7/12/2021 - Meeting Minutes
MEETING MINUTES
SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE
ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY JULY 12, 2021
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
Jennifer Hale, Chairperson Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities
Rob Pett, Committee Member Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office
Barbara Murphy, Committee Member Joan Swain, SLC Facilities
John Kemp, Committee Member Riley Bird, SLC Facilities
Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT September 13, 2021 Nelson Knight, SLC Community &
Mark Thimm, Vice Chair Neighborhoods
Anne Oliver, Committee Member Jorge Chamorro, SLC Deputy Director of Public
Steve Cornell, Committee Member Services
Jennifer Hale, Chairperson, welcomed everyone to the Monday July 12, 2021 meeting. Members in attendance: Jennifer
Hale, Chairperson; Rob Pett, Committee Member; Barbara Murphy, Committee Member; John Kemp, Committee
Member; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities; Nelson Knight, SLC
Community and Neighborhoods; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering; Jorge Chamorro, SLC Deputy Director of Public Services; Riley
Bird, SLC Facilities.
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, Jennifer Hale 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” the meeting will be held on a MS Teams video meeting
on July 12, 2021. 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 June 14, 2021
Jenny asked the Committee Members to review the minutes from the June 14th meeting and welcomed questions,
comments and/or changes to the minutes.
There were no suggested changes, but the approval could not officially be made due to there not being a full quorum
present to vote. Postponed to next month.
Agenda Item 3: Code Blue Update – Riley Bird
Riley Bird, Operations Manager for Facilities, took the suggestions from the previous conservancy meeting back to the
administration and they agreed that the solar panels were large and would look out of place and needed to be
hardwired. He has been looking into bids to convert the system to electrical power and it would cost about $3,800. Due
to the administration’s concern with the safety of employees and visitors, they requested the safety box be installed
closer to the handicapped spot just to the west of the circle and to keep it blue. Riley shared a mockup of what it would
look like with the committee.
Questions, Answers, and Comments:
C: It looks much better without the solar panel up top – it’s not nearly as obtrusive. The big thing is that they’ve taken
away some of the parking from the employees in that loop and it’s being turned over to visitors that come to do
business in the City & County Building. So, they’ve pushed more employees into the library parking structure and so that
will be along the main route of travel from the parking garage to the City and County Building. The single point of entry
will be the ADA entrance, located on the east side of the building, until the building is open completely either when the
1
fencing is done, the stairs are done, or COVID is over. So, it’s a calculated process to do a slow opening with employees
mainly and then the public can come in if they have an appointment with someone. (JC)
C: So, this little thing right here, it’s about the size of the flagpole – and granted I’m doing this in paint so it isn’t exactly
to scale, but this would be the blue box off to the side. Then here is my intended close, again, not to scale, but the
handicapped parking is to the left and the concern was giving them close access to this pole. (RB)
C: The pole without the solar panel apparatus is definitely an improvement and I think blue is just fine – it’s
understandable – but this picture definitely tells you, as does the previous picture, that it’s apparent and it’s definitely
visible from a distance. I’m not sure if I understand exactly why you are keeping it close to handicapped parking. It’s not
a handicapped apparatus. (RP)
C: It is a place for a person that has disabilities to get to quickly for help, they can swing up and push that button easily.
(RB)
C: Same with any employees that are walking to the building from the parking structure. (JC)
C: Correct. I know you can tell from the previous minutes, that there was a lot of back and forth about the issues and
many people had concerns about the color and location – as did I – and I think all of us agree that a location in this area
was appropriate. We understood the need for power, which is most readily available in that circle or adjacent to any of
the light fixtures near the flagpole…(RP)
C: One thing, we had our OSHA safety manager come and do a survey of this and look at the proposed site and she had
quite a bit to say about it. Riley do you want to bring it up? (JC)
C: She basically said it’s standard at the Universities to keep them blue is all I really got from her. She didn’t go into
depth very well. (RB)
C: Well, nobody thought it made sense to hide it off in a corner. (JC)
Q: So, your pole is right by that bench? (RP)
A: Well, right in that area, it doesn’t really matter too much. (RB)
C: I propose that that (area at the topmost right of the curve) could be a location for that fixture. As I stood out there, if I
drew a line from the two light posts that are on either side of that – and then I took another line that was from the light
fixtures that are for the light pole next to the city flag and cross those, it ends up in that little corner. It seems to me,
that at that corner of grass that it be placed. If you went back to your picture, Riley, from the street looking in, it is quite
dominant wherever you put it along this axis. That would be one proposal and I understand where you’re putting it and
maybe next to other things it’s better, but it’s a real unique element – it’s not green, it’s not black – it’s blue. And not
having it directly in access to the front steps, I think is important. (RP)
C: I can take it back to administration, Rob, and see what they say. I think I can point out your exact location, and I’ll pull
it up just to confirm with you before I jump off. (RB)
C: I think we had Jorge with us, he might be able to shed some light if he was in those conversations. Is he off now? (JC)
C: I truly believe you’re not going to miss it. The distance is not that great. (RP)
C: Yes, I feel the same way. It doesn’t add a whole lot of distance even for a person if they were headed to that spot. (JH)
C: I don’t argue that at all, I’m just going to take it back to them and tell them what your suggestion is. (RB)
C: We will take that suggestion for sure. I just want to make sure that we understand that we are considering ease of
access and the standard look for this particular element, which is an emergency call button that goes straight to 911, so
it needs to meet that purpose of standing out and not blending in. I also see the location you are suggesting, so we will
consider those two things and let you know what the final decision is. I would really like to move this forward, Riley,
before we open the building to the public, so we have the least disruption to that pathway once we open. (Jorge)
Q: Alright, so Rob, I assume my cursor is kind of over where you’re wanting it put – is that where your suggestion is? (RB)
C: Well, that’s where we talked about last month – that was the location that we felt was still visible, but not on the
central path. I think we’re trying to, as we usually do, straddle two things – keeping people safe and keeping the campus
as historic and focused on that as possible. (RP)
Q: Has that location already been presented to the mayor’s office? (BM)
A: Yes, I relayed all our conversation with the administration, so they’ve heard all this and that’s why I’m bringing it back
to you guys what they recommended. (RB)
2
Q: Have they already rejected the one that we’re now sending back? (BM)
A: Just once. (JC)
Q: One other question that I have is you said, on the diagram that’s not to scale, is the height about, right? (BM)
A: Yes, it’s right about there – it’s not very tall. It was ten feet with the solar panel and without the solar panel or the
connections, you’re looking at about 6 and a half, 7 feet. I’m not exactly sure. (RB)
C: And one other possibility – I mean, I like our first proposal and I think we ought to send that back – but maybe putting
it closer to one of the flag poles so the vertical elements kind of cancel it out a little bit as you’re looking from the street
towards the building. (BM)
C: I think that this element is so distinct, with the light and the color, that anywhere in that neighborhood, it’s going to
stand out greatly. (RP)
C: That’s what we need – we need it to be easily recognizable and easy to access. (JC)
C: Even over where we’re suggesting I think is well within visual reign anywhere on the east side of this building. (RP)
Q: Barbara, when you say the central circle, about where would you be thinking of it? (JC)
A: I was thinking next to one of the flagpoles so you have the two visual vertical elements, but I don’t know, that might
be distracting to have it in with the flags. (BM)
C: I would worry that we’re starting to clutter that middle of that walkway. (RP)
C: It might make it less visible if it has to compete – I mean it depends where it’s located, but if it’s right next to a
flagpole then it’s less visible from some views, because the flagpole will block the view. (JH)
C: I’d like to not set the precedent that any time we feel the need to add something that we put it right smack dab in the
middle and this becomes this collection of weird stuff. (RP)
C: We just got it cleaned up. (JH)
C: We spent a lot of money to make this work and we’re certainly not opposed to this device, it is needed, but I think
this is where we’re all suggesting is an appropriate location. (RP)
C: It’s an extra ten steps is all. (JC)
Q: Just one question, if this is the final recommendation and we do get approval, we would like to move forward so can
we agree that if this is the final recommendation and we get approval that we can move forward with this installation?
On the north end of the circle where Rob pointed out? (Jorge)
A: , I believe we voted on that last time – we recommended this location as a quorum and it really hasn’t changed. Does
that sound right, Jim? (JH)
C: Yes, it does, and I think getting rid of the solar panels was a good thing too. (JC)
C: Duly noted, thank you. (Jorge)
C: I don’t think we need to vote on it or anything like that because of our discussion last time, but if it seems agreeable
by everybody, we should be able to go ahead on this side (JC)
C: Yes, I think you’re right and Jim’s right, that it’s already been presented we’re just re-emphasizing it now that we’ve
seen the diagram that Riley relayed – that was very helpful. (RP)
Agenda Item 4: State Street ADA Ramp – Sean Fyfe
Sean Fyfe informed the committee that UDOT contacted engineering about a new paving project on the southeast
corner of 400 South and State Street that is scheduled to begin next summer. Part of it will include addressing
deficiencies in their curb ramps of which the northwest part of Washington Square would be affected. Currently there
are gaps in the detectable warnings that don’t meet ADA guidelines and UDOT would like to take those out so that they
comply. The work should fall under the public right of way, and not property management. They do intend to protect
the bollards and property when they do the work, but it was something they wanted to bring to the committee’s
attention. Nelson Knight stated that he was sure that that the red detectible warnings were set up when the red line
tracks were installed on 400 S and follows that design theme. Sean Fyfe thought the standard was now yellow so UDOT
may change that as well.
Q: Will they be on all four corners of the square? (RP)
3
A: No, it’s just this particular corner that they’re reworking. I think it’s just because they have a project that starts here –
if they had something along State Street, they may have wanted to address the one to the south as well, but this is the
start of it’s project and it heads west from here.
Agenda Item 5: Electronic Meeting Discussion – Jaysen Oldroyd
Jaysen Oldroyd requested an update to the option of meeting electronically. As far as the conservancy and Use
Committee is concerned, compliance with the Open and Public Meetings Act is essential, but there is a resolution that
would allow electronic meetings to continue under city code 286010 which indicates that if the majority of the quorum
committee is physically present at the physical location an exception could be made where the chair can determine, for
safety reasons related to COVID, that the physical location is not necessary to meet. This is what’s currently allowing the
city to forgo the anchor location. With the Delta variant, this exception could still be used to avoid going to the anchor
location in the meantime. It’s not problematic to have some entities meeting in person and some not, as safety concerns
are still there. It’s up to the majority desires of the committee and the chair’s ruling.
Q: Are you suggesting we decide as a committee if we meet in person? (JH)
A: I think that could be up for discussion, I think it may be most useful, particularly here, where I don’t think we have a
quorum yet, is that we could talk about how the committee members feel in general, and whether there’s a preference
going forward. Under the current conditions, we think that continuing to meet through this hybrid model - where we
meet through Teams under the electric meetings and the Open and Public Meetings Act - exceptions are possible, but it
might be helpful to get the committee members’ thoughts as to what they prefer and what they feel comfortable with.
(JO)
Q: Can you remind us where we’re at on our last change where we omitted electronic meetings? Back in 2015 when we
did the electronic meetings thing, is that still appropriate and could that be modified by using Teams to have a hybrid of
both in person and in Teams? (JC)
A: I think we could. Essentially, we could hold a meeting if the majority of committee members are present. With
regards to the Team language, we could potentially tweak this – probably the easiest suggestion would be to say we
could hold it as, ‘Appropriate under Utah law,’ and just leave it really vague so we could make it as flexible as possible.
The one thing we’re struggling with right now I think is this 286010 Section of the city code that has the same language
that we have in the resolution, Jim. That one says, “For purposes of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, a board
commissioner or committee of the city may hold an electronic meeting only if a majority of the quorum of the board
commission or committee is physically present at the physical location from which the electronic meeting originates, or
from which the members of the board commission or committee are connected to the electronic meeting.” (JO)
Q: If we have five of the eight board members, three of them could join electronically and we would still have a
quorum?
A: Correct, I think that’s accurate. And the language in the Open and Public Meetings Act essentially waives that anchor
location requirement if the chairperson for the committee makes the health and safety determination that we’ve been
making for the past year and change. So that state code provision allows us to circumvent the requirement that there be
an anchor location. (JO)
C: I’m guessing, Jim, that you’re thinking, I mean with most people I think this has kind of brought up how easy it is for
people to join from afar and that sometimes we don’t get a full quorum and maybe that would help. (JH)
C: That was my thoughts. (JC)
C: A couple of things, you know for the last year, and prior to the pandemic issue, there wasn’t a lot of work going on at
the square that, we as a committee, were that involved with, but because of the earthquake and the current work on
the square, it is hard in some ways to discuss and see the issues if we’re not together at the building, like if we wanted to
take a walkabout. For example, the stairs. We’re in a situation where they’re under construction and demolition and
there are several things that the committee should be aware of. If you all remember, when we were looking at previous
stone samples, it was difficult, as a committee, to have people go see them and understand them – it was a bit
confusing. I’m thinking that in the next few months that it would be advantageous to have the committee meet on site.
(RP)
4
Q: I agree, and we talked about maybe doing the survey of the grounds that we do once a year and coming to the site
and Jason, I’m wondering if we do that, if the committee meets on site, if we only meet outside on site, does that
preclude us going back to Teams? (BM)
A: I don’t believe so – I think particularly I like the distinction of meeting outside – kind of an open-air approach – I think
that certainly makes it an easier argument for meeting. I think even with inside, there would be ways that we could
address it with precautions that we’re taking. The other component is not just committee members meeting, but it’s
also how we make access available for people who may want to attend the meeting. That hasn’t happened very often in
the past, but I know for instance, the City Council right now is dealing with a scenario where most of the City Council
feels comfortable meeting in person, among their group, but they don’t necessarily feel comfortable with having a
packed gallery available. They’re looking into that type of situation and looking to continue to meet electronically –
even when the majority of them are present in the City Council Room, but then keeping the gallery and other people
online. So, I think your approach would work. (JO)
I’m not suggesting that we hold a whole agenda outdoors, but if we meet on site, it allows us to, as we have in the past,
get up and go outside to look at something or inside to look at something and still go back and meet. And if it’s possible
to still set up for people who can’t make it or, perhaps, don’t want to come, I think that’s great. (RP)
C: I mean, isn’t that the equivalent of us getting up from our meeting and going outside or somewhere in the building to
look at something? Where we kind of stop the meeting or take a tape recorder out? (JH)
C: Yes, typically we’d take a recording device around with us and that doesn’t seem to be a functional equivalent to that
same process. (JO)
Q: Would it need to be tied to the meeting like the same day or before or after? (JH)
A: Yes, I think it probably would have to be tied to the meeting because it is still a convening or gathering of the group in
whatever form or sense we’d be doing it. I think it would still be part of the meeting and we would still need the tape
recorded there and a way to keep track of what happens during that meeting or tour as we go through. (JO)
Q: I think with the information that’s going to be presented to us over the next several months – it’s certainly much
easier for us to communicate if we can actually point to something and talk and get everybody’s opinion about
something, rather than what we’ve had to do here in the last year. Jaysen has there been blowback from the public with
regards to the meetings online? (RP)
A: I think for the most part it’s worked well. It changes the dynamic when it’s an online forum and it changes the
approach to the meeting. I haven’t heard of a whole lot of blowback up to this point just given the circumstances
everyone’s been dealing with. If we continue to move out of the pandemic and things kind of improve, I could see a
point where the public wants to be present. I think there’s a different dynamic that can be gleaned from an in person
public meeting than when it’s something that happens – both from a public participation standpoint and even just the
message that can be sent by the public showing up in person. (JO)
C: For as long I have been associated with this committee, there hasn’t been one. They couldn’t fund us if they tried!
But not to say that we don’t want to be like every other committee or commission. (RP)
C: Yes, Joan still goes to great lengths to advertise and let everybody know what we’re doing, and post the minutes, but
I’ve been on this committee 10, 11 years and maybe once or twice and those were consultants that came in to present
for us and they weren’t really members of the community. (JC)
C: Can I say one more thing about the meetings – I agree with Rob that I think it’s much more effective when we can
meet in person and see things, but I’m also a little concerned right now about the Delta variant and some breakthrough
cases and not knowing which of us are vaccinated and which aren’t and if we’re putting people at risk and I’m sort of
inclined to keep doing it this way for another month or two at least until we have more information. (BM)
C: There is a lot up in the air right now. (JH)
C: But I don’t know if that affects us going on site and looking at something if it must be tied to a meeting. (BM)
C: I agree with you, Barbara, the safety aspect is paramount. Even if we were, to say, arrange an event to have
everybody meet on site to discuss something. I would expect that people would maintain their own comfort level in
showing up or not, wearing masks, and social distancing. (RP)
C: So, let’s say hypothetically, if we wanted to meet next month, onsite, would we meet on MS Teams first and then a
half hour later meet up at the site or something like that? How would that work? (JH)
C: That’s a little complicated, I think. It seems to be a little all or nothing. Either we meet on site or we don’t. (RP)
5
Q: Should we just ask the committee members who has a concern and then go from there? Personally, I don’t have a
problem meeting together, at all.
C: I think Barbara expressed some concern with the Delta variant. (JH)
C: But we could still meet and provide an opportunity to anybody who wanted to join remotely. (JK)
C: I think the thing we’re struggling with is if we want to go and look and something on site and make some decisions,
which I’m not sure, if we had people joining remotely if that would be possible, unless we did it on a phone or
something. (JH)
C: Yes, I don’t think it needs to be complicated, if you want to join remotely, you can join on a phone somewhere or just
join us on site. It doesn’t need to be that complicated. (JK)
Jaysen Oldroyd expressed some concern about the recording quality of having part of the quorum remote and in person.
Jennifer Hale suggested meeting in person but having everyone wear masks to keep everyone protected, regardless of
vaccination status. Robert Pett and Barbara Murphy agreed on the idea and that it was the best way to be respectful of
other’s circumstances. Robert Pett suggested that the decision be pushed to the next meeting to get a better idea on
how the majority would feel and Jennifer Hale agreed. Jaysen Oldroyd brought up Salt Lake City’s innovations through
technology and how it could be used to address people’s concerns and comfort levels in the coming months that might
add some additional considerations at that time. Jennifer Hale established that it stays electronic for the time being and
then discussion of on-site meetings can be addressed later.
Agenda Item 6: Sub-Committee Update – Robert Pett
Robert Pett updated the committee on the pending earthquake repairs at the City and County Building that damaged
some of the interior and the exterior stairs. The contractor power washed the south section of the east stairs and
landing to compare against the samples from the chosen quarry and there are similar characteristics, but they are
significantly lighter in color. This shouldn’t be a big issue though because the existing stone is going to be used to the
highest degree, unless something is broken beyond repair and is unusable – which should make replacing the stone
minimal. The stone samples are currently in the hallway on the second level by the security desk, but they are heavy.
Sean Fyfe will investigate getting them moved to the landing outside, but requests if they are used, that they be put
back up on the landing after review. Delivery time is 8 – 10 weeks so the order needs to be placed as soon as possible.
During the project while removing stair pieces, they found that there’s an underlying waterproof lining that is
problematic as it is deteriorating. They’re talking about removing all the treads and replacing the waterproofing and that
is currently pending with the insurance company to see if it’s covered. The seismic joint and plates were also removed,
and they found that the gap isn’t as wide as the existing plates. The plates were fashioned to be as wide as the pedestals
for the columns –which is much wider than they need to be. With everything already being opened it’s a good
opportunity to start integrating new and better fitting components and the consultant is going to re-review the joints
and the seismic joint in the sheet wall and how it would be integrated into the system being used. Solutions will be
presented to make it into a cohesive system, though we’re not sure if insurance will cover it.
Regarding the interior work, GSBS did a preliminary report to evaluate the scope of the damage from the earthquake
and their results will determine what contractors will be needed to repair the building. The results are pending delivery
and are due on 07/14. From there, they would compile a short list of consultants from the additional information that
will get more into the technical details and what exactly the work would entail. Interviews for the selected candidates
th
will be held on August 11. Sean Fyfe said that the consultant selected will also perform due diligence with more in-
depth and locate potential unseen damage. This may include testing the isolator in the basement by removing the base
isolator or two and having them tested, doing sound tests of loose tiles, etc. The consultant’s bidding of a contractor is
to be completed in late February, early March, and construction should start in early April of next year, but these dates
are estimates until able to review the schedule with the consultant.
Q: If someone does go visit and has input, do they just tell Rob? Or do you even really want input? I mean, you’re our
representative and you’re comfortable. (JH)
6
A: I am comfortable and there also aren’t a lot of choices. Delta Stone is supplying the stones and they’re coming out of
a quarry without a lot of options. That’s just what’s being produced. It’s not like we can go to the other part of the
quarry and start digging down there in the hopes that we’re going to find the exact stone and texture, plus the stone
that is in place now is very vague. And a lot of that was obscured by dirt, but once they were cleaned, it’s amazing how
much contrast there is between the stones that are there. The only worry would be if there is a lot of stone in one place
that needs replaced by what’s coming out of the quarry, it would be jarring. So there has been discussions with the
mason on what ability they would have to use or sort which stones might go where so it blends a little better, but the
concern is that the stairs are not uniform in length, which is a little problematic. The number that needs replaced now is
few so it should be fine, but I enjoy going to site and visiting and taking pictures to share with the committee because a
lot happens in a month.
Q: Will the order go in before our next meeting?
A: Yes, it must. The administration is very concerned about getting these stairs open, but we certainly want to make
sure that we’re not rushed and that we’re taking the steps to make it look as great as we can. The handrails will also be
replaced and that might be a discussion too – as to whether it’s the same as they are now or a different configuration.
Jenny Hale thanked all for attending and could not officially adjourn as a quorum was not present.
7