4/12/2021 - Meeting Minutes
MEETING MINUTES
SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE
ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY APRIL 12, 2021
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
John Kemp, Committee Member Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities
Anne Oliver, Committee Member Sara Javoronok, SLC Planning
Barbara Murphy, Committee Member Joan Swain, SLC Facilities
Rob Pett, Committee Member Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office
Steve Cornell, Committee Member Nelson Knight, SLC Planning
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT May 10, 2021
Jennifer Hale, Chairperson
Mark Thimm, Vice Chairperson
Steve Cornell, Committee Member filled in for Jenny Hale to chair the meeting. Steve welcomed
everyone to the Monday April 12, 2021 meeting. Joan Swain called attendance, the following members
were present: Barbara Murphy, Committee Member; Steve Cornell, Committee Member; Rob Pett,
Committee Member; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities; Sara Javoronok, SLC Planning;
Nelson Knight, SLC Planning; Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office.
Agenda Item 1: Reading of the Electronic Meeting Letter – Jennifer Hale
As required by a recent amendment to the Open Public Meetings Act by the State Legislature, Steven
Cornell read a letter addressed to the Salt Lake City and County Conservancy and Use Committee. The
letter explains that conducting a meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health
and safety of Committee Members and others participating in a meeting, therefore, under the current
state of emergency caused by the global pandemic that exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus,
SARS-COV-2 the meeting will be held on a MS Teams video meeting on April 12, 2021 and for future
meetings notifications will be sent out as determined by the level of risk at the time.
Agenda Item 2: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for March 8, 2021
Steve asked the Committee Members to review the minutes from the March 8th meeting and welcomed
questions, comments and/or changes to the minutes.
Rob Pett requested the following correction: in two places GSPS should be corrected to GSBS.
Rob Pett made a motion to approve the minutes.
Barbara Murphy seconded the motion.
Steve Cornell called for a vote and the Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the
March 8, 2021 with the correction of GSBS.
Agenda Item 3: General Projects Update
Jim Cleland shared an email from Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering, regarding the status of the City and County
Building projects. Sean’s email stated the following:
1
1. SLC received approval from FM Global (insurance company) to hire MOCA Systems as our consultant
project manager on the City & County Building projects. This approval was received on 4/5/21 so I am
working on getting them under contract.
2. Stair Repairs: The Mayor would like the repairs at the City & County Building to be more of a priority, so
Engineering is moving these to the top of our list. The Stair Repair bid package is being drafted (Nathan is
working on the boilerplate and GSBS is finishing up the plans/specs). Our goal is to advertise for bids on
th
April 19, bid opening will be early-May. We hope to get our GC under contract in early-June, they will
then need to prepare submittals along with ordering samples of the stone as we discussed with the
Committee.
3. RFQ for Design Services on the Interior Repairs: Given the Mayr’s input, we are drafting this review by the
sub-committee, we will most likely request that review in late-April. Once MOCA is on board, also
expected in late-April, they will help us facilitate the RFQ solicitation and consultant selection. The
selection process will take some time, roughly two months by the time we finish interviews and select,
then about another month for contract negotiation an execution.
Questions, Answers, and Comments:
Q: Did we receive a copy of the GSBS study? (RP)
A: I haven’t sent one out. (JC)
Q: Can we request that? (RP)
A: Yes. (JC)
Q: And that bid package will be used to create the RFQ to go out to several qualified bidders? (RP)
A: That is correct. (JC)
C: In the last meeting, it was discussed that the sub-committee would be involved in the creation of the
RFQ. (RP)
C: I believe that we said the sub-committee would be involved in the review of the RFQ and selection of
the design services firm. We’ve already hired people to get started with the RFQ, its part of the package
that GSBS will be doing based on the survey they have done. The Committee will have an opportunity to
review it and provide comments before it goes out. (JC)
C: I thought we’d be involved in the RFQ. (RP)
C: The Committee did discuss it in the initial review of the survey, the only part the Committee was not
involved in was discussion of the buildings other than the City and County Building. (JC)
C: I’m looking back in the minutes and it says that the Committee will be involved in the selection
Committee, but it doesn’t say anything about involvement in the RFQ. (SC)
Q: Can you explain what your goal is, Rob? Do you want to write the RFQ? (SC)
A: I don’t want to write the RFQ, but I’d like to know what the criteria are. (RP)
Q: Since Rob will be the representative on the selection Committee, can we get him involved in that
process? (SC)
A: Yes, that’s what we were doing. We’d create an RFQ and he will have the opportunity to review it and
make comments. That’s what I do as Facilities Director, they put them together and I review them. (JC)
C: I just want to be sure that we have something in front of us and a chance to see it, so we don’t mess
up the timeline. (RP)
C: They know there will be a review period and you’ve already seen the information that is available
from the design firm. (JC)
Q: Just so we can be sure we are up to date; can we get the latest version of the GSBS report sent out?
(SC)
A: Yes, I’m sure that we can provide that. (JC)
th
Q: April 19 is when the RFQ is supposed to go out? (SC)
2
th
A: April 19 is for the bid package for the stairs. Once MOCA is on board in late April they will start the
process for the RFQ for the repairs for the rest of the building. (JC)
Q: So that will begin at the end of the month and MOCA will be the one directing the RFQ? (SC)
A: That is correct. (JC)
Q: And what is it that you are looking for, Rob? (SC)
A: We haven’t seen a final bid set for the Stair Project, and I think we would like to see that. (RP)
C: They should be almost ready to go so we could send that out, but the turnaround will have to be
quick. (JC)
Q: Would the entire Committee like to look at the bid package or is it sufficient if Rob looks at it? (SC)
A: I would be happy to look at it on behalf of the Committee. If I have comments of significance, I would
certainly like to present them to other members for their input. I’d like to see the bid package because,
throughout the discussion, we’ve never seen a final result. (RP)
C: We still don’t have any additional money and will only have what the insurance will give us, so it
needs to be put back exactly like it was. There is no room to design something different. (JC)
Q: Aren’t you doing a seismic joint? (RP)
A: They are using the seismic joint that they presented in our meeting a couple months ago. I can talk to
Sean and see if he can get the plans to you. (JC)
C: I thought they were still working on the details of the joint to make sure it would function properly.
(BM)
C: I thought that they did, but it may have just been in the drawings. We’ll get that out to you before it
goes to bid so you can have a week or so to look at it. (JC)
C: We can send that out to the group and Rob can be the point person on it. (SC)
C: On the interior repairs, we’ve never seen a final study by GSBS, and they are going to prepare an RFQ.
If they are going to choose the most qualified firm based on what the RFQ says, I think the Committee
would like a say in what the qualifications are. (RP)
Q: Since you’ve put some thought into this, could you put together what qualifications you think are
important?
A: I’d be happy to. (RP)
C: Having access to whatever Sean has would be great, even a draft. (RP)
C: I’ll let him know. (JC)
C: If you could get that list together and get it over to Sean at Engineering that would be great. I’d be
happy to look too. (SC)
C: Look back at the minutes where it discusses the RFQ. (RP)
C: Oh, I see, it says that a Committee member will be involved in the draft and review of the RFQ. (SC)
C: My concern is that it is moving forward without our involvement. (RP)
C: The Mayor’s Office got involved this week and there was a big push on this project. If there is
confusion it is my fault. (JC)
C: I think we need a full timeline from Sean about the RFQ process and the Committee’s involvement.
(SC)
Agenda Item 4: Plan for re-opening City and County Building for city employees- Jim Cleland
Jim explained the next steps for opening the City and County Building, saying it would involve everything
the Committee covered regarding earthquake damage repairs including the survey, RFQ and getting a
qualified design firm on board who will put it together as a bid package. According to Sean the goal is to
get started before September.
3
Questions, Answers, and Comments:
Q: Are you expecting to do the work before employees move back in? (BM)
A: No, they are expecting employees to move in. It may be a little inconvenient, but they will work
around in small areas to minimize the impact. (JC)
Q: So, what is the plan to reopen the City and County Building? (SC)
C: I understood that it was a phased plan but I’m not sure what the phases are. (RP)
A: I don’t know the exact timeline. Lisa Shaffer said she didn’t expect anyone to return until May and
then they would continue to trickle in. They are going to try to continue to have as many employees
work from home as possible, but certain departments will move back in and resume normal activities
like permitting. (JC)
Q: Will it be open to the public too, or just for city employees? (SC)
A: I don’t have that information. But if it is open to the public it would be by appointment only. (JC)
Q: It is being called RAMP, what is that? (RP)
A: That is the return to work plan that the state started, and it comes from the National Safety Council.
It serves as a list of guidelines for safe return to workplaces. We will be doing work to improve the air
quality and safety of the building using money from the American Rescue Plan. (JC)
Q: Where does the Café stand in all of this? (RP)
A: We haven’t discussed resuming food service yet. At this point safety and cleanliness are the priority.
(JC)
Agenda Item 5: Colored lights at Washington Square
Jim explained that there is currently a sample up, but with the undertones of the sandstone the color of
the lights ends up looking very washed out. They started by putting them on the tower for a sample and
it doesn’t look as good as they would hope. There doesn’t seem to be a way to mount the lights so that
the color shows brightly enough or high enough up on the building to be seen over the trees. At this
point, they are looking for other options.
Questions, Answers, and Comments:
Q: Can you remind me of how this project came to be?(SC)
A: The Mayor’s Office asked if we could find a way to change the colored lights on the outside of the
building for different events. We’ve had some success with certain colors on the tower by putting vellum
paper over the existing fluorescent lights, but we can’t do it every time there is an event. They were
hoping for a solution that would easily project color on to the entire building to show support for
different groups or events. (JC)
Q: So, what are the next steps? Are you in charge of this project? (SC)
A: No, the team that is maintaining the building is searching with our vendors to find options. I suppose
we could hire a lighting engineer who could design a system for us, but this is coming out of the Facilities
budget, so I’d prefer not to spend too much. (JC)
Q: Is it worth approaching a lighting designer to see what is possible? (SC)
A: Yeah, I’ll ask the administration if they’d like to put some money behind this project because I think
we’ve exhausted all the options within our capabilities. (JC)
C: I know some lighting designers that I have worked with and could recommend, and I’m sure Rob does
too. (SC)
4
C: Yes, that would be good. And anything that does move forward will need to go through the Planning
Department and get a certificate of appropriateness. (JC)
C: If there is any heat coming from the lights it can attract insects and the lights could potentially
confuse birds. It is important to consider other impacts too. (AO)
Agenda Item 6: Update on Arts Council applicant Kathy Davis
Joan informed the Committee that it has been difficult to reach the Arts Council. They emailed an
application to the Mayor’s Office and she is hoping to hear from them soon. It is unclear if the Mayor
has reviewed it and sent it to the Council or what the current status of the application is. All other
members of the Arts Council have been reviewed and approved by the Mayor and sent to the council.
Joan will continue to follow up on the application.
Agenda Item 7: Event schedule for 2021
Joan updated the Committee on events scheduled for this year. Living Traditions is planning a Food
Fiesta with other activities throughout the week. Days of ’47 will be just a parade, no children’s
activities. Pride will still do a parade and potentially an art festival, either on Library Square or
Washington Square. Many of these events are still up in the air due to fluctuating Covid restrictions and
recommendations. Living Traditions will be the first event taking place the second week of May. As the
Event Schedule becomes more concrete it will be sent out to the Committee.
Jim recapped the discussion and what the Committee can expect moving forward: Event Schedule; The
GSBS report on earthquake damage; discussion for RFQ with Committee representation; and final copies
of the Use and Guidelines document are available for pick up at the Facilities office. Jenny Hale wrote a
letter to accompany the Use and Guidelines, which will be sent to the Mayor’s Office. Lisa Shaffer will
review it and forward it to the Mayor with her recommendation.
Steve Cornell thanked all for attending.
Rob Pett made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Barbara Murphy seconded the motion.
Steve Cornell called for a vote and the Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
5