The URL can be used to link to this page

01/10/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION January 10, 2023 Tuesday 4:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 4:00 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting No Formal Meeting Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled briefing meeting. Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 10:38:09 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Informational: SLC Emergency Management Update 2023 ~ 4:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an annual report of the City’s emergency procedures, the Council’s role in an emergency, and an overview of Emergency Management’s current programs and efforts. Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Informational: UTA Westside On-Demand Pilot Program Update ~ 5:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update about the Utah Transit Authority’s or UTA’s Westside On-Demand Pilot Program. Salt Lake City, in collaboration with UTA, launched the new service in December 2021 to improve connections to other transit services and the downtown for residential areas of Council Districts 1 and 2. For more information on this item visit www.tinyurl.com/transportationslc Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 4.Informational: Zero Fare Transit Study ~ 5:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a study by Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Utah Department of Transportation and the Mountainland Association of Governments. It evaluates potential impacts of expanding reduced fare or zero fare policies to different modes of public transit. This could be done in certain areas or the entire UTA service system. Salt Lake City participated in a zero fare pilot program February 2022. Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Informational: Utah Transit Authority Long-range Transit Planning ~ 6:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) long range transit plans. UTA has a five year service plan identifying needs and priorities over 2023 – 2028. UTA is also developing a 30-year transit plan with a comprehensive vision, assessing system wide needs, and strategies to improve transit. Salt Lake City partners with UTA on frequent west-east bus routes (service every 15 minutes), bus stop amenities, mobility hubs, transit passes for K-12 public school students, grant applications to fund capital projects, and the Sugar House S-Line Streetcar among many others. Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Dinner Break ~ 6:30 p.m. 30 min. 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 7.Informational: Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule Changes ~ 7:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update about upcoming changes to the Salt Lake City Lead and Copper Program for drinking water. The goal of this update is to provide information and receive feedback regarding the future implementation of changes to the Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Lead & Copper Rule, associated regulatory requirements, and the resulting changes to Salt Lake City’s Lead and Copper Program. Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Informational: Ranked Choice Voting Overview ~ 7:20 p.m. 30 min. The Council will have an internal discussion about an option for the 2023 municipal election to participate in the State-authorized Municipal Alternative Voting Method Pilot Program project, otherwise known as ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting. Under ranked choice voting, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Election equipment counts the preference numbers for each ballot. If none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the overall vote after the first round, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The voters who had selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice would then have their votes counted for their second- choice candidate. This process of elimination continues until a candidate crosses the 50% threshold and is declared the winner. For more information on this item visit www.tinyurl.com/councilRCV Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 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 scheduling items. 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 approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 5, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative Updates January 10, 2023 COVID-19 update Cases in Utah are down 23% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 1/3/2023)current status summary Cases in the US are up 2% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 1/3/2023) Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View COVID-19 Update Vaccination Info Where can I get vaccinated or boosted? 1) Any Salt Lake County Health Immunization Clinic –make an appointment by calling 385 -468- SHOT 2) Any CNS Mass Vaccination Location –CNS serves Salt Lake City at its 2830 S Redwood Road location. 3) Your local pharmacy or private provider –visit vaccine.gov to find a location or provider near you. Additional information: •There is no cost to get vaccinated. •People under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a guardian at their appointment. •For additional information on vaccinations and boosters visit:https://slco.org/health/COVID -19/vaccine/booster www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canTransportation •Comment period is closed •West Temple reconstruction •Virginia Street reconstruction •UDOTs I-15 EIS Comment period ends Friday •i15eis.udot.Utah.gov slc.gov/transportation Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canMayor’s Office slc.gov/mayor Community Office Hours Santo Taco (Corner of 400 South and State) Tuesday, January 10 4-6pm Crema Coffee & Soda (2112 E 1300 S) Wednesday, January 11 9-11am Hopkins (1048 E 2100 S) Thursday, January 12 2-4pm Merch Coffee (1550 S State St.) Wednesday, January 18 9-11am Mestizo Coffee (631 W North Temple) Friday, January 20 1-3pm Day-Riverside Library (1575 W 1000 N) Thursday, January 26 4-6pm Hatch Family Chocolates (376 8th Ave) Thursday, January 26 4-6pm Homelessness Update: Single Adult HRC Occupancy Jan 2-6, 2023 Homeless Resource Centers 94.9% HRC Overflow "Flex" Beds 81.3% Millcreek Overflow 82.2% St. Vincent de Paul Overflow 98.5% Rapid Intervention/ EIM •EIM's this week @ I-80 1300 East &200 South Redwood Road •RIT locations: •VOA Outreach Engagement 7 •RIT Cleanings 5 •Recurring Cleanings 18 Resource Fair •January 13th •9:30 -12:30pm •@Rio Grande Area Homelessness Update Annual Emergency Management Briefing Salt Lake City Council January 2023 Overview •Accomplishments & Goals •Emergency Management Staffing •Review Activation Levels & Notifications •2022: Examples of EOC Activation •EOC Materials for Council Members •Questions Accomplishments & Goals Fully-staffed with 10 FTEs (including Office Facilitator and PIO/JIC Coordinator)Complete New Firewise Community in partnership with Greater Avenues Community Council Complete Opt-in City emergency notification system is operational (Rave)Complete Add emergency management info to SLC New Employee Orientation Complete CERT class offerings in English and Spanish January 2023 Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) training for Public Utilities RE: water and waste-water management January 2023 Full-scale exercise Fall 2023 Monthly meeting/training sessions for EOC Operations section representatives In progress Monthly meeting to develop Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) evacuation plans In progress Continued division trainings and COOP planning In progress Maximizing current PSB office space to accommodate increased staff In progress Emergency Management Staffing Richard BodenEmergency ManagerDivision Chief Gary CarterDeputy Emergency ManagerAdministration Captain Audrey PierceInfrastructure Coordinator Summer MisnerPreparedness Coordinator Brian LeftwichPlanning / LEO Tom SimonsDeputy Emergency ManagerOperations Captain Eric WittTraining Coordinator Chance WilcoxLogistics/Special Project Coordinator Hannah YouellPIO / JIC Coordinator Casey PhillipOffice Facilitator Activation Levels & Notifications LEVEL 1 Highest level of activation Significant community disruption caused by a disaster or event You will be notified LEVEL 2 Significant level of activation Widespread community concern or community protective actions need to be addressed You will be notified LEVEL 3 Lowest level of activation There may be extraordinary public concern You may be notified LEVEL 4 No activation Monitoring and information gathering No notifications LEVEL 5 Normal day-to-day operations No notifications 2022: Examples of EOC Activation Incident Activated to Actions Taken October 2022: Sugar House Fire LEVEL #3 •Shelter •Evacuation •Feeding of evacuees at Reception Center and Crews on scene •Coordinated mobile restroom and Command Centers •Assisted with barricades •Coordinated meetings with RPs as well as Departments I-80 Fire LEVEL #4 On I-80 responded to ECC to assist with coordination efforts and if evacuations were needed Reported Active Shooter at West High (Hoax)LEVEL #4 West High (Active Shooter Hoax) began setting up ECC for coordination of JIC, Reunification, Policy Group Briefing, etc. EOC Materials for Council Members What are you receiving today? •Bag with the following •Helmet •Gray Vest with your name and district Should be used if you come to an incident location to identify you as a Council Member or part of the Mayor’s Office. Wearing the vest and helmet will not grant you access to a scene. Questions UTA Update Agenda: Salt Lake City Bus Service Update UTA On Demand Salt Lake City Westside Update Zero Fare Transit Study Update 30 Year Long Range Transit Plan Overview 2023 –2027 Final Draft Five-Year Service Plan Overview Carlton Christensen, Chair Board of Trustees Jay Fox, Executive Director UTA On Demand Salt Lake City Westside Service Update Vehicle Updates •Upfitted wheelchair accessible vehicles to side-loading vans •Installed bike racks on all vehicles •Increased accessible fleet to 50% Service Updates YTD •Attracted 2,648 unique riders •Avg. monthly growth: 28% •Avg. Cost per Rider: $18* *Cost per Rider averaged from August -November 2022 SLC Westside Highlights Monthly Ridership Growth 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Total Ridership Unavailable Rides Ridership YTD •52,438 Total Ridership •1,350% Total Growth •28% Avg Monthly Growth •2,648 Unique Riders 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 R I D E R S H I P SLC Westside Southern SL County SLC Westside & Southern SL County Zones Southern SL County SLC Westside •15 sq. miles •60K people •38K jobs •72 sq. miles •246K people •122K jobs Ridership Metrics •Total Ridership: 10,859 •Avg. Weekday Rides: 390 •Total Unique Riders: 1,117 •First/Last Mile Connections: 32% •Aggregated Rides: 37% November Service Performance Most Common Destinations •Arena Station •West High School •North Temple Station •1940 W North Temple Station •Salt Lake Central Station 2023 Ridership Projections - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Operational Plan Anticipated Funding Total Demand QUESTIONS 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: Dan Dugan, Chair FROM:Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT:UTA Westside On-Demand Update STAFF CONTACT:Julianne Sabula, Transit Program Manager, julianne.sabula@slcgov.com, 801-535-6678 DOCUMENT TYPE:Information Only RECOMMENDATION:The Administration hopes City Council will use this information to consider what, if any, changes should be made to this program as its pilot year comes to a close. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City, in collaboration with UTA, launched Westside On-Demand Service in the residential areas of Council Districts 1 and 2 in December 2021. The goal was to provide an additional option within the transit system for people in the Rose Park, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale neighborhoods to get around that is convenient, affordable, and right-sized for the land uses in the area. The new service has proven to be extremely popular; by September it had experienced 930% growth in ride requests, with a 74% increase from July to September alone. On an average weekday in October, 334 rides were completed, and there are 1,712 active riders using the service. Notably, 37% of rides start or end at a TRAX or FrontRunner station. In-app feedback shows riders give the service 4.7 of 5 stars due to quick response times (about ten minutes on average), driver friendliness, vehicle cleanliness, and overall convenience. Lisa Shaffer (Dec 12, 2022 14:58 MST)12/12/2022 12/12/2022 During the initial months, we made a number of adjustments to improve the customer experience, reducing the number of unfulfilled trip requests, reducing wait times, and providing travel training to individuals needing assistance with using the app, transferring, and other elements of using the service. The result has been reduced complaints and higher ratings. Now, however, the success of the program has introduced challenges. Ridership has grown very rapidly, and adjustments were made to maintain quality of service, but as growth continues we are beginning to see the level of service degrading. In an effort to evaluate what it would take to accommodate various growth scenarios while maintaining level of service, the team created projections in low, medium, and high growth categories, which we reviewed together in October. By the second week of November, we had reached an average weekday ridership that was at the high end of what had been projected over the course of 2023. At this time we are renewing our contract for the 2023 service year using the same level of funding as 2022, based on the Council-approved funding in the FY2022-2023 budget. At some point, we can expect to see the growth rate begin to plateau, though it is unclear when that will happen and at what level of daily ridership. Demand patterns can matter almost as much as level of demand. For instance, if twenty people request a ride at 8 am from all over the service area, it will require more vehicles and drivers to respond than if those same 20 requests trickled in throughout the day or were for trips to and from similar locations. The team is tracking these patterns and Via, the service provider, has the benefit of data from other cities in which they operate to inform adjustments to our particular service area. Staff would welcome Council input on goals, expectations, or related initiatives we should consider as we look at additional scenarios. Council may need to provide a significant increase in funding or significant decrease in service expectations to accommodate existing and future demand. If the trend line begins to level off, it will be easier to predict what that would look like. Questions to consider, along with detailed information about the On-Demand pilot, are included in Exhibit 1. PUBLIC PROCESS: None EXHIBITS: 1) UTA On-Demand Review SLC Westside October 11, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Update Presented by: Julie BjornstadSenior Transportation PlannerWasatch Front Regional Council Alex BeimActing Manager Long Range & Strategic Planning Utah Transit Authority January 2023Regional Zero-FareStudy Photo Source: WFRC ZERO FARE EVALUATION Study Context 2022 Free Fare February: Positive outcomes related to ridership, safety, customer experience, and funding support Regional interest in longer-term impacts of Zero Fare Examine other fare-based incentives to increase ridership Lower or zero-fares causes existing riders to ride more & attracts new riders Data informed process –on impacts of options 2 20% 40% ZERO FARE EVALUATION Fares Represent A Small Part of UTA’s Revenue 3 20% 40% $52 million $51 million $52 million $52 million $53 million $33 million $29 million $34 million $36 million 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% H o w m u c h F a r e s S u p p o r t O p e r a t i n g C o s t s How Much Fares Support Operating Costs and Total Fare Revenue Sales Tax 79% Federal Preventive Maintenance 13% Passenger/Fare Revenue 5% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 2023 Operating Revenue2023 UTA Budgeted Revenue By Source All Other Revenue3% Financial support and leadership for 2022 Free Fare February Funding more frequent and later evening service Downtown Fare Free Zone ZERO FARE EVALUATION Salt Lake City Has Actively Supported UTA with Fare Policy and Service 4 20% About 44% of UTA’s riders systemwide pay full fare Discount programs: –Salt Lake City Public School Transit Pass Program o Students, staff, and faculty get a zero-fare pass for transit o HIVE Pass Program o Salt Lake City residents get a 50% discount on a monthly pass, when registered and paid through utility bill –University Student Pass Program o University students, staff, and faculty receive a subsidized pass –Employer Pass Program o Reduced or zero-fares for to 70 employers in region, including in Salt Lake City –paid for by employer –Human Services Pass Program o Human service agencies get a 75% discount on passes, which are then provided free of charge to low-income clients ZERO FARE EVALUATION Most Riders in Salt Lake City Are Eligible to Receive a Fare Discount 5 20% Study Goals Evaluate the operational, financial, and community effects ofzero-fare transit Gauge transit values of stakeholders from across the service area Provide guidance around replacement funding for lostfare revenue Objectively inform decision making processes around the future of zero-fare transit 6 ZERO-FARE EVALUATION Study Alternatives #1: Systemwide Zero-Fare Elimination of fare collection on UTA bus, TRAX, FrontRunner, UTA On Demand and paratransit services #3: Zero-Fare for Low-Income Riders Elimination of fares for eligible low-income riders #2: Zero-Fareon Bus Elimination of fare collection on UTA bus, paratransit, and UTA On Demand #4: Lower Fares onAll Services Reduce base fare to $1 Reduce other fares and pass costs by about 60% 7 ZERO-FARE EVALUATION ZERO-FARE EVALUATION Zero-Fare Effects COSTS AND BENEFITS CAN BE ORGANIZED UNDER THREE COMMON THEMES: 8 Financial Health How zero-fare transit affects a transit agency’s short-and long- term financial wellbeing Operational Efficiency How zero-fare transit affects a transit agency’s ability to provide and operate quality service Community Benefits How zero-fare transit affects community transit access, equity, economy, sustainability, and congestion Draft Completed Partially Completed ZERO-FARE EVALUATION Understanding Impacts of Alternatives Projected Ridership increases on bus, TRAX, FrontRunner, and paratransit –A range of increases was predicted Projected Savings to UTA –Less operating costs due to faster bus service o Analysis showed no reductions in any scenario –Fare collection equipment savings o Short-and long-term Projected Cost Increases –Replace fare revenue –Address overcapacity trips on buses and trains o Analysis showed limited to no overcapacity on fixed-route –Accommodate paratransit demand increases 9 20% 40% All numbers shown in this presentation are interim. Summary 10 ZERO-FARE EVALUATION 5,985,000 23.7% $30,540,000 8.3% 3,011,000 11.9% $20,585,000 5.6% 1,275,000 5.0% $3,984,000 1.1% 2,471,000 9.8% $8,744,000 2.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Ridership Net Impact to UTA Ridership Net Impact to UTA Ridership Net Impact to UTA Ridership Net Impact to UTA Scenario Impacts Summary Low Ridership Growth High Ridership Growth Systemwide Zero Fare Bus Only Zero Fare Low-Income Zero Fare $1 Base Fare 9,010,00035.6% $34,540,0009.3% 4,550,00018.0% $24,499,0006.6% 1,912,0007.6% Based on budgeted 2023 ridership and fares. All future years will need to be factored up for growth.All numbers shown in this presentation are interim. ZERO-FARE EVALUATION Possible Paths Forward? Keep Existing Fare Structure –Will require an upgrade of fare collection technology –Modest ridership increase from pandemic lows Partial Implementation (Bus-only Zero-Fare, Low-Income Zero-Fare, or $1 Base Fare) –Will require an upgrade of fare collection technology –Requires between $4M -$24.5M in 2023 to make up lost revenue –Between 5% -18% ridership increase Systemwide Zero-Fare (permanent or one-year pilot) –No new fareboxes or technology unless fares are resumed –Requires between $34.5M -$38.5M in 2023 to make up lost revenue –Up to 36% ridership increase 11 20% 40% Based on budgeted 2023 ridership and fares. All future years will need to be factored up for growth. All numbers shown in this presentation are interim. Thank you! UTA 30-Year Long Range Transit Plan www.rideuta.com/lrtp Planning Process www.rideuta.com/lrtp LRTP & RTP Region & Local Focus Emphasis on all forms of Public Transit Projects, O&M, Support 4-Year Cycle Community & Data Driven 30-Year Vision Regional Focus Major roadway, transit & AT projects Capital Project Driven MPO RTP UTA LRTP www.rideuta.com/lrtp The UTA LRTP is complementary to, but different from the MPO’s RTP planning processes Goals of the LRTP Process Strengthen Partnerships with the Communities We Serve Establish Strategies for Implementation Assess Long Term Transit Needs Develop a System-Wide Vision for the Future www.rideuta.com/lrtp Timeline *CE –Community Engagement 2023 •Draft Plan •CE* -Phase II •Plan Revisions •Finalize 2023 -2050 LRTP •UTA Board Approval of LRTP 2022 •Consultant Selection •CE* -Phase I (into 2023) •Needs Assessment (into 2023) 2021 •Municipal Listening Tour •Preliminary Data Collection & Analysis www.rideuta.com/lrtp Salt Lake City Bus Service Update Fixed Route Service SLC-Sponsored Service •Route 1 •Route 2 •Route 9 •Route 21 UTA Baseline Service •Route 200 •Route 205 •Route 209 •Route 217 •Route 223 Fixed Route Service Average Weekday Ridership Route Frequency Aug-Dec 2021 Aug-Dec 2022 % Growth 1 .15 min -1,878 - 2 .15 min 1,429 1,512 6% 9 .15 min 1,265 1,745 38% 21 .15 min 1,516 1,740 15% 200 .15 min 2,204 2,672 21% 205 .30 min 933 1,336 43% 209 .15 min 2,048 2,389 17% 217 .15 min 2,869 2,988 4% 223 .60 min 212 526 148% 2023-2027 FINAL DRAFT FIVE-YEAR SERVICE PLAN www.rideuta.com/fysp Five-Year Service Plan April 2023 •Discontinue Routes 901, 902 August 2023 •Open full OGX line •TRAX 15-Minute Saturday Service •Contingency Service •Restore service on routes 39, 201, 218 •Extend UVX to Provo Airport www.rideuta.com/fysp Five-Year Service Plan December 2023 •Contingency Service •Restore ski service on routes 953, 972, 994 August 2024 •Improvements to Ogden Local Service •Improvements to South Utah County Service •Improved frequency on route 205 www.rideuta.com/fysp Five-Year Service Plan August 2025 •Improved service on 200s August 2026 •Midvalley Connector •Improvements to Ogden / Salt Lake Regional Service August 2027 •5600 West Service •New Saratoga Spring / Eagle Mountain Service www.rideuta.com/fysp Timeline www.rideuta.com/fysp QUESTIONS 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: January 10, 2023 RE: Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule Changes ISSUE AT A GLANCE The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is advancing changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) at the state and federal levels, specifically the lead and copper monitoring and regulation program. The purpose of these changes is to keep public water systems nationwide safe and contaminant free. New requirements and costs would start to come online around 2024. No action is required at this time. Council feedback and engagement is invited. Salt Lake City owns and operates a public water system. Under existing regulations, the water utility has an active lead and copper program. The program is dedicated to reducing or eliminating dangerous contaminants in the water system. The program is governed by the existing SDWA, in place since 1991. KEY ITEMS The current program consists of sampling water from household taps in the service area, as well as active replacement of any lead infrastructure in the public water system. Salt Lake City performs sampling and outreach on a three-year rotation. From the transmittal: “Our 2021 results for lead and copper were well below action levels set forth by the EPA, very similar to our historical levels, and in line with those across the state.” Initial changes are planned for implementation circa 2024. This date is in the new requirements. The Administration wanted to update the Council about the forthcoming changes. No specific request is before the Council at this time; however, from the transmittal: “Implementation of the required regulatory changes will cause increased operational and capital costs for the City’s Water Utility.” Item Schedule: Briefing: January 10, 2023 Public Hearing: NA Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 The EPA has prioritized historically underserved communities for the upcoming SDWA changes. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION From the transmittal: The focus areas of the Proposed [lead and copper] Rulemaking include: •Replacing all Lead Service Lines. Replacing all lead service lines is an important public health goal. EPA intends to propose requirements that, along with other actions, would replace all lead service lines as quickly as feasible. EPA’s proposal will fully consider the agency’s statutory authority and required analyses, including an economic analysis. •Compliance Tap Sampling. EPA intends to assess data to consider opportunities to strengthen compliance with tap sampling requirements. Robust tap sampling methods are essential to identifying locations with elevated lead, whether the source of the lead is a lead service line or leaded plumbing materials within a residence. •Action and Trigger Levels. For the proposed rule, the agency plans to explore options to reduce the complexity and confusion associated with these levels with a focus on reducing health risks in more communities. The agency will also evaluate whether the trigger level requirements of the LCRR are still necessary with a proactive lead service line replacement and more protective action level. •Prioritizing Historically Underserved Communities. EPA intends to explore how to replace lead service lines in a manner that prioritizes underserved communities. EPA will evaluate options to prioritize the removal of lead service lines in communities disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking water. The goal of these potential lead service line replacement regulatory improvements—coupled with non-regulatory actions—is to more equitable protect public health. Lead and Copper Program & the EPA’s Lead & Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Dustin White, Regulatory Program Manager Prepared for City Council’s January 10, 2023, Work Session 1 Lead and Copper Service Area 2 Includes all of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU)culinary water system, including: •All of Salt Lake City •And Portions of: •Millcreek, •Holladay, •Cottonwood Heights, •Murray, •Midvale, and •South Salt Lake SLCDPU’s Lead & Copper Program 3 SLCDPU Lead and Copper Program Executive Leadership Marian Rice Teresa Gray Jesse Stewart Program Manager Dustin White Lead & Copper Program LCRR Expertise Jennifer Liggett1 Naushita Sharma1 GIS/IT Tammy Wambeam Tricia Cannon 1. Consultants Ops. & Maint. Jeff Grimsdell Anita GravesAudree Ketchum Program Management Support Josh Shafizadeh Emma McGowan1 Engineering Derek Verlad e Natalie Moore Executive Stakeholders Laura Briefer Finance Lisa Tarufelli Mike Matichich1 Lead and Copper Program 4 How does lead and copper get into drinking water? Lead and Copper Program 5 Health Effects of Lead •Can cause damage to brain, blood and kidneys •Children under six are most at risk •EPA has set an action level for lead at 15 PPB •There are no safe known levels of Lead Key Dates 6 Key Dates-Lead in Drinking Water ●1986 Federal ban on pipes, solder or flux that were not “lead free” ●1991 Lead and Copper Rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act ●2011 ruling to reduce lead content in plumbing fixtures from 8% to 0.25% ●2014 Flint, Michigan Water Crisis ●2021 Lead and copper rule revisions (LCRR) ●2021 Introduced Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) to be finalized by 2024 Overview of the LCRR ●New Requirements of the LCRR ─Lead Service Line Inventory (will not change with LCRI) ─Lead Service Line Replacement ─Enhanced Lead and Copper Sampling Sites and Plans ─Monitoring in Schools and Childcare Facilities ─Corrosion Control Treatment ─Public Communication and Outreach *Subject to changes based off the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI)-October 2024 7 Overview of the LCRR 8 SLCDPU’s historical efforts to reduce lead Remove City-owned lead lines as discovered in the field. Notify owners when a private-side lead service line is identified during field work. Historically low results of lead during compliance tap sampling SLCDPU’s Historical Efforts to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water 9 SLCDPU’s current status and risks for lead Ongoing sampling for lead in the distribution system have been non-detect Monitor treatment plants for corrosivity. Naturally occurring hard water Greatest risk for lead comes from older private premise plumbing. SLCDPU’s Current Status and Risks for Lead 10 Current Efforts Sampling & Inspection Pilot Study 11 Service Lines ●What is a Service Line? 12 Lead Service Line Inventory ●Current status 13 Service Line Material SLCDPU Owned Customer Owned Total Unknown 9,037 67,477 76,514 Lead 5 107 112 Galvanized Req. Replacement 0 2 2 Non-lead 77,997 19,455 97,452 Total 87,041 87,041 174,082 Lead service line inventory due to DEQ on October 16, 2024 and either annually or triennially thereafter based on tap compliance results. Lead Service Line Identification ●Training and Coordination ●Records Review* ●Ongoing fieldwork* ●Inspection Program and Sampling ●Customer Input ●Potholing and/or excavation ●Computer Modeling * Components required by rule 14 Service Line Identification Inventory Development 15 American Water Works Association (AWWA) Case Study –Conducted by CDM Smith Public Engagement and Education ●Public Engagement and Education 16 Program Priorities Children Environmental Justice Older Homes Program Priorities 17 Program Priorities 18 Available Funding 19 ●American Water Works Association estimates 6.1 million lead service lines remain in U.S. communities, at an estimated $30 billion to replace. How much is this going to cost? 20 Examples ●Examples from other water systems ─Denver Water •Lead Reduction Program: No direct cost to customer –costs will be covered through water rates, bonds, new service feeds, and hydropower generations with additional funding through loans, grants, and contributions from partners ─Greater Cincinnati Water Works •LSLR Program: City Council Ordinance 326-2016 instituted a stable multi-year rate increase of 3.75% and property assessments for public portions of LSL & Help Eliminate Lead Pipes (HELP) program provides a one-time cost benefit for replacement and applied as a credit on the LSLR final bill from GCWW 21 Questions? Dustin White –Regulatory Program Manger 801-483-6867 Dustin.White@slcgov.com 22 ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _______ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Laura Briefer, Director LJB Department of Public Utilities SUBJECT: Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule Changes STAFF CONTACTS: Laura Briefer, Director, SLCDPU 801.483.6741, laura.briefer@slcgov.com. Marian Rice, Deputy Director, SLCDPU 801.483.6765, marian.rice@slcgov.com. Teresa Gray, Water Quality & Treatment Administrator, SLCDPU 801.483.6744, teresa.gray@slcgov.com. Dustin White, Regulatory Program Manager, SLCDPU 801,483.6867, dustin.white@slcgov.com. DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational update on upcoming major changes to the Salt Lake City Lead and Copper Program for drinking water: The goal of this update is to provide information and receive feedback regarding the future implementation of significant changes to the federal and state Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Lead & Copper Rule, associated regulatory requirements, and the resulting changes to Salt Lake City’s Lead and Copper Program. There will be required changes to public engagement about lead in drinking water. RECOMMENDATION: None BUDGET IMPACT: Budget impact is being determined at this time. Implementation of the required regulatory changes will cause increased operational and capital costs for the City’s Water Utility. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) is responsible for the provision of drinking water to more than 365,000 people within a 141 square mile water service area. This service area has been established by Salt Lake City Code 17.16.005 and includes all of Salt Lake City and portions of Mill Creek, Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, Murray, Midvale, and South Salt Lake Cities. SLCDPU is regulated under state and federal laws as a Public Water System, and under state laws as a Public Water Supplier. Under these regulatory paradigms, SLCDPU is responsible and accountable to provide drinking water that is safe for public consumption, pursuant to Utah Code Title 19 Chapter 4 (Utah Safe Drinking Lisa Shaffer (Nov 2, 2022 13:33 MDT)11/02/2022 11/02/2022 2 Water Act) and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. SLCDPU is also required to manage Salt Lake City’s water resources pursuant to various sections of Title 73 (Water and Irrigation) of Utah Code, including administering Salt Lake City’s water rights. Finally, pursuant to Utah Code 10-8-15 (Powers and Duties of Municipalities, Waterworks – Construction – Extraterritorial jurisdiction), Salt Lake City has the authority to construct waterworks and protect water sources from pollution outside its municipal boundaries. Lead and copper in drinking water is a topic of important national, state, and local discussion. Lead is a naturally occurring soft metal used in a wide range of products and can be found throughout the environment and home. Possible sources of lead include flaking of lead-based paint, gasoline, consumer products, the soil, hobby materials such as solder, and plumbing. Lead and copper in drinking water are primarily caused by leaching (discharging) from plumbing materials containing lead or copper in home plumbing. Due to Salt Lake City’s long history of proactive source water protection and the resulting high-quality drinking water, lead has not been detected in the Salt Lake City’s water distribution system that feeds drinking water to homes. Furthermore, SLCDPU has removed all known lead lines from the City’s distribution system and has a long-standing policy to remove lead lines if they are encountered in the field. However, Salt Lake City does not control the materials used in household plumbing components and private water service lines. Safe Drinking Water Act - Lead and Copper Rule To control lead and copper in drinking water, in 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). Under the EPA LCR, Public Water Systems take part in annual to triennial (three-year) lead and copper sampling and analysis from high-risk homes. These high- risk homes are known to contain lead and/or copper pipes and lead solder, which is more likely to contribute to elevated lead levels. Due to the high quality of our water, SLCDPU is on the triennial schedule. Our 2021 results for lead and copper were well below action levels set forth by the EPA, very similar to our historical levels, and in line with those across the state. Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule Salt Lake City is impacted by recent changes to the federal Lead and Copper Rule. On January 15, 2021, the EPA finalized the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Act (LCRR) (86 FR 4198) under the SDWA (40 CFR Parts 141 & 142). The purpose of the rule revision is to protect children and communities from the risks of lead exposure by better protecting children at schools and childcare facilities, removing lead out of our nation’s drinking water, and empowering communities through information. This was the first major update to the Lead and Copper Rule in nearly 30 years. On June 16, 2021, to allow the EPA time to review the LCRR, the EPA published the agency's decision to delay the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. Following the EPA’s review of the LCRR under Executive Order 13990, EPA concluded that there are significant opportunities to improve the LCRR to support the overarching goal of proactively removing lead service lines and more equitably protecting public health. On December 17, 2021, EPA announced the next steps to strengthen the regulatory framework on lead in drinking water (86 FR 71574). Following the agency’s review of the LCRR, EPA concluded that there are significant opportunities to improve the rule to support the overarching goal of proactively removing lead service lines and more equitably protecting public health. EPA announced that the LCRR will go into 3 effect to support near-term development of actions to reduce lead in drinking water. At the same time, EPA will develop the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) rulemaking to strengthen key elements of the rule. The agency anticipates finalizing the forthcoming LCRI prior to or by October 16, 2024, the initial compliance date in the LCRR. The focus areas of the Proposed LCRI Rulemaking include: • Replacing all Lead Service Lines. Replacing all lead service lines is an important public health goal. EPA intends to propose requirements that, along with other actions, would replace all lead service lines as quickly as feasible. EPA’s proposal will fully consider the agency’s statutory authority and required analyses, including an economic analysis. • Compliance Tap Sampling. EPA intends to assess data to consider opportunities to strengthen compliance with tap sampling requirements. Robust tap sampling methods are essential to identifying locations with elevated lead, whether the source of the lead is a lead service line or leaded plumbing materials within a residence. • Action and Trigger Levels. For the proposed rule, the agency plans to explore options to reduce the complexity and confusion associated with these levels with a focus on reducing health risks in more communities. The agency will also evaluate whether the trigger level requirements of the LCRR are still necessary with a proactive lead service line replacement and more protective action level. • Prioritizing Historically Underserved Communities. EPA intends to explore how to replace lead service lines in a manner that prioritizes underserved communities. EPA will evaluate options to prioritize the removal of lead service lines in communities disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking water. The goal of these potential lead service line replacement regulatory improvements—coupled with non-regulatory actions—is to more equitable protect public health. Salt Lake City’s Lead and Copper Program Due to LCRR, SLCDPU added to the existing City Lead and Copper Program, which focuses on protection of public health and meeting new requirements. The Lead and Copper Program oversees the implementation and compliance of the LCR and updates of LCRR and LCRI, including: • Develop a Lead Service Line Inventory o Through document review, identify service line pipe material and categorize at a minimum as lead, non-lead, lead status unknown, galvanized requiring replacement. (Due October 16, 2024) o Inventory must include both public and private sides of the service line, and be publicly available. o Will seek funding from the state Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to support the development of service line inventory and replacement plans. DDW will issue the application next month (November 2022). • Lead Service Line Replacement o Submit a Lead Service Line Replacement Plan to the state Division of Drinking Water (DDW). (Due October 16, 2024, subject to change pending LCRI) o Replacement rate requirements dependent on compliance tap sampling results. (To begin July 2, 2026, Subject to change pending LCRI)  If the Action Level is exceeded, then a 3% replacement rate will be required of all known lead service lines, which includes all unknown service lines.  If the trigger level is exceeded, then a rate determined by the state of Utah, 4 Division of Drinking Water will be required.  If below the Action Level and Trigger Level, then the replacement rate will be determined by the City. o SLCDPU estimates a 15-to-20-year replacement plan to replace all lead service lines. Based on initial estimates, including all known lead service lines and all unknown service lines, which could potentially be lead, costs could be upwards of $188 million to replace all lead service lines and complete the project. Cost estimates will be refined as the Lead Service Line Inventory is developed. o A full lead service line replacement includes both private and public sides of the service line. Nearly all service lines are divided in ownership, typically at the meter, between DPU and the property owner. SLCDPU must include in the replacement plan how to address and support private service line replacement options, particularly for disadvantaged communities who may not be able to replace them on their own. • Lead and Copper Sampling of Homes with known Lead Plumbing o Submit a sampling plan to DDW. (Due October 16, 2024, subject to change pending LCRI) o Sampling of homes known to have lead plumbing. (Starts summer 2025, subject to change pending LCRI) • Monitoring in Schools and Childcare Facilities o Utah House Bill 021 (HB21) requires schools to perform lead testing, while childcare facilities may voluntarily perform lead testing. As HB21 does not require childcare facilities to test, SLCDPU maintains this requirement. o Submit a sampling plan to DDW. (Due October 16, 2024, subject to change pending LCRI) o Sampling of childcare facilities. (Starts 2025, subject to change pending LCRI) • Corrosion Control Treatment o Dependent on results of Lead and Copper Sampling of homes in 2025. • Public Education and Outreach o Public education and outreach are ongoing since the initial 1991 Lead and Copper Rule and continue to be expanded to reach communities. o The revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule will necessitate more public engagement. SLCDPU will work with a public engagement consulting firm to further our public engagement strategy for the Lead and Copper Program. o LCR revisions include time-sensitive notifications for service line material, sampling results, lead service line replacements and/or disturbances, and filter distributions. o LCR revisions require the lead service line inventory to be publicly available. PUBLIC PROCESS Since the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule, SLCDPU has performed public engagement regarding lead and copper, especially through triennial sampling and publication of the annual Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report, which is sent to all homes within the SLCDPU service area. Engagement continues to expand through outreach, public events, webpage development, door hangers, and more. All engagement material is in English, Spanish, and translatable. 5 The next step for the public process is to contract with a public engagement firm to develop a comprehensive public involvement and education strategy to address all aspects of the revisions to the LCR. The strategy will cover the SLCDPU service area but will especially focus on communities defined as disadvantaged per the EPA and hard to reach communities. Meetings and Formal Engagement to Date • January 27, 2022: LCRR and Lead & Copper Program Overview– Public Utilities Advisory Committee • February 15, 2022: Poster and Informational Table – State Capital “Maps on the Hill” • August 2, 2022: Poster and Informational Table – West Pointe Night Out • September 10, 2022: Poster and Informational Table – Avenues Street Fair • September 24, 2022: Poster and Informational Table – Groove in the Gove • October 20, 2022: LCRR/LCRI and Lead & Copper Program Overview – Utah Water Quality Alliance • October 28, 2022: Poster and Informational Table – Halloween FunFest EXHIBITS: Lead & Copper Program information is located at www.slc.gov/utilities/leadandcopper. 1 MEMORANDUM TO CITY LEADERSHIP TO: Salt Lake City Elected Leadership Mayor Mendenhall and City Council Chair Dan Dugan DATE: August 11, 2022 FROM: Olivia Hoge, Elections Management Coordinator Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder SUBJECT: Ranked Choice Voting Across the United States & Walker Institute Analysis – 2021 Municipal Ranked Choice Voting INTRODUCTION: In April of 2021, the City Council opted to participate in the Municipal Alternate Voting Method Pilot Project, also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for the 2021 Municipal Election. Provided in the memorandum from March 2022 is the analysis of Salt Lake City’s participation. This updated Memorandum provides analysis of information provided to the City Recorder’s office since the date of the original memorandum, including analysis completed by the Walker Institute at Weber State University in conjunction with the Lt. Governor’s office and analysis of the RCV method throughout the United States. Additionally, in consideration of the potential participation in the State-authorized Municipal Alternative Voting Method in the upcoming 2023 Municipal Election, it is valuable to include for the Council’s awareness that the Salt Lake County Clerk position is a current race in the 2022 Election, and the determination of method opportunities is not specified. Additionally, as noted in the previous memo, the cost was more than estimated and could rise further provided the current job market and inflation rates of the economy. RCV ACROSS THE US: Through researching where RCV is used, 27 jurisdictions are currently using it outside of Utah. In addition to the 23 jurisdictions in Utah, it is used by 50 jurisdictions overall. Jurisdictions That Use RCV 50 States That Use RCV Statewide 2 States That Use RCV In Local Elections 13 RCV Ballots for Overseas Voters in Runoffs 7 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary 3 Special Elections 1 2 Jurisdictions With Upcoming Use Of RCV 8 RCV OUTSIDE OF UTAH: Below are the 27 jurisdictions that use RCV outside of Utah. Each jurisdiction is broken down by name, the types of races RCV was used in, and if there was a primary election for that jurisdiction. This information was found on each jurisdiction's election website. Only three of these 27 jurisdictions hold run-off races, specifically primary elections. In Alaska, they have what is called a pick-one primary election. This non-partisan primary is used to determine the top four candidates that will advance to the General Election. Maine and New York also have a primary election. Maine and New York primaries, however, are partisan. The New York City election website states, "Primary Elections are held so that voters registered with a qualified political party may select their party's nominees to the general election for partisan offices. Because a primary is a party election, only voters registered with one of the parties qualified to conduct a primary in New York City may vote in their party's primary." It can also be noted that primary election results were low compared to the general election results; however, this could be attributed to the fact that to participate in the primary elections, you have to be registered to a specific party. Jurisdiction What Race RCV Is Used In Is There a Run-Off Election Alaska • Ranked Choice Voting General Election system Yes, Pick One Primary Election Maine • All state and federal primary elections • All general elections for Congress • Extended to apply to the general election for president beginning in 2020 and presidential primary elections beginning in 2024 Yes, Primary Election Albany, California • City Council • School Board No Arden, Delaware • Board of Assessors No Basalt, Colorado • Mayor No Benton County, Oregon • County Commissioner No Berkeley, California • Mayor • City Council • City Auditor No 3 Bloomington, Minnesota • Mayor • City Council No Cambridge, Massachusetts • City Council • School Board No Carbondale, Colorado • Mayor No Easthampton, Massachusetts • Mayor • City Council No Eastpointe, Michigan • City Council No Eureka, California • Mayor • City Council No Las Cruces, New Mexico • Mayor • City Council No Minneapolis, Minnesota • Mayor • City Council • Parks Board No Minnetonka, Minnesota • Mayor • City Council No New York City, New York • City-wide Offices • Primary election for Mayor • Borough President • Primary election for City Council Yes, Primary Election Oakland, California • Mayor • City Council No Palm Desert, California • City Council No Portland, Maine • Mayor • City Council • School Board No San Francisco, California • Mayor • Board of Supervisors • City Attorney • Five additional citywide Executive Offices No San Leandro, California • Mayor • City Council No Santa Fe, New Mexico • Mayor • City Council • Municipal Judge No St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Mayor • City Council No St. Paul, Minnesota • Mayor No 4 • City Council Takoma Park, Maryland • Mayor • City Council No Telluride, Colorado • Mayor No RUN-OFF RACES: From the information listed in the table, it can be concluded that the places that do have run-off races with RCV are 1) Places where RCV is used in more races and 2) Places with a partisan election. RCV without any other form of run-off races is used in most jurisdictions that use RCV. This could be for many reasons: 1. RCV is not used in as many races in these areas. The most common ones seen are for Mayor and City Council. 2. Multiple jurisdictions have stated that they use RCV because it “eliminates the need to conduct separate run-off elections.” 3. The election can be less expensive without a run-off race. Many local offices are elected in two rounds of elections. With RCV, jurisdictions essentially have two rounds of voting in a single election. This saves the cost of a second election. In summary, most jurisdictions that use RCV appear to use it for Mayoral and City Council races, and none of the jurisdictions that use RCV for their respected races hold any other run-off races. WALKER INSTITUTE ANALYSIS – 2021 MUNICIPAL RCV: Weber State University's Social Issues Team, in cooperation with the Walker Institute and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah, completed a commissioned study on voters' perceptions of the two voting systems in place throughout the State of Utah, as well as a study on 2021 Utah political candidates' perceptions of the ranked-choice voting system. The two studies are attached as Exhibit A. The first analysis aimed to answer two questions about the opinions voters have of WTA and RCV systems. These questions are 1) How do participants feel about the voting system used in their city of residence, and 2) Do voters favor WTA or RCV election systems? The second analysis aimed to answer three questions about the opinions voters and candidates have of RCV. These questions were 1) How do participants feel about RCV, 2) How understandable is the process of RCV, and 3) How does RCV influence the likelihood of a participant engaging in the electoral process? The provided memorandum will outline the findings from this study and will break down key points from the analysis. VOTER PERCEPTION OF RCV: 5 In this study, 700 voters were surveyed. Three hundred fifty voters participated in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), in the 2021 election, and 350 voters participated in the winner takes all, known as the Traditional (WTA) method. The research team used a mixed methods approach in this study, collecting quantitative (i.e., scale responses) and qualitative (i.e., open responses) data from participants. One positive aspect of the RCV system, which contradicts the WTA findings, was voters' satisfaction with having multiple candidates to choose from in a single voting session. More than 20% of RCV respondents indicated a preference for various candidates, and more than 11% of respondents felt that they had a meaningful voice in the choice of their elected leaders. From this analysis, it can be concluded that the RCV voting system positively influences voters' perceptions of voice and representation. Question Asked Percentage of Voters Voters who though RCV was an easy voting process 18.6% Voters who felt that there was increased voter voice 9.1% Voters that liked having to learn about more candidates running 1.4% Voters that liked having more options of the ballot to choose from 20.5% Voters that found RCV confusing 10.3% Voters that felt like there was decreased voter voice 5.4% Voters that disliked having to learn about more candidates running 5.4% Voters that found RCV fair 4.3% Voters that found RCV fast 2.9% VOTER PERCEPTION OF WTA: When comparing the RCV method to the WTA method, it can be concluded that voters prefer the WTA system. This can be attributed to the fact that the WTA method is more familiar to voters, who feel comfortable with it. Despite voters preferring the WTA method, there are drawbacks for voters. These drawbacks include underrepresentation and a lack of multiple candidates for the general election. Nearly twice as many WTA voters identified their voting experience as simple or easy compared to the 6 RCV voters. Therefore, one major drawback to the RCV system is a perceived (or experienced) lack of simplicity for the individual voters. Question Asked Percentage of Voters Voters Who Thought WTA Was an Easy Voting Process 35.4% Voters that liked Voting for a Single Candidate 4.6% Voters that liked the Familiar Process 6% Voters that liked that the Majority Won 8.6% Voters that Felt Underrepresented by the WTA Method 3.7% Voters that Didn't like Having Fewer Options to Vote for 4.6% Voters that Found WTA Fair 6.9% Voters that Found WTA Fast 2.9% CANDIDATE PERCEPTION OF RCV: In the Walker Institute's study of the candidates' perceptions of running in an RCV race in the 2021 election, out of the 81 candidates who responded to the questionnaire, only 70 candidates provided complete data. Based on the feedback from the candidates, it can be concluded that all candidate groups showed both positive and negative aspects of RCV. These findings also show that candidates may or may not like RCV, but they know how it works and is not more or less likely to declare candidacy if a city has opted to use RCV in its elections. Considering 93% of participants reported having a good knowledge of how RCV works, it is possible that differences in perceptions are not geared toward ignorance of the system but rather individual biases. Question Asked Percentage of Voters Candidates that were familiar with how RCV works 93% Candidates that felt like RCV confused voters 32.4% Candidates that liked the shortened election cycle 15.5% Candidates that disliked the shortened election cycle 16.9% 7 Candidates that felt RCV gave voters more say in an election 32.4% Candidates who felt that because of RCV, there was greater civility during the campaign 11% Candidates that felt RCV was more cost-effective 8.5% Candidates that felt like RCV did not work well for multi-seat elections 7% CONCLUSION: Through the review provided, it can be concluded that interest and use in RCV is growing throughout the United States. In addition, although voters polled in the Walker Institute Analysis suggest a preference to the WTA method, both voters and candidates like that RCV gives votes to multiple candidates. Exhibit A 1 Executive Report to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor Utah Voters in Winner-Takes-All and Ranked Choice Voting Cities: Perceptions of the Voting System Presented by Weber State University Social Issues Team: Allana Soriano Emma Branch Liz Homez Gonzalez Spencer Packard Emily Moran Faculty Co-advisors: Dr. Alexander Lancaster Dr. Ryan Cain Affiliate Faculty: Dr. Leah Murray 2 Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Background .................................................................................................................................. 4 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 5 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 10 3 Executive Summary Weber State University’s Social Issues Team, in cooperation with the Walker Institute and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah completed a commissioned study on voters’ perceptions of the two voting systems in place throughout the State of Utah. The Team collected quantitative and qualitative data to address its research questions. In total, 700 voters completed the questionnaire with usable data. Quantitative results indicated a significant difference in perceptions of voting experience and feelings toward the voting system, based on which voting system was used in the city in which participants resided. Specifically, respondents reported a significantly more positive voting experience in cities using winner-takes-all voting than in cities using ranked-choice voting. Additionally, respondents in winner-takes-all voting cities reported having significantly more positive feelings about the voting system than did respondents in ranked-choice voting cities. Qualitative results concurred with quantitative findings, and provided rich examples of how participants felt about the ranked choice voting system. 4 Introduction In October, 2021, Weber State University’s Social Issues Team, and the Walker Institute, partnered with the Officer of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah to plan and complete a study of voters across the State of Utah, focused on perceptions of the voting system used in their city (i.e., winner-takes-all, or ranked choice). The majority of cities in the State of Utah used the winner-takes-all voting (WTA) system. Twenty-three cities, however, used the ranked choice voting (RCV) system. The research team completed this study using electronic questionnaires containing quantitative and qualitative items. This executive report presents the findings from the study conducted on political candidates. After collecting responses during an approximately five-week period, members of the Social Issues Team analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data to address our guiding research questions. This report contains the results of our investigation, as well as sections on background research germane to voting systems, an explanation of the methods used to collect and analyze data, and a discussion of the take-away points of the results. The research team thanks the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for their partnership and support of this research project and the students who make up the Social Issues Team. Background Traditionally, voting in the State of Utah has taken the form of winner-takes-all, such that the first candidate on a ballot to reach 51% of the vote wins the election. For the November, 2021 election, 23 cities in the State of Utah switched to RCV, which has two general effects on the election process. First, cities using RCV do not hold primary elections. Second, RCV typically occurs without candidates running with an identified political party affiliation. Prior research has examined RCV for many years, focusing on the outcomes and effects of its use for elections at different levels of government. Findings have generally indicated mixed 5 support for RCV. In some cases, the system has been found to increase voter representation (Shineman, 2021), create more civil campaigns (Coll, 2021; Juelich & Coll, 2021), and increase voter satisfaction with elections (Kimball & Anthony, 2016). Conversely, other studies have indicated that RCV can divide older and younger voters (Anthony & Kimball, 2021), confuse voters (Clark, 2020), create more complicated elections (Shineman, 2021), and possibly lead to instances of overvoting or undervoting (Donovan, Tolbert, & Gracey, 2019). Considering RCV is relatively new in the State of Utah, it is important to explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of the system, especially among the individuals who run political offices. Thus, the present study sought to examine political candidates’ perceptions of RCV in the State of Utah, Objective The goal for this project was to answer two questions about the opinions voters and have of WTA and RCV systems. Those questions are: 1) How do participants feel about the voting system used in their city of residence? 2) Do voters favor WTA or RCV election systems? The Social Issues Team has partnered with WSU’s Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service and Utah Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson’s office. The Lt. Governor's office is also interested in these questions to bring up to the 2022 Utah State Legislative Session to inform the potential of expanding RCV in the state. The research team has developed two survey instruments to measure voters’ opinions of WTA and RCV anonymously. The survey’s aim is to answer the above questions. The Office of the Lieutenant Governor funded the purchase of a sample of Utah registered voters and candidates from Qualtrics. Methodology The research team used a mixed methods approach in this study, collecting quantitative 6 (i.e., scale responses) and qualitative (i.e., open responses) data from participants. A total of 700 voters (350 in WTA cities and 350 in RCV cities) completed the questionnaires. The voters ranged in age from 18 to 83 years old, and included 281 men, 412 women, five non-binary/third gender respondents, and two respondents who did not want to disclose their sex. Six respondents chose not to disclose their age. Respondents included 195 Democrats, 326 Republicans, 145 no party affiliates, and 34 other party affiliates. The majority of respondents classified themselves as White/Caucasian (87.7%), married (58.7%), and attending some college or holding a bachelor degree (55.1%). Participants were asked two quantitative scale questions (one Likert-type and one semantic differential), and two qualitative open-ended questions, on their voting experience and opinions of voting system used (please see Appendix for a list of all questions used in the study). The Likert-type question asked participants to rate their level of agreement with six statements concerning their feelings about the November, 2021 election. For voters in WTA cities, cumulative responses ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (mean = 4.08, standard deviation = 0.78, scale reliability = 0.90). For voters in RCV cities, cumulative responses ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (mean = 3.77, standard deviation = 0.85, scale reliability = 0.88). The semantic differential question asked participants to rate their voting experience in the November, 2021 election. For voters in WTA cities, cumulative responses ranged from 1.40 to 5.00 (mean = 4.33, standard deviation = 0.71, scale reliability = 0.86). For voters in RCV cities, cumulative responses ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (mean = 3.81, standard deviation = 0.93, scale reliability = 0.86). Using an interpretative qualitative approach (Merriam & Grenier, 2019), the team analyzed two open-ended questions on the surveys of voters who participated in RCV and WTA elections. On both surveys, voters were asked to answer what they liked and did not like about the method of voting they engaged with. We utilized iterative cycles of open coding to identify 7 themes among the responses. The research team made a first pass using open coding, met as a group to refine our open codes, then recoded the data using the agreed upon coding schemes. Two raters scored 20% of all responses (70/350 WTA and 70/350 RCV) and reached an interrater reliability score of Cohen’s Kappa of 0.76 for RCV and 0.70 for WTA indicating substantial agreement (Gisev, Bell, & Chen, 2013). Results Based on the call to find meaningful differences in perceptions of voting experience, the team used voting system to group participants for the purposes of quantitative data analyses. See Table 1 for measures of central tendency on all variables from the WTA data. To address the question of experience had with the voting process (RQ1), the team ran a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with voting system (i.e., WTA or RCV) as the independent variable, and experience with the voting process as the dependent variable. Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant difference in experience had with the voting process based on voting system, F(1,629) = 61.889, p < .001. A means analysis indicated that voters in cities using the WTA voting system had significantly more positive experiences with the voting process (mean = 4.34, standard deviation = 0.71) than did voters in cities using the RCV voting system (mean = 3.82, standard deviation = 0.93). To address the question of feelings toward the voting process (RQ2), the team ran a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with voting system (i.e., WTA or RCV) as the independent variable, and feelings toward the voting process as the dependent variable. See Table 2 for measures of central tendency on all variables from the RCV data. Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant difference in feelings toward the voting process based on voting system, F(1,683) = 25.617, p < .001. A means analysis indicated that voters in cities using the WTA voting system had significantly more positive feelings toward the voting process (mean = 8 4.08, standard deviation = 0.78) than did voters in cities using the RCV voting system (mean = 3.77, standard deviation = 0.85). The qualitative results offer an additional perspective on the meaningful differences expressed by participants, in regards to their voting experience and feelings toward the voting systems. In the following paragraphs, we present the themes we identified in our qualitative analysis. For voters who participated in a RCV election, the most prominent thing they liked about RCV was an easy voting process for 18.6% (65/350) of voters. For example, one voter reported they liked RVC, “it was simple and easy to use while voting.” However, a larger proportion of voters in WTA 35.4% (124/350) reported approving how the WTA voting process was easy. This qualitative finding is consistent with the quantitative results earlier demonstrating voters have more positive feelings and more positive experience with WTA as compared to RCV. The next most prominent theme for what RCV voters liked were two related themes of more candidate options 11.4% (40/350) and increased voter voice 9.1% (32/350). Examples for these themes are, “felt I was given more of a choice in the election” and “it is the best way I feel for not just my voice but all of those that can make the best and most confident votes” respectively. Considering the themes of more candidate options and increased voter voice together, 20.5% (72/350) of RCV voters appreciated having more options on the ballot to choose from. However, 5.4% (19/350) RCV voters disliked RCV for decreased voter voice with responses that included, “I felt like my vote really didn’t matter as much.” We noticed a related theme with 4.6% (15/350) of WTA voters where they liked how there was a single candidate, notably a smaller proportion liking a single option. In addition, WTA voters reported not liking having less options 4.6% (16/350) and being underrepresented 3.7% (13/350) with WTA. Although these findings demonstrate that a greater proportion of RCV voters appreciated having 9 more choices on the ballot than WTA liked having less choices, overall voters were mixed in their responses regarding voter choice and voice. For WTA voters, they liked their method of voting for being fair 6.9% (24/350), providing fast results 6.6% (23/350), and being familiar process 6% (21/350). In addition, they also liked that the majority wins 8.6% (30/250). When comparing these results with the alternative voting method, some RCV voters also liked the process for being fair 4.3% (15/350) and fast 2.9% 10 (10/350), but these were less than those of WTA. It is also notable that 10.3% of (36/350) of the RCV voters indicated that they disliked how the process was confusing. For example, one RCV voter wrote, “the instructions were a little confusing.” Taken together, these results also confirm the quantitative results showing greater positive response to WTA as compared to RCV. Although it has low frequency, there is also an interesting finding in regards to having to learn more about the candidates with RCV. Voters in the RCV group reported that having to learn more about the candidates running was both something they liked 1.4% (5/350) and disliked 5.4% (19/350). Examples for these responses were, “I had to research all candidates” for a positive aspect, and “it did require a lot of research into all candidates in order to rank them” for a negative aspect. Future research might investigate implications of voters having to learn about candidates. Discussion The quantitative results of this study indicated a clear divide between participants who voted in cities using WTA and RCV voting systems. In short, voters reported a better experience and more favorable feelings toward the WTA system than the RCV system. The results indicated a general preference toward the WTA system, which can be generalized to the entire state population, given the statistically significant results. The quantitative results do not give reasons 10 for these findings, but the qualitative results paint a more complete picture about why participants felt the way they did about their voting experience. Turning to the qualitative results, the general findings in this study suggest that voters like the simplicity and familiarity of the WTA voting system, despite the drawbacks of underrepresentation and the lack of multiple candidates for the general election. Indeed, nearly twice as many WTA voters identified their voting experience as simple or easy, compared to the RCV voters. Thus, it appears that one major drawback to the RCV system is a perceived (or experienced) lack of simplicity for the individual voters. Perhaps this issue can be addressed by providing educational materials (e.g., flyers, websites, videos) to voters in RCV cities prior to the election, explaining how the voting system works. A hopeful finding for the RCV system, and one that stands somewhat in contradiction of the WTA findings, was voters’ satisfaction with having multiple candidates to choose from in a single voting session. Indeed, more than 20% of RCV respondents indicated a preference for multiple candidates, and more than 11% of respondents felt that they had a meaningful voice in the choice of their elected leaders. Consistent with the voting literature, it appears that the RCV voting system positively influences perceptions of voice and representation among voters. Thus, one can conclude that WTA voters prefer that system because of the ease and familiarity of the experience, but some do not like the limitations associated with having a single candidate for whom to vote. In regards to the RCV system, voters like the ability to choose among several candidates, but find that the process of doing so is somewhat complicated and confusing. In sum, both voting systems appear to have benefits and drawbacks, with WTA voting being the preferred system, overall, among voters in the State of Utah. Conclusion This study provided the first known data in the State of Utah to directly compare voter 11 experiences based on the voting system used in the city in which they reside. The results suggest a general preference toward WTA voting over the RCV system, although each of the two systems has its individual merits. The combined quantitative and qualitative results paint a more complete picture of why individuals feel positively or negatively toward each of the two voting systems. This study successfully gathered data from participants around the State of Utah, yet two limitations must be disclosed. First, due to the self-report system used in the online questionnaire, results cannot be taken to be causal, but rather to be suggestive of generalizable trends across the population of the State of Utah. Second, this study should be replicated to validate the findings, as it was a first attempt at gathering data to answer the research questions posed. The Weber State University Social Issues Team thanks the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for their generous sponsorship of this study. 12 References Clark, J. (2020). Rank Deficiency? Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Single-Winner Ranked- Choice Voting. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3703197 Coll, J. A. (2021). Demographic disparities using ranked-choice voting? Ranking difficulty, under-voting, and the 2020 Democratic primary. Politics and Governance, 9, 293-305. doi:10.17645/pag.v9i2.3913 Donovan, T., Tolbert, C., & Gracey, K. (2019). Self‐reported understanding of ranked‐choice voting. Social Science Quarterly, 100, 1768-1776. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12651 Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004 Juelich, C. L., & Coll, J. A. (2021). Ranked choice voting and youth voter turnout: The roles of campaign civility and candidate contact. Politics and Governance, 9, 319-331. doi:10.17645/pag.v9i2.3914 Kimball, D. C., & Anthony, J. (2016, September). Voter participation with ranked choice voting in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Kimball, D., & Anthony, J. (2021). Public Perceptions of Alternative Voting Systems: Results from a National Survey Experiment. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3854047 Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Introduction to Qualitative Research. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis (pp.3 – 18) https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505056_1 13 Shineman, V. (2021). Ranking for the first time: Evidence that voting in a ranked choice vote (RCV) election causes people to increase their positive evaluations of RCV. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764853 14 Table 1 Measures of Central Tendency on all Variables for WTA Voters Variable Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Total experience of WTA by voters 4.33 -- -- 0.71 Total feelings about WTA by voters 4.08 -- -- 0.78 Voting experience was difficult (1) to easy (5) 4.48 5.00 5.00 0.86 Voting experience was bad (1) to good (5) 4.51 5.00 5.00 0.82 Voting experience was negative (1) to positive (5) 4.24 5.00 5.00 0.94 Voting experience was complicated (1) to simple (5) 4.40 5.00 5.00 0.89 Voting experience was confusing (1) to intuitive (5) 4.03 4.00 5.00 1.01 I am confident in the voting process I engaged in* 4.07 4.00 4.00 0.99 I understood the ballot I used to vote* 4.36 5.00 5.00 0.85 The voting process was clearly explained on the ballot* 4.31 4.00 5.00 0.88 The voting process made sense to me* 4.30 5.00 5.00 0.92 I liked the voting process I used* 4.04 4.00 5.00 1.05 I prefer the voting process I used to the alternative* 3.76 4.00 4.00 1.11 I feel my vote mattered* 3.72 4.00 4.00 1.16 Note: all variables marked with a * were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale, where a 1 = strongly disagree and a 5 = strongly agree. Median and mode are not reported for total variables. 15 Table 2 Measures of Central Tendency on all Variables for RCV Voters Variable Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Total experience of RCV by voters 3.81 -- -- 0.93 Total feelings about RCV by voters 3.77 -- -- 0.85 Voting experience was difficult (1) to easy (5) 3.88 4.00 5.00 1.16 Voting experience was bad (1) to good (5) 4.07 4.00 5.00 1.13 Voting experience was negative (1) to positive (5) 3.87 4.00 5.00 1.10 Voting experience was complicated (1) to simple (5) 3.78 4.00 5.00 1.22 Voting experience was confusing (1) to intuitive (5) 3.49 4.00 3.00 1.21 I am confident in the voting process I engaged in* 3.62 4.00 4.00 1.20 I understood the ballot I used to vote* 4.09 4.00 4.00 0.97 The voting process was clearly explained on the ballot* 4.03 4.00 4.00 0.98 The voting process made sense to me* 3.84 4.00 4.00 1.14 I liked the voting process I used* 3.63 4.00 4.00 1.20 I prefer the voting process I used to the alternative* 3.57 4.00 4.00 1.13 I feel my vote mattered* 3.62 4.00 4.00 1.20 Note: all variables marked with a * were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale, where a 1 = strongly disagree and a 5 = strongly agree. Median and mode are not reported for total variables. 16 Table 3 Common themes for what voters liked about RCV from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other (please specify) n = 350 n = 139 n = 118 n = 78 n = 15 Easy 65 (18.6%) 27 (19.4%) 27 (22.9%) 7 (9%) 4 (26.7%) More Options 40 (11.4%) 16 (11.5%) 17 (14.4%) 5 (6.4%) 2 (13.3%) Increased Voice 32 (9.1%) 13 (9.4%) 11 (9.3%) 6 (7.7%) 2 (13.3%) Fair 15 (4.3%) 3 (2.2%) 8 (6.8%) 3 (3.8%) 1 (6.7%) Fast 10 (2.9%) 6 (4.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (13.3%) Learn Candidates 5 (1.4%) 3 (2.2%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 17 Table 4 Common themes for what voters disliked about RCV from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other (please specify) n = 350 n = 139 n = 118 n = 78 n = 15 Confusing 36 (10.3%) 13 (9.4%) 13 (11%) 10 (12.8%) 0 (0%) Learn Candidates 19 (5.4%) 6 (4.3%) 7 (5.9%) 4 (5.1%) 2 (13.3%) Decreased Voice 19 (5.4%) 8 (5.8%) 6 (5.1%) 4 (5.1%) 1 (6.7%) Unfair 10 (2.9%) 4 (2.9%) 3 (2.5%) 2 (2.6%) 1 (6.7%) Time Consuming 1 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 18 Table 5 Common themes for what voters liked about WTA from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other (please specify) n = 350 n = 187 n = 77 n = 66 n = 19 Easy 124 (35.4%) 63 (33.7%) 28 (36.4%) 23 (34.8%) 9 (47.4%) Majority Wins 30 (8.6%) 23 (12.3%) 4 (5.2%) 3 (4.5%) 0 (0%) Fair 24 (6.9%) 17 (9.1%) 2 (2.6%) 4 (6.1%) 1 (5.3%) Fast Results 23 (6.6%) 15 (8%) 3 (3.9%) 3 (4.5%) 2 (10.5%) Familiar 21 (6%) 10 (5.3%) 6 (7.8%) 3 (4.5%) 2 (10.5%) Single Candidate 15 (4.3%) 7 (3.7%) 4 (5.2%) 4 (6.1%) 0 (0%) 19 Table 6 Common themes for what voters disliked about WTA from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other (please specify) n = 350 n = 187 n = 77 n = 66 n = 19 Less Options 16 (4.6%) 6 (3.2%) 4 (5.2%) 5 (7.6%) 1 (5.3%) Underrepresentation 13 (3.7%) 4 (2.1%) 2 (2.6%) 5 (7.6%) 2 (10.5%) Unfair 5 (1.4%) 3 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) Exhibit B 1 Executive Report to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor Utah Candidates in Ranked Choice Voting Cities: Perceptions of the Voting System Presented by Weber State University Social Issues Team: Allana Soriano Emma Branch Liz Homez Gonzalez Spencer Packard Emily Moran Faculty Co-advisors: Dr. Alexander Lancaster Dr. Ryan Cain Affiliate Faculty: Dr. Leah Murray 2 Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Background .................................................................................................................................. 4 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 6 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 10 3 Executive Summary Weber State University’s Social Issues Team, in cooperation with the Walker Institute and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah completed a commissioned study on political candidates’ perceptions of the ranked choice voting system used in 23 cities across the State of Utah. The Team collected quantitative and qualitative data to address its research questions. In total, 81 political candidates began the questionnaire, with 70 of them completing the questionnaire with usable data. Quantitative results indicated a significant difference in perceptions of the ranked choice voting system based on candidates’ political party affiliations. Specifically, candidates affiliated with the Republican party perceived the ranked choice voting system significantly less favorably than did candidates affiliated with the Democrat party. Results also indicated that participant candidates were aware of how the ranked choice voting system works, and that they were no more or less likely to declare candidacy because a city uses that voting system. Qualitative results concurred with quantitative findings, and provided rich examples of how participants felt about the ranked choice voting system. 4 Introduction In October 2021, Weber State University’s Social Issues Team, and the Walker Institute, partnered with the Officer of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah to plan and complete a study of perceptions of ranked choice voting among political candidates in the November 2021 elections. Additionally, the research team completed a separate study of voters across the State of Utah, focused on perceptions of the voting system used in their city (i.e., winner-takes-all, or ranked choice). The majority of cities in the State of Utah used the winner-takes-all voting (WTA) system. Twenty-three cities, however, used the ranked choice voting (RCV) system. The research team completed both studies using electronic questionnaires containing quantitative and qualitative items. This executive report presents the findings from the study conducted on political candidates. After collecting responses during an approximately five-week period, members of the Social Issues Team analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data to address our guiding research questions. This report contains the results of our investigation, as well as sections on background research germane to voting systems, an explanation of the methods used to collect and analyze data, and a discussion of the take-away points of the results. The research team thanks the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for their partnership and support of this research project and the students who make up the Social Issues Team. Background Traditionally, voting in the State of Utah has taken the form of winner-takes-all, such that the first candidate on a ballot to reach 51% of the vote wins the election. To date, 23 cities in the State of Utah have switched to RCV, which has two general effects on the election process. First, cities using RCV do not hold primary elections. Second, RCV typically occurs without candidates running with an identified political party affiliation. 5 Prior research has examined RCV for many years, focusing on the outcomes and effects of its use for elections at different levels of government. Findings have generally indicated mixed support for RCV. In some cases, the system has been found to increase voter representation (Shineman, 2021), create more civil campaigns (Coll, 2021; Juelich & Coll, 2021), and increase voter satisfaction with elections (Kimball & Anthony, 2016). Conversely, other studies have indicated that RCV can divide older and younger voters (Anthony & Kimball, 2021), confuse voters (Clark, 2020), create more complicated elections (Shineman, 2021), and possibly lead to instances of overvoting or undervoting (Donovan, Tolbert, & Gracey, 2019). Considering RCV is relatively new in the State of Utah, it is important to explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of the system, especially among the individuals who run political offices. Thus, the present study sought to examine political candidates’ perceptions of RCV in the State of Utah, Objective The goal for this project was to answer three questions about the opinions voters and candidates have of RCV. Those questions are: 1) How do participants feel about RCV? 2) How understandable is the process of RCV? 3) How does RCV influence the likelihood of a participant to engage in the electoral process? The Social Issues Team has partnered with WSU’s Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service and Utah Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson’s office. The Lt. Governor's office also was interested in these questions to bring up to the 2022 Utah State Legislative Session to inform the potential of expanding RCV in the state. The research team developed two survey instruments to measure voter and candidate opinions of RCV anonymously. The survey’s aim is to answer the above questions. The Office of the Lieutenant Governor funded the purchase of a sample of Utah registered voters and 6 candidates from Qualtrics. Methodology The research team used a mixed methods approach in this study, collecting quantitative (i.e., scale responses) and qualitative (i.e., open responses) data from participants. Eighty-one candidates responded to the request to complete the questionnaire, with 70 candidates providing complete data. The candidates ranged in 27 to 80 years old, and included 40 men, 24 women, one non-binary/third gender respondents. Six respondents chose not to disclose their age, and five respondents chose not to disclose their sex. Respondents included 17 Democrats, 26 Republicans, 21 no party affiliates, and one Independent, and one United Utah Party affiliate. Six respondents chose not to disclose their political party affiliation. The majority of respondents classified themselves as White/Caucasian (81.3%), married (74.2%), and holding a bachelors or masters degree (66.1%). Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated they have a good understanding of how RCV works. Participants were asked two quantitative scale questions (one Likert-type and one semantic differential), and two qualitative open-ended questions, on their perceptions of RCV (please see Appendix for a list of all questions used in the study). The Likert-type question asked participants to rate their level of agreement with six statements concerning RCV. Cumulative responses ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (mean = 3.49, standard deviation = 0.82, scale reliability = 0.76). The semantic differential question asked participants to rate their feelings about RCV across four bipolar adjective pairs (e.g., good-bad). Cumulative responses ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (mean = 3.58, standard deviation = 1.38, scale reliability = 0.94). The team used an interpretative qualitative approach (Merriam & Grenier, 2019) on two open-ended questions asking candidates’ what they liked and disliked about RCV. The team utilized iterative cycles open coding to identify themes among the responses. The team made a 7 first pass using open coding, met as a group to refine our open codes, then recorded the data using the agreed upon coding schemes. Two raters scored all responses and reached an interrater reliability score of Cohen’s Kappa of 0.75 indicating substantial agreement (Gisev, Bell, & Chen, 2013). Results Based on the call to find meaningful differences in perceptions of RCV, the team used political party affiliation to group participants for the purposes of quantitative data analyses. See Table 1 for measures of central tendency on all variables. To address the question of feelings about RCV, the team ran a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with political party as the independent variable and feelings about RCV as the dependent variable. Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant difference in feelings about RCV based on political party affiliation, F(3,62) = 6.541, p = .001. A Bonferroni post-hoc analysis indicated a significant difference in feelings toward RCV between Republican and Democrat respondents. Specifically, Republicans (M = 2.81) indicated significantly more negative feelings toward RCV than did Democrats (M = 4.47). To address the question of perceptions of RCV, the team ran a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with political party as the independent variable and perceptions of RCV as the dependent variable. Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant difference in perceptions of RCV based on political party affiliation, F(3,62) = 6.813, p < .001. A Bonferroni post-hoc analysis indicated a significant difference in perceptions of RCV between Republican and Democrat respondents. Specifically, Republicans (M = 3.09) indicated significantly more negative feelings toward RCV than did Democrats (M = 4.07). In terms of the second and third research questions, the overwhelming majority of respondents (93%) indicated they were familiar with how RCV works (RQ2). In regards to the 8 third research question, results of two one-sample t-tests indicated that candidates were no more (t(69) = -1.633, p = .107) or less (t(69) = 1.327, p = .189) likely to declare candidacy based on the fact that they were running in a city that used RCV. Returning to RQ1, how do participants feel about RCV, we present our qualitative results. To elicit a nuanced view of candidate perceptions, we asked candidates what they liked and disliked about RCV with two open response items on the survey. After iteratively refining our open codes, the most prominent themes were inclusive representation of voters and voter confusion. Just about a third of the candidates (32.4% of candidates) liked how RCV gave voters more say in an election. For example, one candidate said, “it seems like voters have more say over who is ultimately elected.” We interpret this theme as evidence for RCV promoting voter influence on the outcome of an election. However, a greater proportion of candidates who identified as a Democrat (44.4.% of Democrat candidates) or no political affiliation (34.8% of unaffiliated candidates) indicated that RCV increased voter influence as compared to those who identified as Republicans (22.2% of Republican candidates). While there was a difference in this distribution of inclusive representation of voters, a portion of members within all groups mentioned this as a something they liked about RCV. Conversely, the most prominent disliked feature of RCV was voter confusion in the process. About a third of the candidates (32.4% of candidates) indicated that RCV confused voters. As one candidate stated, it allows too many people to run for office further confusing voters.” Similar to the unequal distribution earlier, more candidates who identified as Republican (40.7% of Republican candidates) indicated that they did not like how RCV confused voters as compared to candidates identifying as Democrat (16.7% of Democrat candidates) or no political affiliation (30.4% of unaffiliated candidates). Related to the theme of confusion related to RCV, 23.9% of all candidates responded how there needs to be better education of the electorate on how RCV works. 9 Looking at the less prominent themes, they were: inclusive representation for candidates, shorter election cycle viewed as both a positive (15.5% of candidates) and negative (16.9% of candidates) feature of RCV, greater civility during the campaign (11% of candidates), and RCV as being more cost effective (8.5% of candidates). While being even less frequent, we do note there were candidates who mentioned that RCV did not work well for multi-seat elections (7% of candidates) and that RCV could invite voter fraud (4.2% of candidates). Comparing the quantitative and qualitative results for RQ 1, how do participants feel about RCV, we note that candidates were mixed in their perceptions of RCV. Although Republicans more often stated that RCV confused voters, some nonaffiliated voters and some Democrats also viewed the RCV process as confusing to voters. The qualitative result is consistent with the quantitative finding of Republicans responding more negatively towards RCV. Similarly, a greater proportion of Democrat and unaffiliated candidates indicated that RCV improves individual voter’s influence on election outcomes as compared to Republicans, but all groups still expressed voter influence as a positive aspect of RCV. In summary, the results are mixed with all candidate groups identifying positive and negative aspects of RCV Discussion The quantitative results of this study indicated a clear divide between participants who identified as Republicans and Democrats. Specifically, Republicans tended to hold much more negative feelings toward, and perceptions of, RCV than did Democrats. Considering prior literature (e.g., Schultz& Rendahl, 2010) indicates RCV is more favorable to minor parties, it is unsurprising that candidates who identified themselves as Democrats were more favorable toward RCV in the State of Utah. It should be noted that data collection stopped before any election results were announced, to avoid a history effect based on whether a candidate won or lost the election. Additionally, the research team considers the quantitative findings particularly 10 meaningful, as all candidates ran as unaffiliated with a political party for this particular election, yet nonetheless help disparate perceptions of RCV based solely on their political party affiliation. The results also indicated that most of the candidates in an RCV city understand how the voting process works, and are not more or less likely to declare candidacy because a city uses RCV in its elections. Thus, the overall picture generated by the results is one that shows candidates may or may not necessarily like RCV, but they know how it works and are no more or less likely to declare candidacy for public office because a city has opted to use RCV in its elections. Conclusion Overall, this study offered a first glimpse into the feelings and perceptions of political candidates in the State of Utah with regards to RCV. Considering 93% of participants reported having a good knowledge of how RCV works, it is possible that differences in perceptions are not geared toward ignorance of the system, but rather biases associated with the effects the system has on candidates who are in a majority or minority political party. It is important to note that due to the self-report system used in the online questionnaire, results cannot be taken to be causal, but rather to be suggestive of generalizable trends across groups of candidates running in RCV cities across the State of Utah. The Weber State University Social Issues Team thanks the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for their generous sponsorship of this study. 11 References Clark, J. (2020). Rank Deficiency? Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Single-Winner Ranked- Choice Voting. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3703197 Coll, J. A. (2021). Demographic disparities using ranked-choice voting? Ranking difficulty, under-voting, and the 2020 Democratic primary. Politics and Governance, 9, 293-305. doi:10.17645/pag.v9i2.3913 Donovan, T., Tolbert, C., & Gracey, K. (2019). Self‐reported understanding of ranked‐choice voting. Social Science Quarterly, 100, 1768-1776. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12651 Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004 Juelich, C. L., & Coll, J. A. (2021). Ranked choice voting and youth voter turnout: The roles of campaign civility and candidate contact. Politics and Governance, 9, 319-331. doi:10.17645/pag.v9i2.3914 Kimball, D. C., & Anthony, J. (2016, September). Voter participation with ranked choice voting in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Kimball, D., & Anthony, J. (2021). Public Perceptions of Alternative Voting Systems: Results from a National Survey Experiment. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3854047 Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Introduction to Qualitative Research. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis (pp.3 – 18) https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505056_1 12 Shineman, V. (2021). Ranking for the first time: Evidence that voting in a ranked choice vote (RCV) election causes people to increase their positive evaluations of RCV. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764853 13 Table 1 Measures of Central Tendency on all Variables Variable Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Total perceptions of RCV by Republicans 3.09 -- -- 0.80 Total perceptions of RCV by Democrats 4.07 -- -- 0.38 Total feelings about RCV by Republicans 2.81 -- -- 1.43 Total feelings about RCV by Democrats 4.47 -- -- 0.62 RCV is difficult (1) to simple (5) 3.16 3.00 5.00 1.45 RCV is bad (1) to good (5) 3.61 4.50 5.00 1.57 RCV is unfair (1) to fair (5) 3.89 5.00 5.00 1.53 RCV is harmful (1) to beneficial (5) 3.64 4.00 5.00 1.46 More likely to declare candidacy* 2.76 3.00 3.00 1.25 Less likely to declare candidacy* 3.19 3.00 3.00 1.17 Well aware of how RCV works* 4.16 4.50 5.00 1.13 Confident that results would be tallied correctly* 4.10 5.00 5.00 1.23 Well aware of how votes would be tallied* 4.01 4.00 5.00 1.16 Worried system is too difficult for voters* 2.71 2.00 2.00 1.33 Note: all variables marked with a * were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale, where a 1 = strongly disagree and a 5 = strongly agree. Median and mode are not reported for total variables. 14 Table 2 Common themes for what candidates liked about RCV from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other n = 71 n = 27 n = 18 n = 23 n = 3 Inclusive Representation (voters) 23 (32.4%) 6 (22.2%) 8 (44.4%) 8 (34.8%) 1 (33.3%) Inclusive Representation (candidates) 16 (22.5%) 2 (7.4%) 7 (38.9%) 5 (21.7%) 2 (66.7%) Shorter Election Cycle 11 (15.5%) 4 (14.8%) 1 (5.6%) 6 (26.1%) 0 (0%) Cost Effective 6 (8.5%) 1 (3.7%) 2 (11.1%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (33.3%) Civility 8 (11.3%) 2 (7.4%) 1 (5.6%) 4 (17.4%) 1 (33.3%) 15 Table 3 Common themes for what candidates disliked about RCV from qualitative analysis Total Republican Democrat None Other n = 71 n = 27 n = 18 n = 23 n = 3 Confusion 23 (32.4%) 11 (40.7%) 3 (16.7%) 7 (30.4%) 2 (66.7%) Education 17 (23.9%) 6 (22.2%) 4 (22.2%) 6 (26.1%) 1 (33.3%) Shorter Election Cycle 12 (16.9%) 5 (18.5%) 3 (16.7%) 4 (17.4%) 0 (0%) Multi-seat Elections 5 (7%) 3 (11.1%) 0 (0%) 2 (8.7%) 0 (0%) Voter Fraud 3 (4.2%) 3 (11.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 16 Appendix Utah Candidate Questionnaire Did you run for political office in an area in Utah that used ranked-choice voting for the November, 2021 election? o Yes (1) o No (2) Page Break 17 We are interested in learning about your experience with, and perception of, ranked-choice voting, as a candidate for political office. Please answer the following questions. Thank you for your time. I feel that ranked-choice voting is... 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Fair o o o o o Unfair Difficult o o o o o Simple Beneficial o o o o o Harmful Bad o o o o o Good 18 When it comes to ranked-choice voting, I was... Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) more likely to declare candidacy than I would have been if winner- takes-all voting was used (1) o o o o o less likely to declare candidacy than I would have been if winner- takes-all voting was used (2) o o o o o well aware of how the voting system works (3) o o o o o confident that the results of the election would be tallied correctly (4) o o o o o well aware of how the votes would be tallied (5) o o o o o worried that the system is too difficult for voters to understand (6) o o o o o 19 Do you have a good understanding of how the ranked-choice voting system works? o Yes (1) o No (2) In one or two sentences, please tell us how you understand ranked-choice voting to work. Page Break 20 What did you like about the ranked-choice voting system? What did you not like about the ranked-choice voting system? Page Break 21 Thank you for your participation so far. We would like to ask you a few questions about yourself. Please don't worry, all information is being reported in the aggregate. What is your sex? o Male (1) o Female (2) o Non-binary / third gender (3) o Prefer not to say (4) What is your age (in years)? With which political party do you identify? o Democrat (1) o Republican (2) o None (3) o Other (please specify) (4) 22 If you chose other in the last question about political party identity, please list your political party below. With which race/ethnicity do you primarily identify? (please select one) o African-American or Black (1) o Asian-American (2) o Hispanic or Latinx (3) o Native American (4) o Pacific Islander (5) o White or Caucasian (6) o Other (7) If you answered "other" in the previous question, please tell us your primary race/ethnicity. 23 What is your marital status? o Single (1) o Dating/Engaged (2) o Married (3) o Divorced/Separated (4) o Widowed (5) o Living with partner (6) o Prefer not to answer (7) What is your highest completed level of education? o Did not complete high school (1) o High school graduate or equivalent credential (2) o Some college (3) o Associate Degree (4) o Bachelor Degree (5) o Master Degree (6) o Professional Degree (e.g., JD or MD) (7) o Doctoral Degree (8) End of Block: Default Question Block 1 | Page Recorder’s Office RCV Memorandum 2021 MEMORANDUM TO CITY LEADERSHIP ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Elected Leadership Mayor Mendenhall and City Council Chair Dan Dugan DATE: March 28, 2022 FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder SUBJECT: 2021 Municipal Election Method Report – Ranked Choice Voting INTRODUCTION: In April of 2021, the City Council opted to participate in the Municipal Alternate Voting Method Pilot Project, also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for the 2021 Municipal Election. In the determination to participate, the Council chose to forego a Primary Election, thereby moving the Declaration of Candidacy deadline to support the inclusion of all candidates interested in running have the time necessary to file personal campaign committees and declare candidacy. With this change, the City Recorder’s Office was tasked with coordinating the method services with the County Clerk and spreading awareness of the selected vote method. The Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office through an Interlocal Agreement and contracted services, completed the administration of the election, including the printing, mailing, counting and tabulating of the ballots. The Recorder’s Office managed the RCV Awareness Campaign and placed it as a top priority. Key points of the awareness campaign included:  Voter Awareness Spreading general understanding of the method  Ballot Presentation & Understanding: Confirming voters were prepared for the RCV appearance on the ballot  Candidate Awareness and Support: Coordinating training with candidates and their teams to facilitate correct information distribution as related to RCV The provided memorandum will outline the various considerations necessary to evaluate the outcome of the participation Salt Lake City, the awareness campaign, candidate experience and the considerations for the 2023 election year. VOTER AWARENESS: Municipal Elections regularly have a lower turnout than statewide elections. Typically, there is an increase in voter turnout in Mayoral years which can attribute to the data provided when comparing the 2019 information. Additionally, there is typically low turnout in elections that take place just after Presidential Elections due to voter fatigue. 2 | Page Recorder’s Office RCV Memorandum 2021 Below is the overall Salt Lake City voter turnout for 2021 compared to prior election years, as well as the turnout by District. Salt Lake City Turnout: Year Eligible Voters Percentage of Votes Cast 2021 68,149 34.77% 2019* 91,887 50.36% 2017 48,875 39.79% *2019 was a Mayoral Election year Turnout by District: District 2017 2021 District One 1621 3302 District Three 6905 6053 District Five 4649 5803 District Seven 5914 5829 Due to a midterm vacancy occurring with more than two years of the resigning members’ term, the District Two seat was included in the 2021 municipal election. District Two 2820 (2019) 2450 BALLOT PRESENTATION: Ballot presentation was of specific interest in the conversation with the City Council and County Clerk. Additionally, there were various interpretations on how to best develop and share ballot instructions. The Recorder’s office utilized the awareness campaign to share examples of the ballot method confirmed for use by the County Clerk’s office (horizontal ranking in columns) and mailed a postcard to all districts with candidates on the ballot with an image and description of the voting method. Year Ballots Not Counted Percentage of Overall Ballots Cast 2021 433 1.86% 2019 601 1.37% 2017 194 1.04% When considering those that were not counted, please see the list of reasons why that may occur:  Ballot was returned unsigned  Signatures did not match Voter Record  Two ballots in one envelope  Empty envelopes  Deceased voter  Ballots postmarked/received late The higher percentage of ballots uncounted could be attributed to the reasons listed below or to the new method. Salt Lake County’s instructions were thorough, simple to follow, and had visuals similar to those the City produced. 3 | Page Recorder’s Office RCV Memorandum 2021 CANDIDATE FEEDBACK: At the end of the election process, the Recorder’s Office sent out an optional, anonymous survey to candidates for feedback solicitation. 12 out of 19 candidates completed the survey. In summary, the responses provided feedback in the following areas:  Primary Election: More than half of the candidates conveyed a preference to hold a primary election  Awareness Efforts: Candidates confirmed they had viewed City-sponsored ads or material throughout the City and did not provide additional forms of awareness to consider.  Conversation Points: Candidates were asked how much time of their campaign they spent explaining RCV to voters, and the table below outlines their responses: Percentage of Time Spent Explaining RCV to Voters Percentage of Candidates Surveyed Up to 40% 50% Between 40-60% 41.67% *One candidate skipped this question – resulting in the discrepancy above  50% responded the RCV method influenced their determination to declare candidacy, additional comments regarding the method’s influence on their decision: o Desire to see RCV in action, three candidates on the ballot would present that option o Encouragement to run without a Primary election process o Financial investment was less critical to a potential win  As a result of the method change, the following observations were shared by more than half of the respondents: o Increased civility between candidates o Additional funding spent on the campaign o Increased community engagement o Incentive to work with other candidates (one felt it was less incentive) In summary, the most common feedback received was the desire to hold a Primary election and to continue evaluating and using the RCV method. Logistically when a Primary election is held using the RCV method, the General Election vote method will result as a traditional voting method. BUDGET AND AWARENESS: Salt Lake County estimated the cost of the processing for the RCV election method for Salt Lake City to be $81,673 with the shared $10,000 licensing fee allocated between participating Cities (nine in SL County) based on active voters. As Salt Lake City had the most active voters, our share of the licensing fee was $4,703.00 – resulting in a final cost of $86,376. The County confirmed the cost to run the RCV election was much higher than anticipated due to the complexity of ballot creation, instructions and reporting. For Salt Lake City, the final cost was 4 | Page Recorder’s Office RCV Memorandum 2021 $121,948; however, the billed amount was as provided in the estimate in an effort to stay true to the provided estimate. The City Council thoughtfully allocated $100,000 for the awareness campaign, emphasizing the importance to distribute accurate and correct information, reach communities through various mediums and formats, and to elevate awareness of the changes this would impose on the ballot. The Recorder’s Office spent a total of $94,974.73, with a description of methods used outlined below. Salt Lake City focused efforts on voter outreach to increase awareness of the change in vote method and how the method would ultimately work from the perspective of the voter. Education assistance provided from outside of the City was minimal, and the City focused significant effort to provide information by the Recorder’s Office, SLC candidates, and officeholders. The Recorder’s Office approached awareness in the following ways:  Multi-Media o Media ads and interviews (radio) o Public Service Announcements on the SLCTV channel o Social Media Live Events with Sandy City, Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office o Webpage updates o Social Media Activity (SLCElections Twitter and Facebook)  Print o Inclusion in City Newsletters o Public utility bill message o Newspaper Ads o Billboards o Yard Signs in City Parks (and provided to candidates) o Posters in Local Businesses o Postcards distributed to all registered voters in the five eligible districts  Tabling or In-Person Opportunities: o Farmer’s Market o State Fair o Senior Centers o Salt Lake Community College Presentation o Community Organizations  Content Sharing & Distribution o League of Women Voters o Salt Lake City School District o Community and Religious Groups (independent of community organizations) As a high priority, the City departments of IMS/Civic Engagement, Mayor’s Office and Council Office assisted with distribution and outreach. Feedback from the community was generally supportive, interested, engaged, and desiring of more information about their specific race. 5 | Page Recorder’s Office RCV Memorandum 2021 CONCLUSION: The determination of the Council to participate in the Ranked Choice Voting Method without a Primary was a new opportunity and activated interest in the election process. Salt Lake City’s Ranked Choice Voting experience went smoothly, and turnout was similar to prior elections. It is valuable to note, the Utah Municipal Clerks & Recorders Association (UMCA) provided two discussion opportunities at the March conference for RCV Elections. Sandy City Recorder, Wendy Downs, shared the City’s experience including the various interpretations of the State Code for the Pilot Project participation (particularly with a recount request) and suggested support in the future, so long as the allowance of a Primary was listed in the method option. POINTS OF DISCUSSION  Provided the concern expressed in 2021 discussions of deciding an election method the year of the election, would the Council consider taking action to declare intention prior to the start of the 2023 calendar year? City Council Announcements January 10, 2023 Information Needed by Staff A. National League of Cities Congressional City Conference 2023 NLC Congressional City Conference 2023 will take place from Sunday, March 26th to Tuesday, March 28th in Washington, D.C. at the Marriott Marquis, with pre-conference activities from Friday, March 24-25. Some Council Members have expressed interest in a tour of the White House. •White House tour requests must be submitted a minimum of 21 days in advance and no more than 90 days in advance of the requested tour date(s). Reservations cannot be accepted for tour dates outside this 21 – 90-day window. •Public tours are typically available from 8:00 AM to 12:30 PM Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, excluding Federal holidays or unless otherwise noted. ➢Please let staff know as soon as possible if you would like to tour the White House and or the names of all guests who may be attending with you. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, Darin Mano, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on January 10, 2023 in a hybrid meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(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; §52-4-205(l)(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) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature X X X X Jan 27, 2023 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, Darin Mano, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on January 10, 2023 in a hybrid meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(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; §52-4-205(l)(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) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature X X Jan 27, 2023 Closed Meeting Sworn Statements for January 10, 2023 Final Audit Report 2023-01-27 Created:2023-01-25 By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAQCYNG_cLqQkO-Bl38ySXkOQVXLKqGxRG "Closed Meeting Sworn Statements for January 10, 2023" Histor y Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) 2023-01-25 - 9:09:17 PM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-01-25 - 9:11:56 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-01-26 - 5:35:31 AM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-01-27 - 4:40:55 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-01-27 - 4:40:55 PM GMT