Loading...
10/6/2022 - Meeting Minutes (3) PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,October 6,2022 5:00 p.m.—7:15 p.m. Join Via Webex: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/i.php?MTID=m08fll586fedlf4e2440405bObb427c9e 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: 2493 265 4707 Minutes (approved) 1—Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM Call to order - Brianna Binnebose - Meredith Benally - Samantha Finch - Jenny Hewson - Phil Carroll - Clayton Scrivner - Aaron Wiley - CJ Whittaker Chair comments 5 mins Brianna Binnebose called the meeting to order. Ms. Binnebose reminded everyone that she is temporarily filling in as PNUT Chair until elections are held in January 2023. She thanked board members and staff for their patience with her. Introduce new board member 10 mins Ms. Binnebose introduced Meredith Benally as the new at-large PNUT Board member. Meredith stated that they are Navajo; for most of their life, Meredith has resided in Southern Utah and Utah is a very special place to them. Additionally, Meredith's mom worked as a tour guide for the state of Utah several years ago and knows so much about the state. Meredith expressed the privilege they felt for being on the PNUT Board,thanked everyone, and welcomed board members to ask further questions of them if they would like. Ms. Binnebose replied that the members were happy to have Meredith Benally serving on the Board and asked which part of Salt Lake they were residing in. Meredith responded that they are currently in Taylorsville. Kristin Riker suggested that the PNUT Board go around the table and introduce themselves along with their district or whether they are an at-large member. Samantha Finch introduced herself as the District 7 representative for the PNUT Board, known as the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City. Ms. Finch mentioned that her favorite park is Fairmont and encouraged folks to visit it. Phil Carroll introduced himself as the District 3 representative for the PNUT Board, known as the Avenues and Capitol Hill area of Salt Lake City. Mr. Carroll mentioned that his favorite spaces are Memory Grove and City Creek. Ms. Riker introduced herself as director of Public Lands and she loves all parks. Dan Dugan,visiting Councilperson for Salt Lake City Council District 6, introduced himself to the PNUT Board. Mr. Dugan's favorite space is the Shoreline Trail. Jenny Hewson introduced herself as an at-large representative for the PNUT Board and she resides East of the Avenues. Ms. Hewson's favorite space is the Foothills Trail System, and this is her second term on the board. Clayton Scrivner introduced himself as the District 4 representative for the PNUT Board, known as the Downtown area of Salt Lake City. Mr. Scrivner's favorite park is Gilgal Gardens because it represents the city stepping up and preserving something for generations to come. Ms. Binnebose introduced herself as the District 5 representative for the PNUT Board, known as the Liberty Wells area of Salt Lake City. Ms. Binnebose's favorite park is Liberty Park as she spends quite a bit of time there. CJ Whittaker introduced himself as the District 6 representative for the PNUT Board. Mr. Whittaker's favorite spaces are Davis Park and the Shoreline Trail. Aaron Wiley introduced himself as the District 1 representative for the PNUT Board. Mr. Wiley's favorite park is Riverside. 2—Approval of Minutes 5:15 PM Approve September 1, 2022, meeting minutes 5 mins Ms. Binnebose asked if anyone had edits to the September PNUT meeting minutes. Samantha Finch moved to approve the minutes; Ms. Hewson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the September 1 meeting minutes. 3—Public Comment Period 5:20 PM Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Anne Cannon Anne Cannon introduced themselves as a resident of District 6 and is present to speak to the board about Wasatch Hollow Park and Preserve. Anne stated that Wasatch Hollow had a recent off-leash dog survey and that everyone wants something done. Anne stated that the park has deteriorated from its beginning, and they hope the park will return to what it used to be.Anne further explained that off-leash dogs are just part of the issue;the conflict created by the increased amount of time for dogs off- leash and people is very out of balance. The other issue is that there is about to be three preserve entrances; they explained that currently,there are two parts to the Wasatch Hollow area, which are a park and a preserve.The preserve entrances are all into the preserve, which allows no dogs at all.The issue with both areas of the park is enforcement.Anne Cannon continued that, as the city acquires more properties for public space,the ability to enforce rules in those properties is almost zero. Anne stated that signs have been used for years to display rules; however,Anne stated that they find the signs ineffective due to their likelihood of being stolen or vandalized. Anne wants the Board to be made aware that it has an existing park that needs more help in terms of enforcement and that any acquiring of further properties will also need enforcement.Anne added that they believe the Park Ranger Program to be great, but it's very gentle and does not cover Wasatch Hollow Park. Anne encouraged the City to increase the range of the Park Rangers Program and to find a way to enforce the purpose and use of the parks so they can be used by everyone and not just a few. Jim Webster Jim Webster stated that they had sent photos to CJ Whittaker this morning.Jim stated that there was an enormous pile of dead wood in Miller Park where the old oxbow was.Jim stated that a Public Lands staff member had promised to get the pile out but that it had taken about five weeks'time, and much of it ended up in the creek,which was not good.Jim said that they wanted to remind the Board that Miller Park was dedicated by Minnie Miller to the children of the neighborhood. The problem is that a lower path that Jim had written a CIP grant for in years prior—which they state had been approved during a past administration—has not yet been created.Jim further explained that it's unfortunate that nothing has been done on this project and that it is not a priority. Lastly,Jim stated that the doggie bag dispenser has been empty for about six weeks now, which has led to increased dog feces throughout the park. Ms. Binnebose thanked Anne and Jim for their comments and after seeing no further public comment, confirmed that Public Lands staff would have written responses to public commenters available online prior to the November PNUT Board meeting. 4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:35 PM Salt Lake City Council Chair Dan Dugan Remarks 5 mins Mr. Dugan thanked the PNUT Board for having him at their meeting and stated that he appreciates the incredible responsibility that comes with overseeing the parks and for the members'time and energy. Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Update—Action Item—Kat Maus 10 mins Katherine ("Kat") Maus, Public Lands Planner, introduced herself to the board and stated that she was present today to provide members with a quick update on the Glendale Regional Park Plan and her recent presentation to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Ms. Maus stated that PNUT member Ginger Cannon had been present at the TAB presentation and solicited collaboration from the TAB during the discussions. Ms. Maus explained that ultimately,the TAB members had requested additional time to formulate any changes or modifications to the plan from a transportation perspective, which they will be finalizing in their November meeting. Ms. Maus proceeded to share her screen to show the PNUT Board the Salt Lake City Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan that might alleviate some concerns regarding transportation and access to the forthcoming Glendale Regional Park. Some of the elements of the plan for the 1700 South area included installing new crossings and adding curbs and crosswalks in the area, new lighting in the area, constructing a median down the center of the road, and traffic calming.This information may be found on page 79 of the Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan; Ms. Maus mentioned that the planning team will also me referencing this section of the Pedestrian Bicycle Plan in the final Glendale Regional Park Plan to bolster its adoption. Ms. Maus continued that next steps are for PL staff to still present the Glendale Park Plan to the Planning Commission in early November to continue moving through the process; however,this still leaves time for TAB and PNUT to collaborate and create an endorsement of the Glendale Regional Park Plan. Ms. Binnebose asked a clarifying question on the action item facing the PNUT Board today; Ms. Maus clarified that an appropriate item to act on would be whether the Board recommends to the Planning Commission moving forward with the Glendale Regional Park Plan adoption process. As far as a timeline, Ms. Maus stated that both the TAB and PNUT Board could potentially hold their November meetings and produce a letter of co-endorsement. Mr. Carroll stated that his interpretation of where things stand are that both TAB and PNUT have expressed similar concerns, and that it's just a matter of ironing out the details to make sure everything connects.Therefore, Mr. Carroll stated that he is comfortable voting on endorsing the plan to the Planning Commission during today's meeting. Ms. Finch confirmed that she too believed it was a matter of coordinating actions; Ms. Binnebose added that she understood it to also be a matter of determining whether PNUT wanted to write a joint letter of endorsement with the TAB or separate ones. Ms. Riker asked whether Ms. Cannon asked the TAB about a joint letter during the recent meeting; Ms. Maus stated that yes, Ms. Cannon had asked this of the TAB, and should the PNUT want to proceed with this route,then it would be prudent for them to wait until after the TAB's November meeting. Ms. Binnebose asked the PNUT Board whether they would then like to postpone this item once more for board action until next month (November). Ms. Maus stated that she would be coordinating with the TAB Chair to obtain their materials from the TAB's November meeting and would pass them along to the PNUT Board. Clayton Scrivner added that TAB's November meeting will be after PNUT's November meeting, so either way, PNUT would have time to endorse the Glendale Plan before the TAB's November meeting. Ms. Riker suggested that PNUT's acting Chair, Ms. Binnebose, could also reach out to the TAB chair to further coordinate a letter. Ms. Binnebose stated that she would be happy to do that, and reclarified that the action item for tonight's meeting could simply be that PNUT Board members will vote on whether to move forward with a letter of support for the Glendale Master Plan.The action item for the PNUT's November meeting would be to vote to approve and send the letter. Mr. Carroll added that he would be more comfortable to vote on any final draft letters with Ms. Cannon in attendance. Ms. Finch added that it would also be key to involve absent member Melanie Pehrson, since she was heavily involved in the Glendale Regional Park advisory committee and serves on the communications subcommittee. Further discussion among the board continued. Ms. Binnebose made a final motion that the PNUT Board approve to move forward with writing a statement of support towards the Glendale Master Plan with the caveat that Ms. Binnebose, as acting Chair, will coordinate with the TAB chair to put together a draft letter of support that will largely be spearheaded by the communications subcommittee, whereupon the PNUT Board will vote to approve the said letter in its November meeting. Mr. Scrivner seconded the motion.The PNUT Board voted to unanimously approve the motion. Ms. Maus thanked the Board and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. Preliminary Public Lands CIP FY 2023-2024 Project List for PNUT Board Consideration— 40 mins Tom Millar Mr. Millar, Public Lands Planning Manager, re-introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Millar asked the Board who has previously been involved in a prior Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process,to which a few board members raised their hands. Mr. Millar explained the CIP as a year-long process that starts with both internal applications from City departments and constituent applications from people who live within Salt Lake City.The CIP process starts around this time of year, with the final applications being submitted in December. Next, a citizen board goes through all the applications around January-February and makes their recommendations to the Mayor, upon which the Mayor includes in her budget that is proposed to the City Council. Finally,the City Council approves the budget and which projects are going to receive what amount of funding and from what source. Mr. Millar went on to say that we are now early in the 2023-2024 CIP process, and he has brought forth a list of prioritized project ideas to run past the PNUT Board. Mr. Scrivner clarified that this is a prioritized internal wish list; Mr. Millar replied that that is correct. Mr. Millar stated that, of the 13 that he included in the PNUT Board's packet for today's meeting, he does not anticipate that Public Lands will apply for all of them. Mr. Millar asked if there were any specific questions pertaining to the projects. Mr. Carroll replied that he liked the process they followed last year and would need more information for sure.The board explained to Mr. Millar how each board member preferred to rank each project on their own and then they all came back together to consolidate lists, with those receiving the most "1s" being top (first) priority projects, and those receiving the highest numbers being the lowest priority projects. Mr. Millar asked what he could provide to the Board to help with that process. Ms. Binnebose responded that it would be most useful to include a spreadsheet ranked by the department with project description, district, costs, a map, and categories the projects fit into.The format from last year was the most helpful. Ms. Finch asked if there were also comments from the Parks Division that were included in last years'; Ms. Riker replied that last year,they had projects separated out by design projects, natural construction projects, and so forth. Ms. Riker added that Mr. Millar was here to begin the conversation and prep the Board for this year's CIP process, and they'd be able to follow last year's formatting of the CIP projects for the Board,though they would not have the final dollar amounts. Ms. Binnebose mentioned to Mr. Millar that the Board was also comfortable including a summary of why they ranked projects the way they did once all members had completed their rankings and presenting that to the Public Lands Department. Mr. Millar added that they were also trying to get the list in front of the Board one month earlier than they did for FY 2022-2023. Ms. Riker added that the PNUT Board also submits a letter to the CDCIP Board (community board) of their recommendations. Mr. Millar also added that another reason they wanted to do it earlier this year was during the month of October Public Lands can put more thought into each of the 13 projects, but not fill out an entire full application for any of them until they've heard from the PNUT Board; after hearing more from the PNUT Board and weighing options,the PL Department can then spend the month of November deciding which of the 13 projects are the ones they'll be applying for and spend energy at that point filling out applications for the chosen projects. Ms. Binnebose asked if it would be Mr. Millar's preference that the Board return with their ranked projects in time for the November PNUT Board meeting. Mr. Millar replied that yes, that would be preferable. Mr. Millar stated that he could supply all the materials requested by the board by early the second week of October so they could rank the list of CIP projects based on that formatting. The group clarified that there will be a discussion that goes along with their rankings during the November PNUT meeting. Ms. Binnebose inquired when Mr. Millar and the PL Department would need the letter of recommended CIP projects addressed to the citizen board; Mr. Millar replied that the timeline for the letter is more flexible and just needs to happen by the end of December. Ms. Binnebose confirmed that the December PNUT Board meeting could be where the members finalize the letter, right before the holidays. Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Millar could also include in his forthcoming CIP project materials where the project was initiated (constituent applications vs. city department applications). Mr. Millar replied that yes, he could do that. Ms. Riker mentioned that this year,there are 14 constituent applications for Parks, and the department had just received those the day prior to today's PNUT meeting. Mr. Millar shared his screen with the constituent application list of requested projects combined with the preliminary internal projects. Mr. Millar notified the board that there is a ceiling of$500,000 per project for constituent applications, so in the case of those projects with more than that requested amount,the department would have to follow up with the constituent applicant. Group discussion on the list continued. Ms. Riker mentioned that Mr. Millar and the PL Planning team will be reaching out to each constituent applicant, explaining how the process works, and engaging in negotiations to develop their ideas into professional applications. Ms. Hewson asked without that rich context that comes from talking with the applicants, how the PNUT Board was supposed to rank these projects? Mr. Scrivner asked whether there was a general total amount of money that they should be keeping in mind when ranking projects? Mr. Millar replied that Engineering, Parks,Transportation, and Facilities typically submit CIP projects, and there isn't a set amount that they all work within. Ms. Riker added that Public Lands asks for capital improvement funds as well as impact-fee eligible projects through this process. Mr. Millar and Ms. Riker proceeded to provide some examples of impact-fee eligible projects on the CIP list from the Mr. Millar's screenshare,which included improvements to the Sunnyside pickleball courts, the Wetland Preserve Improvements, and other projects that do not provide additional service or operations. Ms. Hewson asked if Mr. Millar could also provide on the forthcoming spreadsheet to the PNUT Board whether each project is impact-fee eligible; Mr. Millar replied that he could absolutely do this. Ms. Hewson then asked whether members should rank a project that is impact-fee eligible as lesser priority; Mr. Millar said that they don't necessarily need to do that, as it all goes through the same application process and that the key difference is which bank account the City Council is going to use to fund the project. Mr. Scrivner asked how long it takes to speak with constituent applicants and gather more information from them about their proposed projects; Mr. Millar replied that it typically takes quite a while, so suggested that members use the approximate amount input on this list to make their rankings. Ms. Riker added that another option is to exclude the constituent requested applications since there are so many unknowns at this point; she affirmed that it is up to the members what they want to share and include in their rankings but confirmed again that the department has much more information on its own internal project requests than external ones submitted by constituents. Mr. Millar pointed the Board's attention to number 6 of the constituent requested projects, entitled "Rose Park Lane Improvement Project"for$65,000.This project was also requested by the Department as Preliminary Internal Project I for$650,000. He noted that since this is an overlapping project request, one of those requests would be coming off and the department would be working closely with the constituent applicant to determine which one and develop a robust final application for this mutual project. Mr. Carroll mentioned that he felt strongly that they include the constituent list in their rankings; Ms. Finch mentioned that she felt strongly that they exclude the constituent list within their rankings. The Board continued discussion. Ms. Hewson mentioned that,for her,the cost column in the constituent application section is the most unrefined, except for a few projects. Mr. Carroll added that a constituent applicant should feel like they have equal opportunity to accessing this funding. Mr. Millar added that constituent applications are granted more grace than the internal applications are; the City Council, CDCIP Board, and Mayor love to see the constituent applications and provide a lot of leeway regarding expectations for their formatting and layout. Mr. Scrivner asked if it would be helpful for the PNUT Board to just focus on ranking the internal project list at this point, and then perhaps later after the Planning Team has engaged with the constituent applicants,the Board can follow-up on the constituent project proposals. Mr. Millar and Ms. Riker stated that this would be great. Further discussion about the lists continued among board members. Mr. Millar suggested that the Board focuses on ranking the internal CIP projects list now to maintain their month-early timeline, and that the Board sticks to the same schedule with ranking the constituent CIP list as they did last year. Mr. Millar explained that this will give the Public Lands Department Planning Team the month of October to meet with the constituent applicants and flesh that list out a bit better;then for the Board's November meeting, Mr. Millar will provide them with a spreadsheet like what they've been given in the past for ranking the constituent CIP projects, as he will also do for the internal CIP projects the second week of October. Mr. Millar recapped the plan for the Board's review of both sets of CIP project lists as September being the month for the internal CIP list development and October being the month for PNUT prioritization for the internal CIP list; then for the constituent CIP list, October is the development month and November is the PNUT prioritization month fort hat list. Mr. Millar added that he believes that this revised timeline works and still meets all deadline requirements for applications. Ms. Binnebose asked whether, in terms of the master list that will be a finalized combination of both internal and constituent project lists,the Board could expect the procedure to entail a weeding out of some projects due to the Board's ranking and prioritization. Mr. Millar responded that yes,this is an expected part of the procedure. Ms. Binnebose asked further process and procedural questions, and discussion between Mr. Millar, Ms. Riker, and Ms. Binnebose continued regarding potential options for combining lists and keeping them separate. Other Board members weighed in regarding the process and procedure, expressing support to move forward and that the process would become clearer as it unfolds in the coming months. Further discussion continued. Mr. Millar asked if there were further questions from the Board. Mr. Carroll stated that at some point in the previous year,the Board was given a status update on how CIP projects were progressing and asked if they could be presented with that status update this year; Mr. Millar responded that yes,they could potentially present that in January 2023 or later when things slow down a bit. Mr. Millar thanked the Board and Ms. Binnebose moved on to the next agenda item. General Obligation Bond Update—Kristin Riker u Ms. Riker stated she would pass the presentation of this agenda item onto Mr. Millar. Mr. Millar referred to a prepared presentation on the board room screen and reminded the Board of the legal requirements pertaining to City ballot initiatives and general obligation (GO) bonds barring advocacy for or against the GO bond. Mr. Millar proceeded to explain that there are eight projects proposed in the Park Trails and Open Space GO Bond.They are the following: 1. Improvements to the Jordan River—this includes irrigation, cleanup, and restoring ecological function of the river and other improvements along it to make sure it's activated, safe and preserving water quality and safety. 2. Reimagine Neighborhood Parks—this includes at least seven projects in one as it calls for improving and reimagining neighborhood parks with at least one project in each of the seven city council districts.This could take several years' time and is slated to cost approximately$10.5 million. 3. Glendale Regional Park—this includes the multiple Glendale Regional Park Vision Plan presentations given by the Public Lands Planning team to the Board over the past few months. 4. Folsom Trail—this includes connecting the Folsom Trail to the Jordan River as well as landscaping the existing trail with focus on the intersections.This entails the area between 500 West and 1000 West. 5. Fleet Block Park—this includes developing the nearly entire 10-acre block of City-owned property off 300 West that was a former City Fleet vehicle facility by incorporating some buildings plus a park. 6. Liberty Park Playground—this includes reimagining the Northwest rotary park playground to serve all ages and abilities as the playground is currently nearing the end of its lifetime. 7. Fairmont Park—this includes enhancements to Fairmont with special focus on the North portion of the Park where the tennis courts and Boys and Girls Club are located. 8. Allen Park—this includes about$4.5 million to implement the upcoming adaptive reuse and management plan recommendations pertaining to the creek, buildings, use, and other amenities. Mr. Millar then went on to present on the opportunities that the GO Bond will bring to the entire city and not just in one area, including but not limited to updating aged facilities and trails, improving water quality, pollinator habitat, and migratory nesting grounds, and increasing tree canopies, plant diversity,and natural landscapes that utilize less water, decrease temperatures, and improve air quality. Mr. Millar continued that the four projects that are farthest along in their implementation are the Glendale Regional Park, Allen Park, Liberty Park Playground, and Jordan River Enhancements.The four projects that will require additional community engagement but also planning and design prior to construction readiness are Reimagine Neighborhood Parks,Tails, and Open Space; Folsom Trail; Fleet Block Park; and Fairmont Park. Mr. Millar explained that about 26%of the city's General Fund budget comes from property taxes, and of that total General Fund budget, about$18 million is allocated to the Public Lands Department. Much of that$18 million is dedicated to maintenance, whereas most of the projects and activities covered under the GO Bond pertain to new projects or enhancements and could not be funded under that maintenance funding. In addition, in the last 10-12 years, Salt Lake City has grown by about 7%adding 13,000 new residents;the 2019 Public Lands Needs Assessment identified the need for an additional 94 acres of public lands and open spaces to avoid overcrowding of our existing parks and trails. Mr. Millar added that if the GO Bond is not approved this year by voters,the PL Department will continue to receive its annual budget for maintenance and small improvements while continuing to seek opportunities to fund the proposed improvements under the GO Bond. Essentially, if the GO Bond passes,those proposed projects will be able to be built in a generally short timeframe over the next ten years; if not,those same projects will just take longer to fund and build. Mr. Millar displayed a slide depicting how many acres per 1,000 SLC residents,the amount of spending per SLC resident—which is$79—and the maintenance expenditures per acre. Mr. Millar emphasized that these figures are all current. If approved,the average cost per SLC residential property would be approximately $53.80 per year or about$5 per month; and per commercial property, second + home, the average cost would be approximately$97.83 per year. Mr. Millar explained that a good rule of thumb in calculating average costs is that per$100,000 of value, the cost is roughly$9.34 per year. This cost would be excised through property taxes. Mr. Carroll asked if this will be a line item in property taxes; Mr. Millar replied that property taxes do not specific exactly which bond is being paid for, but there is a line item for the bonds and there are currently outstanding bonds listed on the property tax assessments. If this year's GO Bond is not approved,the property tax burden will decrease by about that same amount; but if it is approved, the tax burden will stay about the same as those bonds from previous years expire and sunset. Ms. Riker emphasized that these are all estimates and not exact amounts. Mr. Millar then presented a slide containing important dates pertaining to the GO Bond process this year, including public hearing times, meetings, postmarked ballot dates and deadlines, and this year's date for the general election, which is November 8. Mr. Millar further presented ways for the public the stay involved and informed, including via social media, phone, website, and email: www.SLCParksBond.com I ParksBond@slcgov.com 1 888-556-0232. @SLCPublicLands (same handle for Facebook,Twitter, Instagram) Mr. Millar wrapped up his presentation and asked the Board if there were any questions. Mr. Scrivner asked if there was a sunset date for the GO Bond money to be used by, particularly regarding the Fleet Block project, should the GO Bond be approved by voters. Mr. Millar replied that the GO Bond monies will form part of the individual and property tax burden for approximately 20 years, which is the time it takes the City to pay off the bonds. Mr. Millar added that he believes there is a limitation on how long you can spend the money based on when the bonds are issued to the city and how they're structured, etc. Mr. Carroll asked what percentage of the total GO Bond proposed amount the "shovel- ready" projects are. Mr. Millar stated that the total GO Bond proposal is$85 million; of that$85 million, Glendale Regional Park is requesting$27 million,Jordan River Improvements is requesting$9 million, Allen Park is requesting$4.5 million, and Liberty Park Playground is requesting$2million. This adds up to $42.5 million, or 50% of that total GO Bond proposal. Mr. Scrivner asked how much flexibility is allowed in the funding should a currently proposed project not work out as time goes on; Ms. Riker replied that in that situation, we need to build the projects that are identified by and portrayed to the public, and if there is leftover money, we can use it for other things. Ultimately, we must use the funds to build what is polled to the public,which includes Fleet Block; the flexibility comes into play regarding the details of the park itself(e.g., will Fleet Block be a half- acre or 10 acres?). Ms. Riker mentioned that Fleet Block is making great progress with the Mayor's Office. Mr. Carroll inquired about rising interest rates and overall accounting for inflation of the GO Bond funds in years to come; Mr. Millar replied that he will ask the Finance Department and get back to Mr. Carroll with the answer to that. Ms. Hewson stated that it would be helpful to have cheat sheet containing some of the statistics that Mr. Millar presented regarding SLC's increasing population and so forth; she also expressed interest in having a map that displays the coordinates of each project. Mr. Millar replied that this information is all available on the www.SLCParksBond.com website. Mr. Millar showed the Board the website and navigated to where the information is coming from. Ms. Binnebose added that it would be helpful to have all this information included on a one-pager, if possible. Ms. Riker replied that everything Mr. Millar talked about in his presentation to the Board is on the GO Bond website, and that the Department had to go through an extensive approval process with City attorneys and administration in preparation of today's presented materials. Mr. Millar also noted that ever single residential and commercial property within Salt Lake City will receive a voter information packet the second week of October.These will be in English and Spanish and have all the same information that is on the website. Ms. Riker added that there will also be an informational post card included in ballots that pushes people to view the webpage for further information. Mr. Scrivner inquired about the advocacy role of the Board pertaining the GO Bond, if any, as he was absent during the September meeting during a City attorney presentation on that piece. Ms. Riker responded that in the context of PNUT Board meetings, the Board is prohibited from talking about how they advocate in their personal time. Ms. Riker added that Board members may talk about advocacy and advocate on their own time when they are not on City property, eating food funded by the City, and receiving support form paid City staff. Mr. Millar added that the same applies to the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Finch asked about the Public Lands consultants that presented at the September PNUT meeting and their role in the GO Bond advocacy process; Mr. Millar responded that the consultants are like extra PL staff working on communications for the Department. Ms. Riker added that, as of the date of this meeting,the department finally had its media plan approved, so there will be educational materials being released on five different radio stations and four different television stations. Additionally,the Mayor put together a video that the Department will try to push out to community councils, and Mr. Millar's presentation will be shown at all community councils. Lastly, there has been extensive social media, streaming, email, mailer, and newsletter coverage of the GO Bond as of late, as the month prior to an election is the time when folks start thinking most about it.The Trust For Public Lands consultants ensured the Department that the most important thing the City can do to inform the public is to release voter education and information materials during the month of October.There has also been stenciling and signage with the GO Bond website done within all the busiest parks of Salt Lake City, including Memory Grove. Mr. Millar thanked the Board for its time and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. 5—Board Discussion and Action Items 6:40 PM Board Subcommittees—review details of each committee in accordance with new 15 mins bylaws Ms. Binnebose referred to the Board meeting packets for the current bylaws and stated that at this time,the Board will go through current subcommittees and simply touch on member responsibilities for those subcommittees. Mr. Binnebose reminded members that under the recently amended Bylaws, Board members are required to actively serve on one subcommittee at minimum each year of their board term. She stated that the two subcommittees currently active are the Trails Subcommittee and the Communications Subcommittee. Ms. Finch added that it would be great to provide a brief presentation in the coming months to bring all the new members and everyone up to speed on what the 501(c)(3) has done in terms of collective knowledge and hopefully cultivate more member involvement. Ms. Hewson inquired whether the Board needs a longer discussion at a later meeting regarding the subcommittees as there are a few things she remains unclear about, particularly regarding external membership,formalities, equity in representation, and so forth pertaining specifically to the Trails Subcommittee. She expressed the need for further guiderails pertaining to this. Mr. Whittaker weighed in with his perspective on the Trails Subcommittee structure and bylaws; Ms. Hewson mentioned that it would be good to have greater discussion of this during an upcoming Board meeting. Ms. Riker suggested that such a discussion might come sooner on the agenda so that the Board has guaranteed time to talk about it, or to even reconvene the Bylaws Subcommittee and dig deeper into the questions that Ms. Hewson raises regarding external member representation on the subcommittees. Discussion on this agenda item was blended in below with agenda item 6. Board retreat discussion 10 mins Ms. Binnebose discussed board retreat ideas, where a potential agenda item could be what Ms. Hewson has raised regarding clarifying external member representation and equity on subcommittees. Mr. Scrivner asked if a board retreat has been scheduled yet; Ms. Binnebose stated that no retreat for this year has yet been scheduled and this agenda item serves as a basis to discuss whether one should be scheduled. Mr. Whittaker inquired about the purpose of board retreats. Ms. Binnebose and several board members echoed that the purpose of board retreats was to work through issues (such as subcommittees) in-depth as well as get to know each other on a more personal level. More discussion ensued regarding last year's board retreat held in Tracy Aviary, logistics and scheduling, and agenda-setting. The Board agreed to hold a retreat sometime within a designated two-week period in early January 2023 and PL Department staff will then send out a Doodle poll to coordinate the exact date.The Board will go through the regular Open and Public Meetings Act process to spread notice of the meeting. 6—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 7:05 PM Board subcommittee updates as needed • Trails subcommittee CJ stated that the Trails Subcommittee has been working closely with Public Lands Department staff on the I Street Bike Park and things are progressing. Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Binnebose inquired whether the Board was still on agenda item 5 or if they'd moved onto agenda item 6; Ms. Binnebose mentioned that appreciates any updates on what the subcommittees are working on and for members getting the Board back on task if she inadvertently skips around the agenda as acting chair. Mr. Scrivner also added that they are trying to align bylaw subcommittees standards for the new subcommittee, and that they have a draft about ready for that. Mr. Whittaker, Ms. Hewson, and Mr. Carroll are all working on that document at present, and they expect it to be complete in November. • Communications subcommittee Board comment and question period Mr. Carroll mentioned that it would be nice sending a letter to former member Polly Hart thanking her for her service; Ms. Riker stated that this is totally up to the board and reminded members of a recent past meeting where they all presented Ms. Hart with a thank you gift and had dessert in her honor. Next meeting: November 3, 2022 Request for future agenda items Ms. Binnebose requested that during the Board's November meeting,they review board subcommittee bylaws at the top of the agenda. The Board will also review their internal CIP project list prioritization rankings during November meeting. The Board will also need to approve the draft letter initiated by the Communications Subcommittee in support of the Glendale Regional Park Plan during the November PNUT meeting. 7—Adjourn 7:10 PM Mr. Scrivner motioned to adjourn the meeting; Ms. Finch seconded the motion.The PNUT Board voted to unanimously adjourn the October PNUT Board meeting.