan also contemplates its intersections with other adopted city planning documents. (transmittal page 39 et seq., plan page 19 et seq.) The department conducted extensive outreach through community and technical advisor groups. A more detailed report on the outreach is located in the transmittal on pages three and four. Furthermore, Council Members met in small groups with the administration to discuss the plan over the summer of 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Administration transmittal Page | 4 POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Council Members often receive persistent and sometimes conflicting requests from community members and community groups for lighting. a. The Council might be interested in hearing from the administration about how requests from community members and community groups would be vetted so that lighting implementation takes place with inclusive engagement. b. Council Members might wish to know how the administration proposes resolving conflicting lighting requests; e.g. would those be resolved by taking polls of property owners; what other methods would be available to determine how to move forward when requests are conflicting for one area. 2. Council Members have adopted the expectation through resolution that master plans go through a vetting process that includes review by the city’s Planning Commission. The Street Lighting master plan has been in progress since before that resolution was officially adopted in 2020. The Council has adopted other planning documents since the resolution adoption that have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. a. Council Members might wish to request feedback from the administration on the potential value of the Planning Commission reviewing the lighting plan before its potential adoption. 3. The Council might wish for more specific figures related to the anticipated annual budget impact when it comes to ongoing, regular implementation of the guidance in the plan. a. Additionally, when it comes to annual budget deliberations for the Street Lighting enterprise fund, the Council might request a more extensive oversight and guidance role when it comes to capital planning and appropriations for each coming year, not unlike the general fund capital improvement program process. b. An opportunity to review this enterprise fund budget in greater depth each year and throughout the interim could give the Council greater opportunity to review the capital planning and budget proposals for equity considerations. c. Because the technical and service requirements of the Street Lighting fund are different from the other Public Utilities enterprise funds, additional budget oversight and engagement could be more appropriate when it comes to the improvements and expansions of the city’s lighting system on the basis of the proposed plan. 4. Community members have inquired about the creation of enhanced lighting areas through the general fund capital improvement program (CIP). Council Members might ask for feedback from the department about the feasibility of creating these enhanced lighting areas through general fund CIP, and then transferring the asset to the enterprise fund for maintenance and cost recovery through increased lighting fees. APPENDIX A The master plan proposes the following policy statements (transmittal page 18; plan page 10): Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. Page | 5 • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The plan also enumerates a number of implementation priorities and steps; “proposed for highest priority are neighborhoods current underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses.” (plan page 11) Furthermore, “high conflict areas” such as neighborhood byways and transit stations are proposed to be highest priority. High conflict refers to the potential for an area to have a diversity of uses and needs. The plan offers a helpful side-by-side table showing how the policy proposals have been revised from their 2006 predecessors. (transmittal pages 34-35, plan pages 14-15) APPENDIX B The plan proposes the following process for implementation (transmittal page 19, plan page 11). This process, all four steps, would take place systematically based on recommendations and classifications made in the plan. STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: Page | 6 • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix •Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option APPENDIX C Page | 7 Page | 8 APPENDIX D Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan Process & Issues Related to Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) 06/16/2021 The topic of Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), which describes the perceived color of a light source, related to street lighting has become quite controversial with the transition from predominantly high pressure sodium (HPS) street lights with an amber color temperature (2200K CCT) to light emitting diode (LED) street lights, which are can vary in color temp, typically from warm white (2700K) to cool/bluish white (5000K). Recommendation: With a complexity of various research and opinions related to the CCT of street lighting, we recommend that Salt Lake City perform a few pilot installations that demonstrate and compare different CCTs in a few areas throughout the city, such as Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, and Downtown. These demonstrations will allow Salt Lake City to engage the public and stakeholder groups in the final selection of CCT that is preferred and appropriate for each area. This process should include some educational outreach to inform the public about the various issues related to CCT as described in this memo and gather data on the preferences of the public and stakeholder groups. What is Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)? Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) is a measure of light source color appearance as compared to an ideal blackbody radiator that is heated to a specific temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin (K). This is similar to the variation of color seen in flames of a fire or gas stove. The higher temperature flame is perceived as blue and lower temperature flame is perceived as yellow to orange. How CCT is Addressed in the SLC Street Lighting Master Plan The CCT of street lighting affects a few different areas of human experience and environmental impacts, including: Brightness Perception, Nighttime Visibility, Color Identification, Aesthetic Character, Personal and Cultural Preference, Human Health, Dark Skies and Behavior of Wildlife and Insects. This article from Pew Charitable Trusts, “Citing Health Concerns, Some Cities Consider Dimmer LED Streetlights” provides an overview of some of the controversial topics. The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan has considered all of these perspectives by implementing a thorough Engagement Process, evaluating current research, and providing flexibility of on-going community engagement to determine the final CCT to be used in each neighborhood or Council District. This Engagement Process helped to develop the Guideposts for this Street Lighting Master Plan, which are: Safety, Character, Responsibility and Equity. All of the decisions and guidance within this Plan have been considered and balanced in relationship to these Guideposts. Considering the Guidepost of Responsibility, the Street Lighting Master Plan has followed the advice from the American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) for a maximum of 3000K CCT in Commercial, Retail, Civic and Downtown areas. This Master Plan goes further, by limiting the CCT in Residential areas to 2700K maximum, and near environmentally sensitive areas to 2200K maximum. By stating “maximum” CCT levels, and providing a path for on-going community engagement, this plan allows the flexibility for each community to determine if they would prefer lower CCTs than these maximums. The topic of CCT related to visibility and health are currently very active areas of research, with varying conclusions which are sometimes contradictory. In general, the current body of research, and understanding of human preferences indicates the following trends, which have been categorized according to the Street Lighting Master Plan Guideposts: • Safety – Brightness Perception: Higher CCT’s tend to appear brighter at night, even at lower measured light levels. This is related to a shift in spectral sensitivity toward blue light in lower light levels experienced at night under street lighting. While this can have a positive effect on visibility, it can also have a negative effect of increased glare if not properly controlled. Early LED streetlight conversions using cool/bluish white (5000K) LEDs installations received significantly negative public reaction. • Safety – Nighttime Visibility: Higher CCT’s may improve visibility at night, however, some studies are contradictory. Some street lighting visibility studies show that higher CCT’s result in improved visual detection distance1. Other studies show lower CCT’s with improved detection distance, however, the lower CCT may result in fatigue and reduced detection distance over longer periods of time2. • Safety – Color Identification: Color Rendering is more important than CCT for color identification. This topic of color identification was noted as a high priority for the Police Department. Prior to LED, lower CCT light sources like high pressure sodium (HPS) (2200K) and low pressure sodium (LPS) (1800K) also had very low color rendering index (CRI), making it more difficult to accurately identify colors of objects seen under these light sources. Newer LEDs that use a phosphor-corrected amber (PC Amber) to achieve lower CCTs (1800K – 2200K) can have improved CRI that is closer to higher CCT light sources. The PC Amber light source does not yet have wide-spread use in street lighting, and has not been included in many street lighting research studies. The proposed pilot studies are an excellent opportunity for Salt Lake City to evaluate PC Amber LED against standard white-light LEDs that are based on phosphor-corrected blue LEDs. • Character – Aesthetics, Personal & Cultural Preference: CCT can evoke a wide variety of emotions or perceptions, which can vary from person to person. The very warm amber light from streetlights with lower CCT’s (1800K – 2200K) associated with the legacy light sources of LPS and HPS may be perceived as “outdated” by some, while others perceive this color as “warm” and “inviting. Higher CCT’s (4000K +) are often perceived as “institutional” or “sterile”, while some may perceive this as “contemporary”, “clean” and “crisp”. The proposed pilot studies would allow citizens and stakeholders to express their subjective opinions and allow the City to make a data-driven decision for what is appropriate in different areas. 1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K Warmer --- Cooler Private/Intimate --- Public Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional Historic --- Contemporary Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean Comfortable --- Glary • Responsibility – Human Health: Exposure to too much light at night, especially higher CCT light with more blue content, can disrupt healthy sleeping cycles, or circadian rhythms, in humans. Light in the blue spectrum suppresses melatonin, which is needed during the day for people to wake up and be alert. Exposure to blue spectrum light at night also suppresses or delays melatonin production, resulting in sleep disruption, which can lead to increased long-term risk of some types of cancer, including breast cancer and prostate cancer. While higher CCT lighting does play a significant role in melatonin suppression, it is also important to control light levels, reduce glare, and avoid light trespass from street lighting. Total exposure to light at night, or dosage of light, is needed to understand the full impact of street lighting as compared to other light exposure from interior lighting, computer screens, TVs and light trespass from private property. • Responsibility – Dark Skies: Higher CCT light sources with more blue spectrum light contribute more to sky glow than lower CCT light sources. The molecular composition of the Earth’s atmosphere refracts, or scatters, blue spectrum light, which is why our sky looks blue. Controlling light that is distributed directly upward into the sky is critical to reducing light pollution. This Street Lighting Master Plan includes recommendations to reduce light pollution from all decorative lights, including Downtown and Sugarhouse historic lights and neighborhood pedestrian lighting, such as Rose Park. This Plan also reduces blue spectrum content, changing from 4000K CCT to 3000K, 2700K and 2200K CCTs, depending on adjacent land use. • Responsibility – Behavior of Wildlife and Insects: In general, higher CCT light sources with more blue spectrum light result in more negative effects on wildlife and insects. All full spectrum white lights (2700 K and up) are considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights and new PC Amber LED lights. Using fully-shielded, low glare lights is also an important factor in reducing impacts to wildlife and the ecosystem. Limiting light trespass into open space areas and critical wildlife habitats, and providing adaptive dimming schedules are also included in this Street Lighting Master Plan. • Equity – What is the Right Thing for each Neighborhood?: Engaging each community in the final decision for the type of lighting and CCT is an important part of an equitable solution. This process should include some education on the topics included in this memo and others related to street lighting, as well as some survey and pilot demonstration to gather data on the opinions of the residents and business owners in the area. While some areas may want more light and higher CCT for safety concerns, this should be balanced with a responsible approach that incorporates all the issues of human and environmental health, especially in residential areas. More Background Information 1. Engagement Process The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Masterplan was developed from a multi-level approach with a diverse set of stakeholders and community members including: • An Advisory Committee which met six times and included representatives from each City Council District, Department of Public Utilities, and the Mayor’s Office. The Advisory Committee provided guidance on policy issues and visioning. This group participated in site tours and surveys, visioning sessions and progress updates along the way. • A Technical Committee with City representatives from Police, Fire, Sustainability, Engineering, Planning and Urban Forestry. The Technical Committee represented the interests of their departments and contributed to the vision and guiding principles. This group participated in a site tour to inform their feedback throughout the process. The material and ideas produced from both groups was them reviewed by a community stakeholder group with representation from Education, Business, Transit/Multi-modal transportation, and Environmental organizations. The final draft plan includes input from both committees and feedback received during stakeholder review. Once the draft document was complete, it received initial review from the City Council and Planning Commission with a final recommendation to the City Council for adoption. 2. Guideposts: Safety, Character, Responsibility, Equity a. Safety i. Brightness Perception The human eye contains two types of light activated cells in the retina, cones and rods. Cone cells require a higher light level to be activated, and are responsible for color perception, experienced during the day and under interior light levels. The rod cells are activated under lower light level conditions typically experienced at night, and provide only gray-scale visual perception. The cones are more sensitive to the yellow end of the spectrum and rods are more sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum. All lighting metrics, even for street lighting use the daytime visual sensitivity curve, yet LED light sources with more blue spectrum content, or higher CCT, appear brighter under lower light levels than lower CCT light sources. This effect is known as the Purkinje Shift. This explains why people often perceive LED street lights as “brighter” and “more glary”. ii. Nighttime Visibility Research There are multiple studies by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) that study how different street lighting characteristics affect visibility. These studies measure visual detection distance of objects under different light levels and CCT’s. Some studies show that higher CCT’s, particularly 4000K – 4100K resulted in increased visual detection distance, even at 25% of the light level of HPS lights at 2100K1. Yet, the results are not consistent when comparing CCT and detection distance across multiple studies, and a more recent study showed that HPS at 2100K resulted in increased visual detection distance than 4000K LED 2. Figure summarizing studies on detection distance under different roadway lighting in Anchorage, San Jose, San Diego, and Seattle. Figure showing comparison of CCT and different light levels on Detection Distance over multiple laps driving around a test roadway at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute2. iii. Color Identification Accurate color identification of objects depends on the spectrum of the light source illuminating the object. This is measured as Color Rendering Index (CRI), which ranges from 0 – 100, using a broad spectrum light incandescent source as the reference. The image below shows a red car parked in front of a convenience store with two different light sources illuminating the car. The parking lot has low pressure sodium lights (CRI - 0) that have a very narrow, amber color spectrum, which distorts the red color of the car. The front of the car, near the fluorescent light (CRI - 70) emanating from the convenience store has a broader spectrum of light, which more accurately renders the red color. LED light sources commonly used for street lighting with CCT of 2700K – 5000K typically have a CRI of 70 – 80. The most common legacy light source for street lighting was high pressure sodium (HPS) with a CCT of 2200K had a CRI of 20 – 35. The image below shows a side-by-side comparison of these light sources (LED on the left, and HPS on the right) and their resulting ability to render colors in the field of vision. Newer PC Amber LED light sources provide 2200K and lower CCT with CRI’s ranging from 35 - 68. The higher range of this CRI is comparable to the lower range of CCT for LEDs with higher 2700K - 5000K. While most major street lighting manufacturers do not currently offer PC Amber as a standard option, most manufacturers will consider providing PC Amber as a special modification. 3. Character a. Perception of Character and Aesthetics Color temperature of lighting affects many different aspects of human experience. Color temperature is perceived as cooler (blue) to neutral (white) to warmer (yellow to orange), which is inverse to the temperature measurement of the ideal black body radiator (or flame temperature). Higher color temperatures are described as “cooler” and lower color temperatures are described as “warmer”. Color temperature can also evoke certain emotions or perceptions such as: 1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K Warmer --- Cooler Private/Intimate --- Public Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional Historic --- Contemporary Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean Comfortable --- Glary Figure 1. Example of PC Amber used in an environmentally sensitive area. https://adlt.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/IMG_7110-620x413.jpg References 1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K 5000K 6000K In Nature Campfire Sunrise/Sunset Moon Daylight Color Description Orange Amber Warm White Warm White Neutral White Cool White Cool Blue Legacy Light Sources Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) High Pressure Sodium (HPS)Incandescent Halogen Neutral White Fluorescent Cool White Fluorescent Daylight Fluorescent (Limited Use) Interior Lighting Limited Use Dimmed Hospitality Residential / Hospitality Residential / Hospitality Office Office / Healthcare Office / Healthcare (Limited Use) Exterior Lighting Near Astronomic Observatories Street Lighting before LED Higher End Pedestian Lighting Early LED Street Lighting Installations Figure 2. Example of 2200 K LED used for environmental and aesthetic sensitivity. https://www.atpiluminacion.com/files/actualidad/201223_Yamaguchi/atp-iluminacion-yamaguchi-2@2x.png Figure 3. Example of 2700 K LEDs in the field. Figure 4. Example of 3000 K LEDs in the field. https://www.clantonassociates.com/our-projects/16th-street-mall Responsibility (Longcore) b. CCT / Spectrum & Human Health Human circadian rhythms can be influenced by exposure to light at night. The mechanism is presumed to be the suppression of melatonin production. Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is produced by humans and most organisms during darkness and it plays central roles in regulating human daily rhythms across all aspects of human physiology. It is also “oncostatic”, meaning that it keeps cancer tumors from growing. Because exposure to too much light at night suppresses melatonin, unnatural light exposure has been identified as a risk factor for certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. Suppression of melatonin varies depending on the wavelengths of light, with a peak sensitivity in the light blue. Daylight, with a color temperature of 6500 K, is very effective at suppressing melatonin production (Figure 5). Figure 5. Spectral power of daylight (colors) with the overlap with human melatonin suppression sensitivity (lighter colors). Melatonin sensitivity curve is in the background in gray. Upper left: Daylight (D65), Upper right: 4200 K LED, Lower left: 2200 K LED, Lower right: 1900K High Pressure Sodium. Source: fluxometer.com The relative power of lights to suppress melatonin can be calculated, and it decreases with color temperature for standard light sources (Figure 3). Few studies connect color temperature with health outcomes in the epidemiological literature, perhaps because the technology to do such studies is only recently becoming available. A study of breast and prostate cancer in Spain published in 2018 provides initial information, which is consistent with greater effects being associated with higher color temperatures. In this study, greater blue light outdoors at residences of cancer patients compared with those of controls was associated with a 47% increased risk of breast cancer and a doubling in prostate cancer risk3. In contrast, outdoor lighting alone (of all colors) was not associated with increased risk. The study also accounted for light experienced in the sleeping environment, with a significantly greater risk of prostate cancer for those sleeping in a “quite illuminated” bedroom, but no statistically significant result for breast cancer3. Figure 3. Relative sensitivity of human circadian system, as measured by melatonin suppression, for typical LED light sources and High Pressure Sodium, compared with an equal brightness of daylight. Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health point to the intensity thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human physiology, they demonstrate that melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or not measurable below approximately 5 lux4. Since outdoor lighting rarely reaches these levels within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night and illumination under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux. A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to outdoor lighting would be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting (Figure 3), which then would be balanced against other guideposts. c. CCT / Spectrum & Critical Wildlife Habitat i. Tracy Aviary Color temperature is one factor that influences the degree to which light at night affects wildlife. Depending on the group of organisms, color may be able to reduce or increase effects a little or a lot. One group where color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general, more attracted to blue, violet, and ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to different color temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This relationship has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific options for street lighting (Figure 4). For nearly all organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts. The difference between 2700 K and 3000 K tends to be small, and all full spectrum white lights (2700 K and up) are considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights. There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and mortality of migratory birds, however. Light visible from above affects the distribution of migratory birds 5, 6, but the satellite used for these studies does not distinguish between colors of light and in fact does not measure blue and violet light at all. The recommended approach to reduce impacts on migratory birds from roadway lighting is to fully shield lights to eliminate upward glare and to only use the amount of light necessary so that the reflected light is kept to a minimum. Current efforts to reduce bird mortality in Salt Lake City by the Tracy Aviary focus on voluntary efforts by building owners to shut off interior lights during migration. The amount of lighted window area on buildings correlates with bird collisions 7. The project team discussed these issues with Ms. Cooper Farr of the Tracy Aviary during the development of the Master Plan. Figure 4. Relative attractiveness of different LEDs and High Pressure Sodium to insects, as quantified Longcore et al.8 from an insect attraction curve developed by Donners et al.9 d. CCT / Spectrum & Dark Skies We followed the work of the Department of Energy with respect to the effect of different color temperatures on light pollution for astronomical observation 10. The DOE study modeled the effects of different combinations of spectrum, uplight, and intensity under different weather conditions, human vision adaptation levels, and distance from the lights. These results compare high-pressure sodium as the baseline, with PC Amber LED (1872 K), and 2700–6100 K LEDs. When compared on an equal basis for other factors (same uplight and intensity), only the PC Amber produced roughly equivalent light pollution compared with HPS and all full-spectrum LEDs produced significantly more light pollution, especially when considering human night vision. This difference is shown for a range of LEDs and HPS using the “starlight index”11 (Figure 5). When both HPS and LEDs were assumed to have 0% uplight and the LEDs were set at half the intensity of the LEDs, then LEDs with CCT < 3000 K were comparable to or produced less light pollution than HPS. Results were similar with HPS at 2% uplight and LEDs at 0% uplight and 50% intensity. The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS lamps, they must be 0% uplight, 50% less bright, and with a CCT of no greater than 3000 K. The minimum impact on light pollution could be achieved with PC Amber or comparable filtered LEDs that produce a similar CCT as HPS (~ 1800 K). Figure 5. Relative impact of LEDs and HPS compared with a source similar to daylight, using the starlight index9. 2700–3000 K LEDs are similar in impact to HPS if they are operated with half of the lumen output of the HPS. 4. Equity This Street Lighting Master Plan strives to provide an equitable approach to the recommendations and establishment of priorities for implementation. This approach identifies areas that are currently underserved with street and pedestrian lighting. Some of these areas have expressed concerns of safety, and would prefer to have more lighting installed in their neighborhood. Other areas, that currently darker and have few street or pedestrian lights, have expressed concerns about dark skies and light trespass, and would prefer to no additional lighting it their neighborhood. With these disparate perceptions, this Street Lighting Master Plan encourages on-going community engagement before implementing any street lighting projects to determine what lighting strategies the community would prefer. During this on-going public engagement process, it is important to include some public education about the issues involved with guideposts, including CCT issues that are discussed in this memo. It is also as important to implement pilot demonstrations that allow citizens to see and experience the lighting options, including CCT and dimming, to gather data to make a fully informed decision on the final street and pedestrian lighting strategies to implement in any neighborhood. 1 Gibbons, Clanton. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2014. p. 42 2 Bhagavathula, R., R. Gibbons, J. Hanifin, and G. Brainard. LED Roadway Lighting: Impact on Driver Sleep Health and Alertness, 2021. Pre-publication draft of NCHRP Research. p. Report 968. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 3 Garcia-Saenz, A., et al., Evaluating the association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate cancer risk in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives, 2018. 126(4): p. 047011. 4 Grubisic, M., et al., Light pollution, circadian photoreception, and melatonin in vertebrates. Sustainability, 2019. 11(22): p. 6400. 5 La Sorte, F.A., et al., Seasonal associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global Change Biology, 2017. 23(11): p. 4609–4619. 6 McLaren, J.D., et al., Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters, 2018. 21(3): p. 356–364. 7 Parkins, K.L., S.B. Elbin, and E. Barnes, Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist, 2015. 22(1): p. 84–94. 8 Longcore, T., et al., Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 511–521. 9 Donners, M., et al., Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 434–440. 10 Kinzey, B., et al., An investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. 2017, U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830): Richland, Washington. 11 Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj, Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE, 2013. 8(7): p. e67798. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, April 14, 2021 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Brenda Scheer was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner; Marlene Rankins, Administrative Assistant; and Aubrey Clark, Administrative Assistant. Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry read the Salt Lake City emergency proclamation. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chairperson Scheer was not present. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to participate during the meeting. He also provided the commission with information regarding how permits and zoning functions in the City. CONSENT AGENDA Red Rock Brewery Brewhouse at approximately 426 West 400 North - Conditional Use and Conditional Building and Site Design Review Time Extension Requests - MJSA Architects representing 200 West Holding, LC the property owner, is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension on the Conditional Use and Conditional Building and Site Design (CBSDR) approvals for a brewery at the above listed address. The Commission originally granted Conditional Use and CBSDR approval for this project on April 24, 2019. A one-year extension to the Conditional Use approval was previously granted on April 22, 2020. This request would extend both approvals to expire on April 24, 2022. The project is located within the TSA-UC-T (Transit Station Area Urban Center Transition) zoning district within Council District 3, represented by Chris Warton. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385- 226-3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2018-01008 & PLNPCM2019-00255 APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 24, 2021, MEETING MINUTES. MOTION Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners; Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Bookbinder Studios on 2nd West Design Review at approximately 422 South 200 West - A request by Scott Harwood, representing OZ Opportunity Fund LLC, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a 7-story, 83’-1" tall residential structure to be located on two contiguous parcels located at 418 S 200 W and 422 S 200 W. The proposed building will encompass 115 studio and one-bedroom units. The building will have two structured parking levels with 58 parking stalls and five levels of apartment units above. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height and modification to the required building entrances. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00035 Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on number of parking spaces provided Scott Harwood, Eric Hansen, and Jonathan Kland, applicants, provided a presentation with further details. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: • Clarification on entrance layout • Whether the entrance is visible from the street or the parking lot PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing; Lisa Hazel – Raised concern with energy efficiency and would like to see bike parking. Cindy Cromer – Stated that in the East downtown, a building of this height used to be an allowed use. She also stated she thinks it’s time that something is done about the fact that the planners are spending time on a request like this, where units that will be available and are modestly priced have been delayed arriving in the market place by the amount of time that the petition has been in the Planning Department. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing. The applicant addressed the public comments. The commission and applicant discussed the following: • Clarification on height of structure behind the proposal • Clarification on whether the City will be undertaking mandatory zoning amendments with the result of legislative changes • Affordable Housing Overlay zone • Design Review ordinance modifications and when a proposal for height should go before the Commission Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 3 MOTION Lyon Based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report, information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review request (PLNPCM2021-00035) for the project located at approximately 422 S 200 W with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan - Representatives from the Department of Public Utilities of the City will provide an overview of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan (Plan). Major changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach for choosing lighting strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. The 2020 City Street Light Master Plan includes all areas of the City and will impact all City Council districts. (Staff Contact: David Pearson, Streetlight Program Manager at (801) 483-6738 or david.Pearson@slcgov.com; or Marian Rice, Deputy Director at (801) 483-6765 or marian.rice@slcgov.com) Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, introduced Marian Rice, Deputy Director of Salt Lake City Department of Public Services, and Jesse Stewart Salt Lake City Department of Public Services. The following participants were also available for questions: • Laura Briefer; SLCDPU • Jesse Stewart; SLCDPU • Marian Rice; SLCDPU • David Pearson; SLCDPU • Dane Sanders, Clanton & Associates; • Annaka Egan, GSBS; • Jesse Allen, GSBS; • Travis Longcore; Jesse Stewart, provided a presentation with details regarding the proposal. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on how neighborhood byway is defined • Process when a resident request a light on their street • Clarification on whether there is a standard number of lights on a street PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing; Lisa Hazel – Stated her opposition of the request. Judi Short – Provided an email comment that was read into the record requesting to know the type of public engagement was performed. Dave Iltis – Stated his opposition of the request in its current form. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing. Dane Sanders addressed the public comments and concerns. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 4 The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on why the highest amount of kelvin was chosen MOTION Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings, analysis, testimony and plan presented, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 2020 Street Lights Master Plan and the accompanying Technical Guidance and Implementation document. With a recommendation to the City Council: 1. To further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures and further understand that fully. Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:05 pm. International Dark-Sky Association 5049 E. Broadway Blvd., #105, Tucson, AZ 85711 USA tel +1.520.293.3198 www.darksky.org Executive Director: Ruskin Hartley Emeritus Director: David L. Crawford, Ph.D. Board of Directors: Diane Knutson, President, USA • Kellie Pendoley, Vice President, Australia • Kim Patten, Treasurer, USA • Ken Kattner, Secretary, USA • Laurel Alyn-Forest, USA • Alejandro Sanchez Miguel, Spain August 16, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair Salt Lake City Council PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5476 Re: Street Lighting Master Plan Dear Chair Fowler and Councilmembers: The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is the recognized authority on light pollution and is the leading organization combating light pollution worldwide. We advocate for a future in which the night sky, filled with stars, is celebrated and protected around the world as shared heritage benefitting all living things. Protecting nighttime darkness and promoting quality outdoor lighting practices have distinct benefits for wildlife, human health and wellbeing, energy security, and pub- lic safety. Our vision is encapsulated in Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our- work/lighting/values-centered-outdoor-lighting/), a resolution adopted by our Board of Directors in January 2021. These values are in turn described by the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/lighting-principles/) jointly promoted by IDA and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES): 1. All light should have a clear purpose 2. Light should be directed only where needed 3. Light should be no brighter than necessary 4. Light should be used only when it is useful 5. Use warmer color lights whenever possible IDA supports the draft Street Lighting Master Plan that currently under consideration by the Salt Lake City Council. We find it to be consistent with both Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting and the Five Principles. It contains the best practices that we encourage for all jurisdictions, and if adopted it would set a new standard for street lighting plans for large cities. In particular, the IDA commends specific policy elements of the plan that give it flexibility while not compromising on core principles. These elements include: • A flexible approach to allow illumination levels below IES recommendations that en- courages dimming strategies based on community engagement and that benefits both dark skies and wildlife (Principles 3 and 4). • Use of zones for maximum permissible Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) values that limit 3000 kelvin (K) lighting to commercial zones; sets 2700 K as the maximum for residential zones without commercial elements; and establishes 2200 K as a maximum in open space and the industrial zones, which happen to be near sensitive natural resources in and near the city (Principle 5). • Inclusion of policy goals to minimize impacts on wildlife and to balance energy effi- ciency with human and environmental health needs (Principle 1). • A commitment to shielding decorative street lighting to eliminate uplight (Principles 1 and 2). • Specific commitment to reduce the obtrusive effects of light at night, including light trespass onto private property, light pollution affecting the region, and glare that re- duces visibility and nighttime safety and comfort (Principle 2). Municipal lighting systems represent a large component of the light pollution generated by cities in the United States. This plan, when implemented, will reduce light pollution from Salt Lake City and make it a leader in this field. We have experience with the successful LED streetlight conversion of Tucson, Arizona, that measurably decreased the city’s light emissions (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti- cle/abs/pii/S0022407317308178). Appropriate technology and lighting design approaches are available to upgrade street lighting systems, reduce energy consumption, and limit the adverse impacts of excessive artificial light at night. The Salt Lake City plan goes a step further to incorpo- rate 2200 K lighting in some areas, and offers flexibility to choose lower CCTs in residential and commercial areas. This plan would put Salt Lake City at the vanguard of outdoor lighting best practices among world municipalities. Given the above considerations, we urge the City to adopt the Street Lighting Master Plan. Yours sincerely, John C. Barentine, Ph.D. Director of Conservation cc: Salt Lake City Council Hon. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Street Lighting Master Plan City Council Presentation August 17, 2021 Planning Commission Recommendation SLCDPU Presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14th 2021 •Planning Commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Street Lights Master Plan and the accompanying Technical Guidance and Implementation document. •Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures, and further understand that fully. Engagement Process Advisory Committee Technical Committee Residents selected by Council Staff Represent the interests and concerns of their district in relation to street lighting. •SLC Sustainability •SLC Fire Department •SLC Police Department •SLC Transportation •SLC Engineering •SLC Planning •SLC Parks and Public Lands Salt Lake City Transportation Division Salt Lake City Engineering Division Salt Lake City Planning Division Guideposts Color Temperature CCT = 1800K CCT = 2200K CCT = 2700K CCT = 3000K CCT and Dimming Pilot Study Dusk to 10pm Light Criteria 10pm to 12am Reduce Pedestrian Criteria 12am to 2am Light Criteria 2am to Dawn Reduce to Low Ped Criteria Thank You! ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10-14-2020 FROM: SUBJECT: Amy Fowler, Chair Laura Briefer, Director, Department of Public Utilities 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Jesse Stewart, Deputy Director, jesse.stewart@slcgov.com; Jason Brown, PE, Chief Engineer, jason.brown@slcgov.com; David Pearson, PE, Street Lighting Manager, david.pearson@slcgov.com; Jeff Snelling, PE, Senior Engineer, jeff.snelling@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan. BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year. The Street Lighting Utility budget is prepared annually, and implementation of this proposed plan will be reflected in future annual budgets. Due to certain recommended changes related to pedestrian lighting and safety, it is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund to implement the Plan beginning in Fiscal Year 2022. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City was the 5th City in the United States to have streetlights. The City’s first systematic plan for installing streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment Areas (SAA’s) to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund. Currently Public Utilities maintains over 15,500 streetlights within Salt Lake City boundaries. The Street Lighting Enterprise Fund was primarily developed to maintain existing lighting and upgrade fixtures to newer technology LED. First generation LED lights installed had few options regarding lumen output (measure of light output and brightness) and color temperature (whiteness of the light). The City’s practice was to replace the older fixtures with LED fixtures at the same lumen output using a 4,000-Kelvin temperature, which at the time was the industry standard. These new LED fixtures had the same measurable light output but were perceived as a brighter light. During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation began in the residential neighborhoods, there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle 10/14/2020 1/13/2021 Lisa Shaffer (Jan 13, 2021 13:43 MST) friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors. 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Development and Content In 2018, Public Utilities began the process of updating the Streetlighting Master Plan (Plan). This planning effort includes a review and update of policies related to the system, engagement of stakeholders in the planning process and design guidance for the City’s street light system. Public Utilities partnered with GSBS Consulting and Clanton & Associates to develop the Plan. This Plan provides design guidance for improving street and pedestrian lighting that will create a quality nighttime visual experience while being more energy efficient. Four guideposts, developed by stakeholder committees, that include Safety, Character, Responsibility, and Equity, drive the Plan’s policies. The Plan also draws on bodies of knowledge throughout the world regarding advancements in the technology and science of how we can light our public ways. The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan incorporates two volumes, including the Master Plan itself and Technical Guidance and Implementation guide. Both are attached to this transmittal, as well as the Executive Summary for the Master Plan. Primary components of the Plan include: •System Background •System Evaluation •Plan Guideposts •Street Lighting Basics Overview •Process for Evaluating the Lighted Environment •Comprehensive Improvements •Minimal Improvements •Lighting Controls and Adaptive Dimming Strategies •Lighting Calculations •Appendices o Lighting Terms o Meeting Notes o Existing Conditions Report o Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health (report) o Luminaire Submittal Form If approved, the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan would implement the following major policy statements for the City: 1)Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. 2)Street lighting standards will include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife, and dark skies lighting. 3) Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. 4) Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies of this Plan. 5) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. 6) Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. 7) Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the polices, standards, and strategies in the Plan. Implementation recommendations outlined in the Plan are as follows: 1)Priority One a.Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses b. High conflict areas including school zones, bus stops, transit stations, and neighborhood byways. 2)Priority Two a. Areas with non-compliant existing street lighting. 3) Ongoing a. Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate. b. Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity. c. Installation of dimming capability. d. New development or redevelopment proposals. 4) Step One a. Identify high conflict areas in the City b. Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods. c. Respond to requests from community or neighborhoods for lighting changes 5) Step Two a. Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according the matrix developed in the Plan. b. Identify the community preferred option. 6) Step Three a. Estimate cost of preferred option. b. Seek funding approval/develop financial strategy 7) Step Four a. Design, schedule, and implement the preferred option. If the Plan is adopted, it will reflect public feedback and the City’s street lighting system will be better incorporated into City livability and development goals. Major changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach for choosing lighting strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. Procedures for determining pedestrian lighting are included, as are lighting procedures for environmentally sensitive areas. Because of this, the current base street lighting standard will likely change depending on the land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. It is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and schedule for the street lighting system if this Plan is adopted, along with an updated evaluation of street lighting rates, rate structure and financial strategies for capital improvements. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Utilities consistently receives feedback regarding the current lighting system, both positive and negative. A major driver of the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan includes this public feedback. For instance, Public Utilities has received feedback regarding the performance of LED fixtures, public safety, environment, and equity. As part of the Plan effort, three groups were formed to advise in the development of the Plan. The first group, the Advisory Committee, consisted of representatives from each City Council District recommended by City Councilmembers or Council staff. Advisory Committee members were asked to provide input on lighting in their specific district and in common areas of the City. Throughout the course of developing the Plan this committee helped in evaluating the existing system and provided guidance pertaining to the Plan’s scope and reach. A second group formed as a Technical Committee consisting of staff from City Departments and Divisions who hold a direct interest in the street lighting program. Technical Committee members include representatives from Salt Lake City Police Department, Fire Department, Sustainability Department, Engineering Division, Planning Division, and the Urban Forestry Division. Technical Committee members provided input based on their unique responsibilities with respect to how streetlighting influenced their tasks. This committee provided direction in how lighting design criteria could assist in meeting the City’s goals and more specifically, helping to accomplish their Department’s individual responsibilities. The third group was formed from stakeholders in the community including representatives from agencies and groups in the transportation, education, environmental, and business sectors who have a vested interest in Salt Lake City. The primary purpose of this group was to provide input as the Plan progressed. This provided a level of transparency and allowed for feedback to ensure the Plan had a solid foundation to address the multiple values of a comprehensive lighting system. Public Utilities and the GSBS Consulting team met with the Advisory and Technical Committees to help frame the vision and goals of the Plan. The committees were encouraged to offer their opinion on existing lighting conditions throughout the City and what improvements could be made. These Committees toured 17 sites throughout the City with varied lighting characteristics and land use. At each of these sites committee members were asked several questions to gauge their opinion on the existing lighting conditions. The GSBS Consulting team also took light measurements at each of these locations to compare with current industry lighting standards. Using the data collected from the measured light readings and input from the committees, GSBS created an Existing Lighting Conditions report. This report summarized current lighting conditions to assist with developing design criteria and a future implementation plan using the guideposts detailed in the Plan. Meetings and Formal Engagement: •November 5, 2018: Street Lighting Site Tour and Surveys – Advisory and Technical Committees •April 3, 2019: Street Lighting 101 – Advisory Committee •April 25, 2019: Visioning Session – Advisory Committee •April 26, 2019 – Technical Committee •May 24, 2019: City Council and Mayor’s Office Briefing •July 29 and 30, 2019: Stakeholder Update •April 2019 – November 2019: Public Street Lighting Survey, 160 respondents •January 8, 2020: Progress Update – Advisory Committee •October 22nd, 2020: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (planned) Enclosures: Draft Ordinance Adopting the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Executive Summary 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 1 – Master Plan (June 2020) 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 2 – Technical Guidance and Implementation (June 2020) SALT LAKE CITY, UT Street Lighting Master Plan VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN JUNE 2020 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. 9 Current System Evaluation ................................9 Policy Statements ................................................10 Implementation Steps ..........................................11 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16 CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16 Special Improvement Districts ...................16 Private Lighting Program ..............................16 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17 Process ...................................................................17 CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19 Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19 Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20 Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24 Evaluation by Community/District ..........25 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27 Safety .........................................................................27 Character ..................................................................27 Responsibility .........................................................27 Equity .........................................................................28 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29 SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29 Health and Wellbeing..........................................29 Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29 LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29 Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29 Glare Reduction .....................................................31 Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32 Adaptation ...............................................................33 Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility ....................................................................34 Color Temperature and Nighttime Visibility .....................................................................35 Light Trespass ........................................................36 Light Pollution ........................................................37 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38 Initial Costs ..............................................................38 Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38 Maintenance ............................................................39 Energy ........................................................................39 Standardization .....................................................39 STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40 Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40 Purpose ................................................................40 Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40 Street Lighting Only ........................................42 Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43 Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 4 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Special Lighting Districts ............................ 45 Intersection Lighting .....................................46 Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47 Bus Stop ..............................................................48 Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48 IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48 Street Lighting Equipment and Technology ........................................................50 Lighting Improvements Complexity & Cost ...........................................52 Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52 Supplemental .....................................................52 Comprehensive .................................................52 PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52 Areas Underserved by Street Lighting ...................................................53 High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53 1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57 APPENDIX ..........................................................59 A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59 B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61 C. Existing Conditions Report Presentation ......................................................67 D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health ...........................................89 E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123 5 FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10 FIGURE 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20 FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24 FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25 FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29 FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31 FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32 FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33 FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34 FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35 FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36 FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37 FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy & Balance ...............................................................................38 FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39 FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41 FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section ..................................................................42 FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section............................................... 43 FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section...............................................44 FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section .............. 45 FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46 FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47 FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53 FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54 FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55 FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56 TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison 2006-2020 ........................................................................14 TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting Conditions Council District Locations ..................17 TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19 TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy and Implementation Items .........................................21 TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy By Land Use ....................................................................49 TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries By Land Use ......................................................................51 6 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7 The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was developed with the input and guidance of two committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders group. The Advisory Committee included representatives from: • Each City Council District • Department of Public Utilities • Mayor’s Office The Advisory Committee met six times during the process to provide guidance on policy issues: • Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys (November 5, 2018) • Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019) • Visioning Session (April 25, 2019) • Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24, 2019) • Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019) • 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020) The Advisory Committee created a list of lighting concerns and priorities for each district across the City as well as provided guidance on the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The second committee was the Technical Committee with representatives from the following City departments: • Police • Fire • Sustainability • Engineering • Planning • Urban Forestry Technical Committee members represented the interests of their departments in the master planning process. They also participated in the street lighting site tour. Technical Committee input also contributed to the vision and guiding principles used in the planning process. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The current system evaluation and the plan vision and guideposts were reviewed by stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with representatives from: • Education • Business • Transit/Multi-modal transportation • Environmental Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan. This draft plan is submitted to the City Council for review, possible revision, and adoption. Following adoption, the Department of Public Utilities will hold a series of community meetings to familiarize residents, developers, and stakeholders on the policies, standards and processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of existing street lighting conditions and a master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt Lake City-owned street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system, a process begun in 2013. In addition, the master plan identifies methods to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance through a lighting control system. The master plan identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. The goal of this document is to provide Salt Lake City with a consistent approach for street and pedestrian lighting that creates a quality nighttime visual experience. Street and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in how people experience the city in which they live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers and pedestrians understand the streetscape through visual cues and heightened awareness of their environment. Providing good visibility with lighting increases comfort levels and encourages use of public streets and spaces. The plan identifies a strategy that balances safety, character, responsibility, and equity using a series of guideposts for evaluating the lit environment and the technical elements of a streetlighting system. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION The Advisory and Technical Committees along with the consulting team surveyed seventeen locations in the city. In addition, the consulting team conducted nighttime surveys and measured the light levels along primary arterial, minor arterial, collector and local streets. Survey sites were selected in each Council District to represent a variety of existing lighting conditions throughout the city. Based on the survey and evaluations, the consulting team created an Existing Conditions Report (Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding relationship of visual perception to measured light levels. The consulting team categorized each survey site according to IES standards acceptability light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire spacing and measured lighting levels. The four levels of acceptability are: • Excellent. the survey sites identified as “Excellent” received the highest scores from the Advisory and Technical Committees, indicating excellent visibility, appropriate light levels, low glare, uniformity and good color. • Acceptable. the street meets lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Acceptable” require only LED retrofit. • Moderate. the street does not meet lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Moderate” require minor improvements to address relatively small dark spaces between poles as well as LED retrofit. • Poor. the street has very low or no street lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor” require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting standards. As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17 percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and 24 percent are Poor. The following policy statements are intended to guide the approach to addressing identified needs and gaps in the City’s current street lighting as well as apply to future changes in the system. 10 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The standards and implementation strategies to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SLC Public Utilities Excellent Site Acceptable Site Moderate Site Poor Site 1000 North I-80 Redwood RoadSouth Temple 400 South 900 South 1300 South 1700 South Sunnyside Avenue Footh i l l D r ive 1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1 2 Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd. & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700 South & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 500 West & Dalton Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St. Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St. & 2nd Ave. Local / Residential Poor 800 East & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200 South & Floral St. Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650 South & Main St. Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700 East & Harrison Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor 900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave. & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the policies, standards, and strategies in this plan. Road classification and adjacent land use are the driving factors in selection of street lighting type, spacing and light levels. There are neighborhoods and high conflict areas of the City that are recommended for priority implementation. In all cases, the initial step in implementation is coordination with the community and immediate neighborhood to ensure that the solution identified meets resident, business owner and user needs. Implementation recommendations prioritize the following: • PRIORITY ONE: - Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses. - High conflict areas including: • School Zones • Bus Stops • Transit Stations • Neighborhood Byways • PRIORITY TWO: - Areas with non-compliant existing streetlighting (luminaire, light source or pole spacing) • ONGOING: - Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate - Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity - Installation of dimming capability at neighborhood request - New development or redevelopment proposals STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix • Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option 12 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK SALT LAKE CITY, UT Street Lighting Master Plan VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN JUNE 2020 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................9 Current System Evaluation ................................9 Policy Statements ................................................10 Implementation Steps ..........................................11 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16 CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16 Special Improvement Districts ...................16 Private Lighting Program ..............................16 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17 Process ...................................................................17 CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19 Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19 Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20 Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24 Evaluation by Community/District ..........25 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27 Safety .........................................................................27 Character ..................................................................27 Responsibility .........................................................27 Equity .........................................................................28 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29 SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29 Health and Wellbeing..........................................29 Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29 LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29 Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29 Glare Reduction .....................................................31 Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32 Adaptation ...............................................................33 Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility ....................................................................34 Color Temperature and Nighttime Visibility .....................................................................35 Light Trespass ........................................................36 Light Pollution ........................................................37 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38 Initial Costs ..............................................................38 Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38 Maintenance ............................................................39 Energy ........................................................................39 Standardization .....................................................39 STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40 Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40 Purpose ................................................................40 Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40 Street Lighting Only ........................................42 Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43 Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 4 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Special Lighting Districts ............................45 Intersection Lighting .....................................46 Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47 Bus Stop ..............................................................48 Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48 IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48 Street Lighting Equipment and Technology ........................................................50 Lighting Improvements Complexity & Cost ...........................................52 Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52 Supplemental .....................................................52 Comprehensive .................................................52 PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52 Areas Underserved by Street Lighting ...................................................53 High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53 1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57 APPENDIX ..........................................................59 A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59 B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61 C. Existing Conditions Report Presentation ......................................................67 D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health ...........................................89 E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123 5 FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10 FIGURE 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20 FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24 FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25 FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29 FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31 FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32 FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33 FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34 FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35 FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36 FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37 FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy & Balance ...............................................................................38 FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39 FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41 FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section ..................................................................42 FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section...............................................43 FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section...............................................44 FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section ..............45 FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46 FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47 FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53 FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54 FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55 FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56 TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison 2006-2020 ........................................................................14 TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting Conditions Council District Locations ..................17 TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19 TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy and Implementation Items .........................................21 TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy By Land Use ....................................................................49 TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries By Land Use ......................................................................51 6 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7 The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was developed with the input and guidance of two committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders group. The Advisory Committee included representatives from: • Each City Council District • Department of Public Utilities • Mayor’s Office The Advisory Committee met six times during the process to provide guidance on policy issues: • Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys (November 5, 2018) • Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019) • Visioning Session (April 25, 2019) • Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24, 2019) • Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019) • 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020) The Advisory Committee created a list of lighting concerns and priorities for each district across the City as well as provided guidance on the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The second committee was the Technical Committee with representatives from the following City departments: • Police • Fire • Sustainability • Engineering • Planning • Urban Forestry Technical Committee members represented the interests of their departments in the master planning process. They also participated in the street lighting site tour. Technical Committee input also contributed to the vision and guiding principles used in the planning process. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The current system evaluation and the plan vision and guideposts were reviewed by stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with representatives from: • Education • Business • Transit/Multi-modal transportation • Environmental Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan. This draft plan is submitted to the City Council for review, possible revision, and adoption. Following adoption, the Department of Public Utilities will hold a series of community meetings to familiarize residents, developers, and stakeholders on the policies, standards and processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of existing street lighting conditions and a master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt Lake City-owned street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system, a process begun in 2013. In addition, the master plan identifies methods to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance through a lighting control system. The master plan identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. The goal of this document is to provide Salt Lake City with a consistent approach for street and pedestrian lighting that creates a quality nighttime visual experience. Street and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in how people experience the city in which they live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers and pedestrians understand the streetscape through visual cues and heightened awareness of their environment. Providing good visibility with lighting increases comfort levels and encourages use of public streets and spaces. The plan identifies a strategy that balances safety, character, responsibility, and equity using a series of guideposts for evaluating the lit environment and the technical elements of a streetlighting system. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION The Advisory and Technical Committees along with the consulting team surveyed seventeen locations in the city. In addition, the consulting team conducted nighttime surveys and measured the light levels along primary arterial, minor arterial, collector and local streets. Survey sites were selected in each Council District to represent a variety of existing lighting conditions throughout the city. Based on the survey and evaluations, the consulting team created an Existing Conditions Report (Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding relationship of visual perception to measured light levels. The consulting team categorized each survey site according to IES standards acceptability light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire spacing and measured lighting levels. The four levels of acceptability are: • Excellent. the survey sites identified as “Excellent” received the highest scores from the Advisory and Technical Committees, indicating excellent visibility, appropriate light levels, low glare, uniformity and good color. • Acceptable. the street meets lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Acceptable” require only LED retrofit. • Moderate. the street does not meet lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Moderate” require minor improvements to address relatively small dark spaces between poles as well as LED retrofit. • Poor. the street has very low or no street lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor” require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting standards. As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17 percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and 24 percent are Poor. The following policy statements are intended to guide the approach to addressing identified needs and gaps in the City’s current street lighting as well as apply to future changes in the system. 10 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The standards and implementation strategies to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SLC Public Utilities Excellent Site Acceptable Site Moderate Site Poor Site 1000 North I-80 Redwood RoadSouth Temple 400 South 900 South 1300 South 1700 South Sunnyside Avenue Footh i l l D r ive 1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1 2 Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd. & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700 South & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 500 West & Dalton Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St. Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor 800 East & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700 East & Harrison Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor 900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave. & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the policies, standards, and strategies in this plan. Road classification and adjacent land use are the driving factors in selection of street lighting type, spacing and light levels. There are neighborhoods and high conflict areas of the City that are recommended for priority implementation. In all cases, the initial step in implementation is coordination with the community and immediate neighborhood to ensure that the solution identified meets resident, business owner and user needs. Implementation recommendations prioritize the following: • PRIORITY ONE: - Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses. - High conflict areas including: • School Zones • Bus Stops • Transit Stations • Neighborhood Byways • PRIORITY TWO: - Areas with non-compliant existing streetlighting (luminaire, light source or pole spacing) • ONGOING: - Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate - Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity - Installation of dimming capability at neighborhood request - New development or redevelopment proposals STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix • Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option 12 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 13 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYSalt Lake City was the fifth city in the United States to have electric lights. By 1887, streetlights were operating on Main Street and along First and Second South Streets. The City’s first systematic plan for locating streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent previous update to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting plan was completed in 2006 when the system was operated and maintained by the Salt Lake City Transportation Department within the Community Development Department. In 2012 responsibility for streetlight policy, operations and maintenance was transferred to the Street Lights Department within the Department of Public Utilities. This move coincided with the implementation of a monthly user included in business and residential public utility bills along with drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The Department manages and maintains more than 15,500 streetlights in Salt Lake City and has overseen the conversion of the City’s inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps with a target completion date of 2021. The Department placed the conversion to LED streetlights on hold in 2018 to allow this Street Lighting Master Plan to guide the conversion of the remaining streetlights. As part of the Street Light Master Plan update, the current system was reviewed and recommendations for changes to the system and updates to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting policies were developed. In addition, guidance for installation of new lighting in newly developed areas as well as changes to existing areas is included in Volume 2 - Technical Guidance and Implementation Plan. SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY 14 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYThe 2012 LED conversion project implements the 2006 Master Plan policy statements. In the interim there have been lighting technology advances, revisions in standards and a new awareness of the impact of exterior lighting on human and environmental health as well as attention to dark skies initiatives. This plan updates Salt Lake City’s policies and standards to reflect these advances and changes. Table 1 provides a comparison of the 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan policy statements and revisions and additions to those policy statements recommended in this update to the Plan. TABLE 1 - PLAN POLICY STATEMENT COMPARISON 2006 TO 2020 2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES recommendations Revise policy: Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES recommendations with allowances for adaptive standards that encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, community engagement, wildlife and dark skies lighting. Lighting level and design will be upgraded to current standards as lights are replaced and new lights are installed No Change All newly installed utility lines shall be underground No Change When practical installation of underground conduit for utility lines shall be included in road reconstruction projects No Change Only dedicated publicly owned streets are eligible for street lighting funded by the City No Change (Possible future revision for public alleyways. Discussion with transportation and planning.) Placement of street light poles shall meet safety standards including lateral clearance requirements No Change Energy efficient lights shall be used for new and replacement lighting. Revise policy to balance energy efficiency with human/environmental health. Process to identify areas better suited to amber LEDs primarily for open space and wildlife. All new streetlights must meet, at a minimum, the “dark sky semi-cutoff” standard with the exception that all new “shoe box” or “cobra head” style streetlights must meet the “dark sky cutoff” standard. Provide street and pedestrian lighting that reduces the obtrusive effects of light at night, including light trespass that intrudes on private property, light pollution to preserve dark skies, and glare that reduces visibility and annoys drivers, pedestrians and residents. 15 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS Lighting appropriate for conditions shall insure uniform and safe lighting on major streets and commercial district streets No change to the policy. Standards relating to decorative poles and fixtures to be updated. Standards relating to private lighting standards in the Northwest Quadrant to be developed. Public input may be sought regarding fixture and pole type in commercial areas Additional public input may be sought to determine maximum and minimum light levels on residential collector and local streets for adaptive dimming application. Residential neighborhoods may adopt a decorative street light fixture and pole from the approved list on non-major streets in accordance with a neighborhood master plan No Change All new and replacement lighting shall be from the approved list developed by the City Transportation Engineer No change to the policy (except departmental designation.) Possible changes to the approved list. It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to support the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles in the design and operation of street lighting within Salt Lake City. No Change (except departmental designation) It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to support the use of banners on street light poles to enhance a sense of community and contribute to traffic calming. No Change (except departmental designation) It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to coordinate the location of new street lights with the Salt Lake City Forester and, in turn, coordinate on the planting of new trees such that both are compatible in providing desired benefits to the neighborhood. No Change (except departmental designation) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. Pedestrian scale lights (typically 12’ to 15’ mounting height) are on any streets where streetlighting alone does not effectively illuminate the sidewalk due to shadowing from trees, or the location of the sidewalk in relation to the street. Pedestrian scale lights on local residential streets to minimize light trespass and create more pedestrian friendly streets, and in commercial areas to encourage pedestrian usage. 16 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION2006 STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN Salt Lake City last published a Street Lighting Master Plan in 2006. While most of the lighting principles and goals from 2006 are continued in this master plan, technical advancements in lighting equipment have allowed improvements to be made in the control and application of light. The 2006 Master Plan pushed the lighting in the city to be safer and more pedestrian friendly while minimizing light pollution and light trespass. It encouraged the use of decorative luminaires to match the character of the neighborhood or enhance downtown commercial districts. These principles of safety and character established in 2006 are guideposts to this Master Plan and will be continued in the lighting strategies and principles throughout the City. The new Master Plan is striving to create a more pedestrian centric city where auto-alternate solutions can be safer and more widely used. The new plan is still encouraging the use of decorative luminaire options in certain areas throughout the city but is requiring enhanced control of light to further minimize light pollution and light trespass. Since 2006 advances in LED technology have allowed for significant increases in control of light distribution and color. The new Master Plan takes advantage of these advances to recommend the best lighting solutions for each block based on adjacent land use, pedestrian volume, and environmentally sensitive areas. The new plan sets luminaire criteria for lumen output, distribution, and color temperature to ensure appropriate and effective lighting that aims to reduce light pollution and light trespass. Additionally, this master plan provides guidance on lighting controls to help the City establish a citywide wireless control network that will assist in more efficient management and control of streetlights. SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Certain areas within the City have decorative lighting as a replacement or supplement to the baseline lighting as part of a Special Improvement District. In these residential or commercial areas, the property managers agree to pay the capital costs for new or replacement lighting plus 75% of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Special Improvement Districts include the Cactus Poles in the downtown commercial area and the pedestrian post top lights in the Rose Park Neighborhood. PRIVATE LIGHTING PROGRAM In 1995 Salt Lake City started the Private Lighting program, allowing residents to purchase, install and maintain streetlights on their blocks. The program is designed to allow the residents of Salt Lake to choose the poles and luminaires that are installed on their block while still ensuring sufficient lighting in the neighborhood. Each block is required to have at least six lights, including at least one at each intersection. Lights are owned by the residents and are connected to home of the owner with underground wiring. Residents can apply for a one-time grant from the city to help offset costs. Depending on funding, the grant can be up to $5,000 per block, but must be matched by the neighborhood, dollar for dollar. The City must approve all lighting equipment and will inspect all installations. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION 17 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS PROCESS The Advisory and Technical Committees surveyed seventeen sites in different areas of the city. The sites were selected based on street type, arterial, collector, or residential, and on their surrounding environments in the city, industrial, commercial, transit or residential. The diversity of the sites provide an understanding of the lighting and environmental conditions found in different neighborhoods and along different transportation corridors throughout the city. Only streets, sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of Way were evaluated. Privately owned lighting was not included. The survey asked participants about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions at each of the following seventeen sites. TABLE 2: STREET AND SIDEWALK LIGHTING CONDITIONS COUNCIL DISTRICT LOCATIONS LOCATION CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL DISTRICT Sterling Drive & American Beauty Drive Local/Residential 1 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park 1 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial 1 & 2 Boundary 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential 2 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential 2 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial 2 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential 3 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial 3 & 4 Boundary 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial 4 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial 4 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential 5 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial 5 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential 5 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential 6 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial 6 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential 7 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial 7 The survey included the following statements to which participants indicated their level of agreement by ranking their response between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree. • It would be safe to walk here alone during daylight hours. • It would be safe to walk here alone during darkness hours. • The light is uneven (patchy). • The light sources are glaring. • The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood. 18 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTo supplement survey responses, High Dynamic Range photographs were taken and horizontal and vertical illuminance light measurements recorded for the sidewalks and luminance measurements taken along the roadway at each site. The measurements were compared to recommended levels in the IES Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18). Based on survey results, HDR photographic evidence and light measurements, the consulting team rated lighting at each site as Excellent, Acceptable, Moderate or Poor. Excellent rated lighting is sufficient and appropriate on the roadway, provides adequate vertical illumination to allow for object detection and facial recognition. Excellent lighting is relatively uniform, free of direct glare and properly illuminates the roadway and sidewalk. Acceptable rated lighting is comfortable. In some cases, such as residential areas, the light level might be lower than the IES Recommended Practice but the lack of glare and shadowing from surrounding landscaping, along with some surrounding surface brightness, creates a comfortable nighttime environment without light trespass. Moderate rated lighting does not provide enough light on the roadway or on the sidewalk. The color of the light may be inconsistent, and the presence of glare may result in an uncomfortable space. Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees, and lighting was not appropriately spaced. Poor rated lighting occurs when the luminaires are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light levels and uniformity or there are no luminaires on the street at all. These sites included residential areas without sufficient light, industrial sites and an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning. Of the 17 sites evaluated, three were excellent. Of the excellent sites one is a local residential street and two are arterial commercial streets. Six sites were ranked good. Of the good sites five are arterials, one adjacent to a park, one in a residential area, three in commercial areas, and one is a collector in a residential area. Four sites were moderate. Of the moderate sites two are local residential streets, one is a collector in a residential/commercial area, and one is an arterial in a residential/commercial area. Four sites were rated poor. Of the poor sites one is a collector in an industrial area, two are local residential areas and one is an arterial residential area. 19 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTable 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings SITE #CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LIGHTING RATING 1 Sterling Drive & American Beauty Drive Local/Residential Excellent 2 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park Acceptable 3 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial Poor 4 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential Poor 5 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential Acceptable 6 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial Moderate 7 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential Poor 8 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial Excellent 9 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial Excellent 10 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial Acceptable 11 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential Poor 12 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial Acceptable 13 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential Moderate 14 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential Acceptable 15 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial Moderate 16 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential Moderate 17 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial Acceptable The ratings provide an understanding of the variety of nighttime environments in different areas of the city and guided the development of improvement options. Each option focuses on improving light levels and uniformity, reducing glare, and enhancing wayfinding. The full report including site specific metrics can be found in Appendix C. CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE PLAN SALT LAKE In Plan Salt Lake adopted in 2015 the community identified 13 guiding principles. Although not always specifically mentioned, high quality street lighting can contribute to achievement of most of the guiding principles. Six of the principles can be directly affected through the implementation of quality street lighting: 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 4/A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. 6/Minimize our impact on the natural environment. 7/Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 20 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION8/A beautiful city that is people focused. 13/A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. Plan Salt Lake includes specific initiatives to that mention street lighting to achieve the Guiding Principles. These include “Incorporate pedestrian oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks” as an initiative to create a safe mobility network. This is a critical initiative to achieve several other initiatives, including overall connectivity and safety in the public realm. Plan Salt Lake also includes an initiative to “promote and expand the city’s street lighting program throughout the City” as part of the beautiful city Guiding Principle. This is also a critical initiative to achieve several other initiatives, including reinforcing and preserving neighborhood and district character and providing a strong sense of place. In addition, implementation of this Street Lighting Master Plan to identify and address current gaps in service and upgrade overall lighting will contribute to the fulfillment of several other of the Guiding Principles. NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS Salt Lake City has completed eleven neighborhood master plans for the areas of the City represented on the map in Figure 2. Figure 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map - 2017 21 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONThe master plans date from the 1980s through 2017 with amendments and updates. Street lighting is mentioned in many of them as a tool to enhance community character and identify the City’s special lighting district program as a tool for implementation. Several of the plans also identify the installation of pedestrian level lighting as a community enhancement strategy. Some plans identified specific policies and implementation measures relating to street lighting as identified in the table below: TABLE 4: STREET LIGHTING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS COMMUNITY ADOPTION GOAL OR POLICY STATEMENT ACTION OR IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS Avenues 1987 None • Streetscape “demonstration project” to illustrate use of streetscape, including street lighting, to improve the neighborhood. Capitol Hill 1999 Amended 2001 • Coordinate any new street lighting program in designated historic districts with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure the design of the street lights are compatible with the historic character and comply with the historic district regulations. • Provide a consistent design theme and increase the amount of street lighting on 300 West and 400 West. • Analyze the feasibility and demand for increasing the amount of street lighting in areas of the Capitol Hill Community where needed and determine funding sources. • Develop and implement a consistent lighting and street furniture theme for the Capitol Hill neighborhood (north of North Temple). Central 2002 Amended 2006 • Relate right-of-way designs to land use patterns. • Ensure that public streets are maintained and improved throughout the Central Community • Encourage where appropriate rights- of-way that have landscaped street medians, landscaped park strips, street trees, on-street parking, pedestrian lighting, and furnishings such as major arterials. • Provide consistent neighborhood design themes for street lighting and ensure that street lighting is provided at a pedestrian scale. Coordinate street lighting in designated historic districts with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure that compatible design and placement patterns are met. 22 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONDowntown 2016 • Make downtown a unique destination for visitors. • A complete pedestrian network that makes walking downtown safe, convenient and comfortable. • A public realm that is looked after 24/7. • A downtown known for its well-maintained public realm. • Maintain and refresh existing policies regarding sidewalk paving materials and street lighting in districts where these items have already been established in this plan or other plans such as the Street Lighting Master Plan. • Address pedestrian safety and comfort issues with regularly planted trees, shortened crossing distances, tighter curb radii, hawk or other pedestrian- activated signals, pedestrian lighting, and regularly spaced benches and seating. • Continue implementation of pedestrian lighting throughout downtown. • Maintain the city improvements such as street lights, seating, and paving. Westside 2014 • Create a more conducive environment for redevelopment at neighborhood nodes. • Street lighting should be emphasized at intersections and be scaled to the pedestrian level. 23 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEast Bench 2017 • Business Districts that Promote Neighborhood Identity • Improve the Street Rights-of- way to Create Beautiful and Safe Gateway Corridors • Dark Sky Friendly Lighting • Building features, such as height, placement and materials, as well as street improvements such as signage, landscaping, lighting, paving materials, and pedestrian crossings activate the individual business districts, create a distinct identity, create a sense of place, and help create a more pleasant auto- pedestrian interface. • Establishing a gateway should not stop at creating an entrance feature at the beginning of the street, but should carry through the entire length of the corridor with consistent design treatment, such as street lighting, street furniture, and pavement treatments that relate to the character of each gateway. • The East Bench is the interface between the natural and urban environment. As such the built environment within the community should respect the natural surroundings. One particular aspect of development that can impact both the natural and human environment is lighting. In an effort to minimize disruption to wildlife, impacts on adjacent property, and the community’s enjoyment of the night sky, lighting should: - Only be on when needed; - Only light the area that needs it; - Be no brighter than necessary; - Minimize blue light emissions; and - Be fully shielded and pointing downward. Northwest 1990 None None Northwest Quadrant 2016 • Promote the design of transportation corridors that support the natural landscape • North of I-80, provide a common Northwest Quadrant design theme for the public infrastructure, such as native landscaping, lighting, bridge design, signs, etc. • Use appropriate but minimal levels of lighting to keep sites darker near Natural Areas - Direct lights down and away from natural habitats. - Avoid tall street lights that may negatively impact wildlife habitat. - Use the minimum number of street lights necessary for safety. - Along trails, use lights that only light the trail and not wildlife habitat. • Street lighting should use poles and fixtures that are compatible with the natural environment. 24 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONIt’s clear from Salt Lake City’s adopted policy statements and implementation priorities in both citywide and community-level plans that pedestrian level street lighting is an important element for creating a sense of safety and community. LIGHTING LEVELS & GAPS Implementation of Salt Lake City’s current lighting policy, standards, and approach is illustrated in the streetlight density map in Figure 3. Key Lighting Strategies Heat Map SLC Boundary Streetlights Dense Sparse Each streetlight in the City is represented as a white dot on the map. The density of lighting generated is represented from gray and blue in the lowest light density areas to yellow in the highest light density areas. Not surprisingly, the highest density lighting occurs in Salt Lake’s commercial areas including downtown and the Sugar House business district and along arterials and other major highways. Lowest light density occurs in residential neighborhoods, parks, and industrial areas. Non-Salt Lake City Public Utilities lighting, including the interstate highways, at the University of Utah and at the Salt Lake International Airport, is not represented. Figure 3: Street Light Density Map 25 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEVALUATION BY COMMUNITY / DISTRICT The approach to recommended street lighting improvements in this plan is influenced and informed by the street classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian levels, and specific situations found in each area of the City. Because past policies focused on street lighting for safety on the City’s roads, most areas of the city have lighting in compliance with IES and APWA road safety standards. As seen in the summary adopted master plan goals and implementation measures, many neighborhoods in the city would like to see additional pedestrian level lighting. Figure 4 is a map of the existing character districts in the City. Sugar House Wasatch Hollow Liberty Wells Glendale Central City/Liberty Wells Yalecrest Ballpark Central City DowntownPoplar Grove Fairpark Rose Park Capitol Hill Westpointe Greater Avenues SL International Airport East Liberty Wells East Central/Yalecrest East Central East Central/East Liberty Park Downtown/ Central 9th Ballpark/Central 9th East Central/University Gardens Federal Heights/Greater Avenues Residents, developers, and other interested parties can identify existing lighting location and type using the interactive map on the city’s website. The map provides the following information: • Location • Pole type • Luminaire type • Light source Figure 4: Community Character Map 26 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 27 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS PLAN GUIDEPOSTThe Advisory and Technical Committees developed a series of guideposts as a basis of evaluating street and pedestrian lighting characteristics. The four guideposts: • Safety • Character • Responsibility • Equity Lighting improvement strategies and characteristics were evaluated based on these guideposts. The safety, character and responsibility guideposts depend on the district in which the lighting is located and adjacent land uses. The equity guidepost underpins the entire plan and implementation strategy to encourage lighting improvements based on community need. The guideposts are intended to result in design decisions that contribute to safe and comfortable nighttime environments. The application of the guideposts and the design decisions they affect contribute to identifying lighting designs and approaches that best fit the needs of each project. SAFETY Appropriate street and pedestrian lighting improves safety by improving visibility for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Effective visibility in the nighttime environment depends more on the quality of light than the quantity. Higher light levels do not always result in better visibility. The qualities of light that achieve excellent visibility and therefore improve safety are: • Appropriate Light Level • Reduced Glare • Uniformity vs. Contrast • Adaptation • Color CHARACTER Salt Lake City’s existing street and pedestrian lighting is diverse with a variety of historic and industrial cobra-head style lights. Special Districts use street lighting to create distinct character and enhance the unique identity of the district. The characteristics of street and pedestrian lighting that can support and enhance the character of an area include: • Scale: Street Scale, Pedestrian Scale • Style: Luminaires, Mounting Brackets, Poles, Pole Bases, Additional Amenities • Appropriate Light Level • Glare • Color: Finish Color, and Color of Light Source RESPONSIBILITY Responsible implementation of street lighting includes minimizing potential negative effects of light intensity and spectrum on human and ecological health balanced with the responsible use of public funds. This is a complex challenge that includes many issues that sometimes require balancing opposing opinions and perspectives. This Master Plan references the 28 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXISTING CONDITIONSlatest research in the effects of light intensity and spectrum on visibility and human and ecological health in exterior nighttime environments. To implement the Responsibility guidepost the following issues are considered and balanced: • Light Trespass • Light Pollution • Health & Wellbeing • Impacts on Wildlife • Energy Use • Cost • Maintenance EQUITY The implementation of this Street Lighting Master Plan is intended to address issues related to street lighting in the most equitable way possible. The prioritization of street lighting funding will be an ongoing process within annual budget allocations. Recognizing that there are differing opinions throughout the City about the balance between the Guideposts and how to implement the Lighting Strategies in this master plan, particularly in residential neighborhoods, it is important that there is ongoing public engagement to determine the appropriate lighting strategies within each neighborhood. While some lighting strategies will be optional, there are some minimum requirements for lighting improvements to address safety needs in a consistent way throughout the Salt Lake City. • Ongoing Public Engagement • Prioritizing Areas Currently Underserved by Street Lighting 29 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS HEALTH AND WELLBEING The natural daily cycle of light and dark is directly linked to the healthy sleep/wake cycles, also known as circadian rhythm. Light is the primary stimulus that triggers the suppression of melatonin in humans. Darkness at night is needed to allow the production of melatonin for healthy and complete sleep. Exposure to blue spectrum light after sunset can delay the nighttime production of melatonin. Controlling glare and light trespass and using light sources with warmer color reduces the exposure to blue spectrum content of LED for street, pedestrian, and area lighting. Warmer colors encourage healthy melatonin and sleep patterns for residents. It is also important to note that the current status of research related to light exposure at night and human health is still ongoing. According to the Lighting Research Center1 at typical street lighting levels, per IES RP-8-18, using LED light sources are “below the threshold for suppressing nocturnal melatonin (in humans) by light at night following a 30-minute exposure”. WILDLIFE IMPACTS Salt Lake City contains important wildlife habitat, from the foothills in the east to the open shore lands of the Great Salt Lake. Additional wildlife habitat is found along the north-south route of the Jordan River and along the four urban creeks extending west and south out of the foothills. Light at night can disrupt these wildlife habitats. Migratory species pass through the city itself, with nocturnally migratory birds attracted to the city lights. Controlling light pollution and light trespass, using only necessary lighting levels, and choosing an appropriate spectrum (color) of light for each area can protect these natural resources. Dimming lights during seasonal bird migrations is another wildlife-friendly approach. LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS Each of the following characteristics represent considerations and decisions to be made in implementing street lighting in the various areas and neighborhoods of the city. Each characteristic is evaluated based on each of the guideposts. When one or more of the guideposts converge and coalesce around the characteristic, synergy is created. When the guideposts diverge decisions must be made to balance competing needs. Each characteristic is identified and described then evaluated based on four Guideposts. A comparative example of the characteristic is also included to enhance understanding of the concept. APPROPRIATE LIGHT LEVELS Appropriate light levels vary based on roadway classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and proximity to open space and wildlife habitat. The recommendations in the plan apply adaptive lighting criteria to the Illuminating Engineering Society’s Recommended Practice for Street and Roadway Lighting (IES RP-8-18) to allow for dimming during reduced pedestrian activity and the use of broad spectrum, white light sources, such as LED. Character, Safety and Equity converge around moderate light levels. • Using appropriate amounts of light increases nighttime visibility creating a safer and more comfortable environment. Figure 5: Appropriate Light Level 1 Rea MS, Smith A, Bierman A, Figueiro MG. 2012. The potential of outdoor lighting for stimulating the human circadian system. Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and Technologies (ASSIST) 30 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW • The City is working to upgrade lighting to appropriate light levels based on locations with the greatest need. Appropriate light levels are balanced with environmental responsibility. • In environmentally sensitive areas, lower light levels are desired. The City will be installing more environmentally friendly luminaires with a lower CCT and better glare control Appropriate Light Levels: This photo demonstrates appropriate light levels for a commercial area with medi- um to high pedestrian usage, where moderate light levels provide excellent visibility through out the public streets and sidewalks. 31 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWGLARE REDUCTION Glare is caused by excessive or undesirable light entering the eye from a bright light source. Glare can result in discomfort, annoyance, and decreased visibility. There is the potential for direct glare when a light source is in direct view. The presence of direct glare depends on the intensity of the light source and contrast with the surrounding environment. With direct glare, the eye has a harder time seeing contrast and details. A lighting system designed solely on lighting levels aim more light at higher viewing angles, thus producing more potential for glare. Direct glare can be minimized with careful equipment selection as well as placement. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around reducing glare levels as it leads to more effective lighting and safer, more comfortable environments. Reducing glare: • Improves visibility on the roadways • Creates a more enjoyable nighttime environment • Reduces sky glow and light trespass, minimizing the obtrusive effects of light. Figure 6: Glare Reduction Lights that create glare can result in a range of negative effects for drivers, pedestrians and residents. From annoyance to reduced visibility, and may generate complaints from residents. Lights with low glare provide more comfortable streets and public spaces, providing lights, where it is needed without annoying nearby residents. 32 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWUNIFORMITY VS. CONTRAST Lighting uniformity refers to the evenness of light. Our eyes are continually adapting to the brightest object in our field of view. Any object lighted to 1/10 the level of the immediate surroundings appears noticeably darker. For roadway lighting, good uniformity indicates evenly lighted pavement. However, good visibility requires the contrast of an object against the background. An environment with perfectly uniform lighting provides low contrast, which can reduce visibility. To create enough contrast for good visibility, there should be a balance between uniform perception and having enough contrast to improve visual detection of objects on the road. Uniformity criteria are typically described as ratios of maximum to minimum and average to minimum luminance or Illuminance. Contrast is the difference between two adjacent luminance values. High contrast is necessary for good visibility. Differences in color also produce a visible contrast, even when both objects have similar luminance values, which support the benefits of using higher color rendering sources, as discussed below in the Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility section. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around semi-uniform medium contrast lighting. This provides the proper balance of uniformity and contrast and is essential to quality lighting design. • Safety on the roadway is improved when street lighting properly strikes this balance, and subtle contrast can add character to an area with a unique lighting design. • When the proper balance of uniformity and contrast is achieved, the lighting is more effective at lower light levels reducing over lighting and light pollution. Figure 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare Color Contrast: In the photos above, the black- and-white image shows that the luminance of the flower and background are very similar. Only when the color is rendered does the color con- trast of the yellow flower make it highly visible next to its background. This demonstrates why street lighting with good color rendering can im- prove visibility of objects in a street, even at the same, or lower light levels. Further study on the effects of color contrast in street lighting appli- cations is needed to understand the improved visibility of broad spectrum light sources at light levels below current IES RP-8-18 recommenda- tions.2 2 Clanton N, Gibbons R, Garcia J, Mutmansky M. 2014. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Report #E14-286 33 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWADAPTATION Adaptation refers to the eye’s ability to adjust between changes in luminance. Our eye will automatically adjust to the brightest object in our field of view. Glare from headlights or fixed lighting can affect one’s ability to adapt to lower surface luminance. This is especially true as one ages. Another form of adaptation occurs when driving from a brightly lighted area to a non- lighted section of roadway. Here, the lighted area should slowly transition to darker to allow adaptation time. Off roadway brightness, such as driving past a brightly lighted gas station or LED sign, can also cause adaptation issues. While this Master Plan does not directly address lighting on private property, it is intended to set an example for future lighting guidelines that could apply these lighting strategies to all exterior lighting in Salt Lake City. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around low to medium levels of visual adaptation to improve visibility when transitioning from private parking lots and property into public streets. • When street lighting and adjacent private lighting is designed to appropriate light levels, the eye can maintain a proper degree of adaptation. When the eye is adapted to the existing light, it is more effective at detecting and identifying objects, increasing safety. Figure 8: Adaptation The privately owned lighting at this auto dealership are too bright and lack proper shielding creating high adaptation issues transitioning from the sales lot to the street. When roadways are illuminated to appropriate light levels with good control of light, the eye is able to adapt, increasing visibility and safety on the streets. 34 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR RENDERING AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is the standard metric used to evaluate how well a light source renders the true color of an object. CRI is measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 representing how an object would look under a reference incandescent light source. The higher the number, the better the color rendering capacity. Traditional High-Pressure Sodium (“HPS”) streetlights have a very low CRI of approximately 30, making color detection difficult. Today’s standard LED streetlights are not only significantly more energy efficient, they also have a much higher CRI, typically 65 or higher, increasing color detection, visual acuity, and overall effectiveness of the streetlights. LED lighting technology advancements allow streetlights to be tuned to a specific correlated color temperature (“CCT”) without drastically reducing the CRI. This technology can be used to reduce the color temperature in environmentally sensitive areas without significantly reducing the CRI, preserving the effectiveness of the lighting system. LED’s emit light across the visual spectrum, considered white light, which appears brighter at night. When traditional HPS lights are replaced with LED’s similar light levels often appear to be much brighter with LED lights. Residents may find the light to be obtrusive. When upgrading to LEDs in residential areas, it is essential to have a dimming system to respond to complaints from residents. Safety and character converge around using higher CRI of 65 or higher. Eliminating blue spectrum light with lower CRI is responsible in areas with critical wildlife habitat. • Using a higher CRI improves safety by increasing visual acuity and object detection, making the roads safer or vehicles and pedestrians. • Higher CRI improves character in the area by enhancing colors of landscaping and objects within the streetscape. • Within or adjacent to critical wildlife areas a luminaire with a lower CRI and CCT should be used to responsibly illuminate the area while also minimizing impacts on wildlife. This car is illuminated by two different light sources. On the left, an LED light, with high color rendering, clearly reveals the color and details of the car. On the right, a low pressure sodium light, with low color rendering, distorts the color of the car and details of the vehicle are not clear. Figure 9: Color Rendering 35 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR TEMPERATURE AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY Appropriate Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) of streetlights is largely depends on the location of the lights within the city. Salt Lake City consists of diverse land uses, ranging from high density urban areas to environmentally sensitive lowlands and foothills. Street type and adjacent land use determine the appropriate color of light. There are opposing effects on how the spectrum of light at night affects visibility for Safety and human and environmental health for Responsibility. Limiting the CCT of light sources for the City to a maximum of 3000K, and then adjusting to warmer CCT in residential and wildlife habitats provides a balance between the guideposts. CCT should vary throughout the City to achieve comfortable, safe and responsible street and pedestrian lighting throughout the City. • High Density Urban Areas – 3000K CCT (max). Lighting in higher density urban areas should prioritize color rendering for color contrast and object detection on the roadway. This increases visibility for drivers and pedestrians. In urban areas light should have a CCT of 3000K. This CCT is considered a warm white light source, which improves visibility at night, but also minimizes the amount of light in the spectrum that can cause disruptions to the surrounding environment as well as human health. The American Medical Association and International Dark Sky Association both recommend a maximum CCT of 3000K. • Residential Areas – 2700K CCT (max). Visual acuity from white light sources is needed for pedestrian safety, but residents typically prefer a warmer color temperature in their neighborhood. The recommended color temperature for residential local and collector streets is 2700K. On arterial streets in residential areas, 3000K CCT should be used due to increased speeds. This range will provide the appropriate amount of white light to preserve object detection but will also allow a warmer, more comfortable color of light in neighborhoods. • Environmentally Sensitive Areas – 2200K CCT (max). There are varying types of environmentally sensitive areas within and along the perimeter of the city. Where streets pass through or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, very warm, phosphor- converted amber light sources with CCT of 2200K or lower, should minimize impacts of light on plants and animals in the area. Additional shielding of both back light and front light may also be required to further reduce light trespass into these sensitive areas. Figure 10: Color Temperature In the distance, the warm amber glow of low CCT (1800K) high pressure sodium street lights is shown in comparison to higher CCT (4000K) LED street lights in the foreground. 36 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT TRESPASS Light trespass is defined as a stray light that crosses a property boundary. The most obtrusive form of light trespass is often caused by an excessively bright luminaire that is unshielded and distributes light into adjacent property. Uncontrolled, non-shielded light sources are usually the cause of light trespass. However, even a controlled, fully shielded luminaire may cause light trespass if not properly located or oriented. In cases where the location of a light standard cannot be changed, additional shielding may be necessary to prevent light trespass. Although designers should always strive to minimize light trespass, sometimes higher levels may be acceptable in downtown, commercial, and area adjacent to civic land uses. The following strategies will identify acceptable levels of light trespass to balance the design guideposts. • When designing in residential areas and environmentally sensitive areas, minimizing light trespass should be the highest priority. • When designing in downtown commercial or retail environments, pedestrian safety should prioritize increasing vertical light levels in crosswalks. • The character of a certain light may result in high levels of light trespass, but designers should strive to find luminaires that meet the character of the area while still maintaining zero uplight and minimizing light at angles known to be obtrusive. A pedestrian light with inappropriate light distribution and poor shielding creates a significant amount of light trespass on a nearby residence. Figure 11: Light Trespass A well shielded street light with appropriate light distribution provides adequate light for the street and sidewalk with minimal light spill beyond the sidewalk. 37 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT POLLUTION Light pollution and sky glow are caused by light aimed directly up into the sky and by light reflected from the ground or objects. Any additional light will add to light pollution. However, it is the direct uplight component that does not contribute to useful street level visibility, and is the most objectionable form of pollution. Unshielded luminaires are major contributors to sky glow. Over lighting, even with fully shielded or U0 luminaires, reflects unnecessary light into the atmosphere and adds to sky glow. To minimize light pollution, first minimize the overall amount of light. Exterior lighting should be used only where and when it is needed. Define the lighting requirements of each street or public area and provide only the necessary lighting. Street and pedestrian lighting in residential areas should be dimmable and have house side shielding options to allow the City to proactively address specific