Loading...
8/4/2022 - Meeting Minutes PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,August 4,2022 5:00 p.m.—7:00 p.m. Join Via Webex: httus://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecitv-/i.uhn?MTID=mb77987d7del3l5Oafdd5a494dO3eOael Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone 1-408-418-9388 Access code:2481 910 2502 Minutes (Approved) 1—Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM Call to order - Brianna Binnebose - Samantha Finch - Jenny Hewson - Melanie Pehrson - CJ Whittaker - Aaron Wiley Chair comments 5 min Brianna Binnebose called the meeting to order and stated she did not have any chair comments but asked staff to please prompt her if she missed anything procedurally. 2—Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM Approve July 7, 2022, meeting minutes 5 min Ms. Binnebose asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. Ms. Binnebose stated a correction to the minutes where she was mistakenly listed as a member of the Glendale Park Advisory Board in lieu of Melanie Pehrson; Luke Allen recorded the correction. Samantha Finch motioned to approve the July 7, 2022, meeting minutes. CJ Whittaker seconded the motion.The minutes were approved unanimously by the Board. 3—Public Comment Period 5:10 PM Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Ms. Binnebose requested that public commentors please introduce themselves with preferred pronouns for the purpose of the minutes. Jim Webster Jim Webster stated that they are interested in hearing the update on Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park; the neighbors are very concerned about fire in that area. Eugene Arnold Eugene Arnold stated he had recently been riding their bike along the Jordan River Trail and noticed that the water is filthy with trash and tree branches piled up in the water. He expressed interest in knowing whether these issues would soon be addressed. Aaron Wiley asked the public commenter where along the Jordan River Trail they were at when they noticed the debris in the river. Mr. Arnold responded that he had been located between approximately 5`h South and 9th South. He further explained that he had researched the entities involved in maintaining this space and have also seen staff conducting unhoused camp abatements. At one of the camp abatements, Mr. Arnold asked staff whether they cleaned up the river, to which a staff person replied that they had used to, but at one point had come across a deceased body in the river,whereupon that level of river maintenance had stopped. Mr.Arnold continued, saying he had then walked down to Backman Elementary and noticed the new bridge in the area and learned about the open classroom being built in that space, and had then run into new Park Rangers in the area and had spoken with them, and concluded their statement. Ms. Binnebose thanked Mr.Arnold for sharing their experience along Jordan River Parkway with the board and inquired whether there was any further public comment. Seeing none, Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. 4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:25 PM Seven Greenways Vision Plan Update— Brian Tonetti 10 min Brian Tonetti introduced himself to the Board. Mr.Tonetti works for the nonprofit Seven Canyons Trust, an organization working to uncover and restore the buried and impaired creeks in Salt Lake Valley. Mr.Tonetti explained that Seven Canyons Trust has been working for the past two years on a regional vision plan called the Seven Greenways Vision Plan (the Plan), referencing his presentation to the board. The Plan's mission is to inspire a common vision over the next 100 years to revitalize our waterways, connecting people to our greenways throughout the Salt Lake Valley. The organization had partnered with each of the eight municipalities that border Salt Lake County streams, who all provided matching funds and support for their projects, including Salt Lake City.All eight mayors, including Mayor Erin Mendenhall, have signed the vision plan. Over the past two years,the organization's community engagement around the vision plan has included a regional community survey, pop-up workshops, and an online mapping platform. Mr.Tonetti explained that he would be providing the board with the organization's pathways to implementation presentation and that the best way to engage with the plan is via the organization's website at sevengreenwaysvisionplan.org. The organization identified 21 different opportunity areas in Salt Lake Valley throughout the Plan. Five of these opportunity areas are "big ideas," which illustrate possibilities when applying the goals in a transformational way; two of these big ideas are in Salt Lake City. Water, nature, community, recreation, and urban are the five core elements throughout the plan, amongst which the opportunities were organized.The opportunities are then further organized among increments of time, including 10 to 20-year opportunities that are more short-term and 100-year opportunities that take a lifetime to implement. The first opportunity for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled North Temple and is designated as a 10-year water opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting—or uncovering and restoring—City Creek along North Temple, create a trail connection to the Folsom Corridor, and to integrate green infrastructure to control urban runoff. Mr. Tonetti explained that if this opportunity area interests the Board and the City as a partner, the suggested next step would be for the City to inventory parcels adjacent to the corridor, prioritize purchase of properties or easements to facilitate the goals, meet with the LDS Church, Gateway Mall, and other interested landowners to facilitate partnerships that will make the goal happen, to culturally daylight the area via art and signage, and to create a policy that requires or incentivizes developers along this stretch to contribute to the goals. The second opportunity for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Folsom Corridor and is designated as a 10-year community opportunity.This opportunity includes revitalizing a rail corridor into a multi-use trail and daylight City Creek, connecting east and west- side neighborhoods. The third opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Bonneville Shoreline Trail to Miller Park and is designated as a 10-year recreation opportunity.This opportunity includes creating a trail connection between public spaces along Red Butte Creek,forming partnerships with the University of Utah for research, and creating angling opportunities at key locations along the creek. The fourth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Bonneville Golf Course and is designated as a 10-year nature opportunity. This opportunity includes creating a protected trail connection along Emigration Creek, restoring riparian habitat and the floodplain, replacing or removing aging infrastructure, and stabilizing streambanks. The fifth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Wasatch Hollow to Westminster and is designated as a 10-year recreation opportunity.This opportunity includes creating a trail connection between public spaces along Emigration Creek, forming partnerships with Westminster for research, and creating angling opportunities at key locations. Mr.Tonetti explained that this opportunity is also one of the Plan's "big ideas." Mr.Tonetti went onto present the five strategies for implementing the fifth opportunity, Wasatch Hollow to Westminster, which consists of partnering with community institutions for education and stewardship of the creek, restore riparian habitat and stream meanders, recreate a floodplain and create opportunities for fishing, link a trail through existing parks and open space, reimagine Allen Park as a space for art and community programming, and connect Emigration Creek Trail to the McClelland Trail. Mr.Tonetti also explained the next steps for Wasatch Hollow to Westminster and invited the Board to attend Seven Canyons Trust's five walks during the rest of the summer that will cover the "big ideas" outline in the Plan, of which there are two in Salt Lake City.The recreational big idea walk is scheduled for 6pm on September 15, starting at Wasatch Hollow and finishing at Allen Park.The water big idea walk is scheduled for 6pm on September 29, starting at City Creek Park and ending on Second West. All may be found online at sevengreenwaysvisionplan.org/walks. Mr.Tonetti then returned to presenting the remaining opportunity areas for Salt Lake City. The sixth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Herman Franks Park and is designated as a 100-year water opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting Emigration Creek to activate and enhance the park space, creating a community amenity, and improving connectivity to Liberty Park through a trail and signage. The seventh opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Sugar House and is designated as a 10-year community opportunity.This opportunity culturally includes daylighting Parley's Creek through signage and are in the Sugar House neighborhood of Salt Lake City. The eighth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Ballpark and is designated as a 100-year urban opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys Creeks and increasing the urban forest as Salt Lake City's Ballpark neighborhood experiences growth and redevelopment. The ninth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled 1300 South and is designated as a 100-year water opportunity. This opportunity includes daylighting Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys Creeks east of the Three Creeks Confluence along 1300 South, enhancing east-west connections to the Jordan River. Mr.Tonetti then briefly covered the "Toolbox" area of the Plan, which can also be found online.The tools included: • Best Management Practices • Design Guidelines • Funding • Policy Recommendations • Partnerships Mr.Tonetti expanded upon the Policy Recommendations tool, which included: • City master plan alignment • Riparian corridor ordinance • Using development time when a site is already undergoing disturbance to implement some of these opportunities • Creek-friendly certification to recognize folks for spearheading opportunities • Transfer of Development Rights • Property Acquisition Brian completed his presentation and asked the Board if there were any questions. Ms. Binnebose asked for more information on the "funding"tool in the Plan. Mr. Tonetti responded that it really depends on the project: the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process is one example, but to really speak in-depth about funding, we need a project to align with the funding tool. Ms. Binnebose and Mr. Tonetti then went on to discuss property acquisition's potential role within future opportunities, including land trusts and easements. Ms. Finch inquired about the past success and experiences regarding the partnerships that Seven Canyons Trust has with all types of entities. Mr.Tonetti responded with one 2014 example of partnering with a group of students, including Mr.Tonetti himself, that ended up serving as the vision plan that ended up creating the nonprofit Seven Canyons Trust. Within that original vision plan, Three Creeks Confluence was a highlighted opportunity that was presented to the City Council at that time, whereupon the opportunity came to fruition over the course of the past seven years. Melanie Pehrson asked what the benefit of daylighting waterways is. Mr.Tonetti stated there are water quality benefits with taking water out of a concrete pipe, exposing it to the natural light and UV rays where vegetation can then grow alongside the waterway and filter the pollutants from the water and air, and serve as beneficial for wildlife. Lastly, removing water from an enclosed concrete canal also provides flood mitigation and recreation opportunities. Jenny Hewson asked the following question: Is this being done in other cities? In the stakeholder process, are different stakeholders generally positive (given the potential impacts during the implementation)? Mr.Tonetti replied that yes,this is being replicated in other cities and that Seven Canyons Trust has so far received very positive feedback throughout all eight municipalities. Ms. Finch asked whether Mr.Tonetti could describe the different types of stakeholders who might express concern over these types of projects versus those who are proponents of them. Mr.Tonetti replied that the largest concern is that these typed of projects are a very expensive process;for example, a recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that stream daylighting per linear foot costs approximately $1,000. Considering there are 21 miles of buried streams in Salt Lake City,the costs add up quickly. Mr.Tonetti expressed that Seven Canyons Trust believes the benefits of daylighting projects far outweigh the costs, so much of this comes down to political will and finding a champion at the local government level. On an individual level, Mr.Tonetti described the biggest concern being safety:there is a large perceived risk of exposing a creek channel, as an even bigger real-life risk that urban dwellers deal with daily are heavily trafficked roadways. Mr.Tonetti also mentioned the comprehensive FAQ page on the Vision Plan for further information. Ms. Finch asked whether the cost was going to be borne by private donations. Mr. Tonetti responded that the funding could be covered by various sources: private, federal, local, and so forth. He then provided another example from Kalamazoo, Michigan, of a stream daylighting project where a large amphitheater was also installed and ended up generating the city$12 million in revenue, covering the costs of the project in one year's time. Mr. Tonetti's point is, if we are just talking about monetary costs,these projects tend to generate economic development in surrounding areas, increased property values adjacent to the projects, while also contributing many benefits to the community and environment. Ms. Binnebose thanked Mr.Tonetti for his presentation and time and moved on to the next agenda item. Capital Investment and Deferred Maintenance Spending—Tyler Murdock ue Tyler Murdock, Public Lands Department Deputy Director—Planning and Ecological Services, encouraged Board members to attend the Big Ideas Walks with Seven Canyons Trust in the coming months. Mr. Murdock stated that, in response to Board member Ginger Cannon's request, he was here to present to the Board the beginning analysis of how Public Lands has historically allocated funding through the CIP process, the Deferred Maintenance Program, and through the Department's annual operating budget how those funds are spent across the City. Mr. Murdock stated that,while there is a narrative that Westside parks have been historically underfunded, the Department is still parsing together data pertaining to its operational spending so that everyone has a more complete picture. Mr. Murdock introduced Owen Koppe an intern who has been working with the Department for the past three months to collect and analyze data regarding how the Department is spending money per Salt Lake City district from an equity lens. Mr. Koppe introduced himself as an Equity Analytics Intern in the Parks Division and provided some background for the Capital Investment and Deferred Maintenance Spending presentation by Mr. Murdock. Mr. Koppe expressed the uniqueness of Salt Lake City as managing a lot of open space, most of which is in the Eastside districts of SLC. Owen emphasized that instead of thinking about public lands maintenance simply in terms of acreage, it's important to note that those districts with the most acreage—which are Districts 3 and 6 with large open spaces—do not require as much attention and maintenance as other parks since they are undeveloped spaces. For example, some parks have more major features and structures to maintain, and thus will need more funding because there are more assets to maintain at these parks. Mr. Koppe stated that the two districts which house Westside parks—Districts 1 and 2—have as many park structures as the four Eastside districts combined. When considering equitable distribution, it is also key to note that Westside parks contain more structures and amenities that require attention and maintenance than Eastside parks do. Mr. Murdock stated that when Mr. Koppe finalizes his report in September around operational expenditures, they will return to the Board to present that as well. Mr. Murdock then provided examples of park amenities, such as drinking fountains, park benches, athletic courts, and fences. Ms. Pehrson asked how the acreage in each Council district compared to the total amount of amenities found within each Council district's parks. Owen replied that he believes the Westside districts have roughly 60,000 residents while the Eastside districts have approximately 100,000. Mr. Murdock began to present the CIP data broken down annually by city council district.The larger outliers on the graph represent recent big project acquisitions such as Allen Park,Three Creeks Confluence, and the Glendale Regional Park. Ms. Binnebose asked whether the tracking includes annual averages for what is being spent, such as median expenditures. Mr. Murdock replied that the majority of what the Public Lands crews does is operational, and that much of the data analysis is preliminary due to the type of tracking that the Department has historically conducted. Mr. Murdock then began presenting on Deferred Maintenance spending by district, emphasizing that the deferred maintenance fees come from the General Fund, whereas CIP funding are dedicated specifically to Parks.The graph outlined deferred maintenance funding expenditures since 2015 by council district. Mr. Murdock once again reminded the Board that these graphs do not include operational expenses. Ms. Finch asked whether Allen Park was CIP funds; Mr. Murdock replied that it was in part impact fees that funded Allen Park, which is the CIP process and which his presented graphs were illustrating. The Board expressed interest in having Owen and Mr. Murdock return when there was more data to present. Ms. Pehrson asked how the data is collected. Owen replied that the CIP and deferred maintenance data is mostly collected from the Public Lands Planning Team and the operational data from Cartegraph. Mr. Murdock stated that folks may find CIP logs online on the City Council website. Ms. Finch asked Mr. Murdock his interpretation of the data and the story it's telling so far. Mr. Murdock replied that he is also interested in understanding amount of service funding per area and mentioned Council District 4—the downtown area—as an outlier in the data in terms of an area not receiving as much attention as others. Ms. Binnebose mentioned that it also might be good for the Board to see the average age of amenities in relation to spending. Carmen Bailey, Public Lands Deputy Director of Operations, added that the data is also not telling the story of time and money spent on responding to vandalism within parks. Mr. Murdock and Ms. Bailey also mentioned the Capital Asset Management Plan. The Board thanked Mr. Murdock and Owen for his time and presentation and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. Miller Park Update—Tyler Murdock 5 min Mr. Murdock explained that of the two update areas—management and capital improvement projects—he would be focusing mostly on management in today's presentation. Mr. Murdock went on to explain that, in terms of vegetation, Public Lands has increased its monitoring of vegetation in Miller Park and has hired an environmental consultant to conduct surveys and monitoring throughout the summer.The Department expects a deliverable from the consultant that provides a better understanding of Miller Park vegetation needs in September. Mr. Murdock stated that his presentation today would focus on two primary updates: management and the capital improvement project, of which he would be mainly focusing on the management update. He also mentioned that Public Lands is on the Yalecrest Community Council agenda in September to discuss the CIP aspect of Miller Park. Mr. Murdock explained that, in response to community feedback and concern, the Public Lands Department has been focused on increased monitoring of Miller Park vegetation through the hiring of an environmental consultant and community surveys. The Department expects a deliverable from the environmental consultant sometime in September that provides a better understanding of the vegetation. The second item that the Department has been working on is a vegetation management plan review due to community concerns related to chemical herbaceous and woody treatment and removal within Miller Park. Mr. Murdock explained that the Department uses two documents to guide Miller Park and open spaces managed. One of those is the Noxious Weed Management Plan that was completed by SWCA in 2012, who has been rehired to perform a review of that 2012 plan for the Department, which is expected to be finalized in October and will help guide the Department's annual operating management plan in Miller Park. Mr. Murdock added that he is hopeful that this review will provide the Department with clear vegetation targets and metrics and then share those with the community about Miller Park as well as all City- managed open spaces. Mr. Murdock addressed the fire concerns related to Miller Park that were previously shared by public commenter Jim Webster. Currently, Salt Lake City Public Lands is trying to navigate and balance leaving some woody debris for habitat purposes for birds and wildlife while also mitigating the fire risk. Mr. Murdock stated that the Department has met numerous times with the Fire Department, who has been supportive of this management approach; the Department will also be meeting with the Fire Department on August 17 to walk the site again, assess the condition, and identify potential risk and shift the management approach if deemed necessary. One concern that has been raised to Mr. Murdock and the Department is the formulation of several debris piles in Miller Park right now. Mr. Murdock affirmed that these debris piles have not been formed by Public Lands crews and that the Department does not know who is constructing these piles. Mr. Murdock stated that he is aware of Rocky Mountain Power doing a lot of cutting on easements that they have within Miller Park, and that may be a potential source. Regardless, he recognizes that these are potential fire hazards, and that the Department is trying to figure out who is making the debris piles. Ms. Binnebose commented on the innate challenge between managing at least two competing interests that the Department must deal with, which is fire mitigation and habitat preservation. Mr. Murdock confirmed that this is a challenge the Department faces with all its open spaces. He also addressed the community skepticism of past environmental consultants, stating that he understands this, and would like to reach out to Tracy Aviary and other trusted environmental community-based organizations to review the plans and solicit feedback from them as well. CJ Whittaker asked if it was true that there is currently not consensus on what vegetation is invasive or not in Miller Park and in relation to that, which vegetation is holding the riverbanks together and which is not, and how do we manage that?As far as Mr. Whittaker has been hearing,there seems to be some disagreement between university professors and the City about what is invasive. Mr. Murdock responded that he presumes Mr. Whittaker is referring to Black Locust Tree. With regards to the species,that is one specific example of something the City is asking the environmental consultant to review. Mr. Murdock explained that, since 2014 and prior to his tenure with the City,the City has taken the stance that Black Locusts were behaving in an invasive manner, and they have been actively removing them since 2014. Mr. Murdock stated that he believes a question that needs to be addressed is, "What species are behaving in a way that is crowding out other species? "and then determine a vegetation makeup that would be ideal to stabilize the riverbank slopes. These are questions that the Department is addressing with SWCA.Then,to the question of structural stabilization, Mr. Murdock replied that he recognizes the options here as being stabilizing the steep banks with vegetation,which is the preferred manner, or building costly structures to do the stabilizing. Mr. Whittaker thanked Mr. Murdock and stated that his questions were answered. Ms. Finch asked if there was anything specific to Miller Park that makes it more prone to fire danger than other spaces within the city. Mr. Murdock replied that there is probably also significant fire danger at Allen Park, but specifically the natural riparian areas comprised by Miller Park and Wasatch Hollow is the management approach that the City takes in those areas,for if they're natural bird preserves,the City takes a hands-off approach due to wildlife habitat. This is different than in well-manicured public parks such as Memory Grove, Mr. Murdock explained. Ms. Binnebose also surmised that Miller Park's proximity to urban built areas, infrastructure, and utilities, also might make it more prone to fire risk. Mr. Murdock also added that the Department has really good communication with the Community Council right now and is working on several volunteer-based events throughout the space.The challenge remains identifying good areas for irrigation within Miller Park. Ms. Binnebose confirmed that the Board would appreciate receiving another follow-up from staff on Miller Park,to which Mr. Murdock replied that he is happy to continue providing updates to the Board and suggested providing updates in time with the updated plan that SWVCA is working on,which will then inform the Department's updates of its annual operation and maintenance plan. Once the Department can then share the updated annual operation and maintenance plan with fellow community groups for their feedback, that will be a key time to return with an update (approximately September). Continued Discussion of Draft Ordinance Amendment to Section 2.94.040 of the Salt 10 min Lake City Code—Ashley Cleveland—Potential Action Item Ashley Cleveland, Deputy Director of Community Outreach for the Mayor, stated that she is reporting back to the Board on the follow-up meetings that she had with PNUT Board members regarding this agenda item and the draft of amendment to Section 2.94.040. Ms. Cleveland stated that the largest edit to that draft amendment that Board members wanted was an addition of two at-large members to the Board's composition, for a total of 13 members. Ms. Cleveland stated that she has applied the Board's edits to the draft amendments. Ms. Cleveland said that she appreciated the Board's time on this matter and would like it to go onto the City Council for their approval. Luke Allen informed that Board that the change Ms. Cleveland is referring to is on line 19 of the draft amendment. Ms. Binnebose thanked Ms. Cleveland for allowing her and Board member Ginger Cannon to learn more from Ms. Cleveland on this issue. Ms. Binnebose then posed the question to the Board whether they vote on the draft amendment during this meeting since they barely have a quorum. Ms. Hewson asked if she could have a copy of the draft amendment in question,to which Mr. Allen replied that he had just emailed a copy to members a few moments ago. Mr. Allen further explained that it is up to the Board what action they want to take on this draft amendment. Ms. Binnebose asked Ms. Cleveland what her timeline was for the amendment. Ms. Cleveland stated that she is happy with the support she's received from the PNUT Board and provided some timeline options to the Board regarding Indigenous Heritage Month (November) and further community engagement meetings she'll be having. Ms. Cleveland asked staff that if the draft amendment were to be approved as-is in today's meeting by the PNUT Board and Indigenous appointees asked whether some changes could be made to the draft if that would be inconvenient. Mr. Allen and Mr. Murdock stated that staff are happy to work with the Board on whatever is decided. Ms. Cleveland then responded that the Board could approve the draft and she would be happy to invite PNUT Board members to community engagements she is conducting over the next couple of months and then further discuss when they want to take it to City Council. Ms. Pehrson asked whether there was any reason to wait. Ms. Cleveland responded that no, it is up to the Board. M. Pehrson motioned to approve the draft Ordinance Amendment to Section 2.94.040 of the Salt Lake City Code as revised. Ms. Finch seconded the motion. Mr. Whittaker responded in the chat that he was unable to fully hear what was happening due to a poor internet connection. Mr. Allen informed Mr. Whittaker the action that the Board was about to take,to which both Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Hewson typed into the chat that they approved the pending motion.The Board unanimously approved the draft ordinance amendment as revised. Ms. Cleveland and the Board expressed gratitude to one another, and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. 5—Board Discussion and Action Items 6:05 PM N/A N/A 6—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 6:05 PM Board subcommittee updates as needed • Trails subcommittee Ms. Binnebose asked Mr. Whittaker if he had anything to report from Trails. Ms. Hewson noted that Mr. Whittaker had typed into the chat that he was still having connection issues. Ms. Hewson, who also serves on the Trails subcommittee, added that the Greater Avenues Community Council met last month and there was a three-way presentation with a good question and answer portion during the meeting where Mr. Murdock, SLC Trail Alliance, and Save our Foothills each presented, and Board member Phil Carroll facilitated. Ms. Hewson added that the presentation really highlighted areas where all the groups can work together and overall that the meeting was greatly helpful. • Communication subcommittee Ms. Binnebose stated that Mr. Allen had spoken with the IT Department on a file sharing system for better access points as well as promoting continuity for the Board. Ms. Binnebose mentioned that this would also allow Board members to maintain some privacy as they would not have to engage with community members via their personal email addresses. Ms. Binnebose also announced on behalf of Mr. Allen that the Department will be bringing on another staff person to act as a liaison for the PNUT Board; this person will be able to support the Board with developing a communications plan and other items. Mr. Allen stated that he would probably be reaching out to Board members for optional bios and pictures to place on the PNUT Board webpage, which may help with community engagement. He added that he and the communications subcommittee are also working on making the meetings more accessible and approachable, be it via livestreaming the meetings or other means. Board comment and question period Ms. Finch thanked Eugene (public commenter)for attending this month's meeting and invited them to return for future meetings. Ms. Finch also explained some of the common practices and protocols (decorum) of the Board, including not addressing public comments during the public comment period, but preserving that space for the Board Comment and Question Period of the agenda. Ms. Finch also recommended a few more groups and organizations, such as the Jordan River Commission, that address the Jordan River area and hold volunteer cleanup events. Mr. Murdock and Mr.Allen also mentioned that the Board holds volunteer debris cleanup of the Jordan River when properly staffed, and there is one cleanup event on Saturday, August 61"starting at Three Creeks Confluence. Mr. Murdock also added that the Department has a contractor that began work doing in-river tree debris removal on Monday, August 1.They started around 1700 South, will backtrack to 2100 South,then will work their way Northward for the rest of the month doing this work. Ms. Binnebose provided an update from her District,from the last Liberty Wells Community Council Meeting. She stated that during that meeting, the council spent a very large chunk of time trying to answer questions on the new Park Rangers Program; there is very little information on the Public Lands website that details this program right now. Ms. Bailey asked for specific questions, and Ms. Binnebose listed them as follows: • What is the purpose of the Ranger program? • If the Rangers are not law enforcement, how is funding towards these positions beneficial to the public? • Will there be more information eventually listed on the website? Ms. Bailey responded that the Department had indeed been cautious about putting out too much information due to the Rangers undergoing extensive training and not being in full uniform yet. She then listed a few examples of the training currently happening. Ms. Binnebose asked if there are other Parks staff within the Department who could begin making the rounds to Community Councils and present about the overall purpose of the Ranger Program while the Rangers are still receiving training and preparation. Ms. Bailey responded that she is still working on hiring a new Park Ranger manager to be the face of the program, but that the Department doesn't necessarily have to wait for that person to be hired if folks desire a quicker response. Mr. Allen also mentioned that the Department is working on a Park Rangers press conference plus an SLC TV video brief on the program for the near future. Ms. Binnebose asked if Mr. Allen could inform the Board of the dates and times of these upcoming activities. Mr. Allen also requested specific questions from the Board so that the Department can ensure that future coverage of the Park Rangers Program addresses those questions. Next meeting: September 1, 2022 Request for future agenda item Mr. Murdock suggested that a future agenda item for the Board might be the General Obligation Bond ballot outcome that is on the City Council's agenda for August 161n Mr. Murdock added that the final Glendale Regional Park Master Plan would also be another good agenda item for the September meeting. 7—Adjourn 1 6:30 PM Ms. Finch motioned to adjourn the August PNUT Board Advisory Meeting.The motion to adjourn the meeting passed unanimously. * INSERT Chat Comments * from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 5:30 PM Phenomenal process: Is this being done in other cities? In the stakeholder process, are different stakeholders generally positive (given the potential impacts during the implementation)? Creek-friendly certification sounds fabulous! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 5:58 PM I think this is incredibly helpful from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:21 PM Luke, I didn't see this in the packet-did I miss it? from Allen, Luke to everyone: 6:21 PM I just emailed it to you a few minutes ago, sorry for the delay! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:21 PM thank you much from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:22 PM Hey Jenny! from Cleveland, Ashley to everyone: 6:22 PM <3 from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:25 PM Lovely! Go 2.941 from CJ to everyone: 6:25 PM I can't really hear what's going on from CJ to everyone: 6:25 PM my connection is very bad from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:25 PM I approve from CJ to everyone: 6:26 PM I votte to approve from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:26 PM CJ- hugs! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:26 PM And I appreciate all the work on this from CJ to everyone: 6:26 PM you all sounds like robots. hahahaha