12/1/2022 - Meeting Materials PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Formal Meeting
Thursday,December 1,2022
5:00 p.m.—7:15 p.m.
Join Via Webex: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/i.php?MTID=ml14a24b0e21clac3b6b9f0c4442823a4
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: 2490 189 6492
AGENDA
1—Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM
Call to order
Chair comments 5 mins
2—Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM
Approve November 3, 2022 meeting minutes 5 mins
3—Public Comment Period 5:10 PM
Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written
comments are welcome.
4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:25 PM
Public Lands budget initiatives overview and board discussion about prioritization 30 mins
process—Kristin Riker
5—Board Discussion and Action Items 5:55 PM
Continued Public Lands CIP FY 2023-2024 discussion & PNUT project ranking letter 30 mins
(Action Item)
Board chair and vice chair nominations 10 mins
Determine location and topics for January board retreat 15 mins
Approve 2023 meeting schedule (Action Item) 5 mins
6—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 6:55 PM
Board subcommittee updates as needed
• Trails subcommittee
• Communication subcommittee
Board comment and question period
Next meeting: January 5, 2023
Request for future agenda items
7—Adjourn 7:15 PM
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Formal Meeting
Thursday,November 3,2022
5:00 p.m.—7:15 p.m.
Join Via Webex: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity- /i.php?MTID=m9a6l6f9c5lde9bfO5acO6c44beebcl79
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: 2486 310 5595
Minutes (Unapproved)
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
- Melanie Pehrson
- Ginger Cannon
Chair comments 5 mins
Chair Brianna Binnebose thanked the Board for their patience and their work.
2—Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM
Approve October 6, 2022, meeting minutes 5 mins
Samantha Finch motioned to approve.
Ginger Cannon asked for clarification on what the Board's concerns were regarding the
bylaws during the October meeting.
Jenny Hewson stated that what she wanted was to have a longer discussion at the
November meeting about the bylaws.
Ms. Cannon seconded the motion to approve the meeting minutes. The Board
unanimously approved the October 6 meeting minutes.
3—Public Comment Period 5:10 PM
Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written
comments are welcome.
Ned Skanchy(he/him)
Ned joined the public comment portion from online. He introduced himself and
thanked the Board for their service and expressed his enjoyment of living in Salt Lake
City with access to such close recreational amenities. Ned continued that he helps
coach the East High Mountain Bike Team, is an avid trail runner, hiker, and skier.
Ned stated that, while he understands the Trails Plan is currently on pause, he wanted
to voice his support of it. Ned explained that he'd like to see the Plan taken off pause
and bring more trails to Salt Lake City residents. Ned stated that mountain biking is
probably the fastest growing sport right now in Salt Lake City, particularly amongst
youth. Ned explained that mountain biking is a particularly good sport for getting
youth off their phones and engaging with nature. He went on to address user conflict
that has placed the Trails Plan on hold; he hopes that when we're talking about Dry
Creek specifically, we can encourage some action there so there can be a trail for
running and hiking, and a trail for biking. Ned stated that when he's out hiking or
running, he doesn't like to be interrupted by bikers; when he's out biking, he doesn't
like to interrupt hikers and runners on the trail. Ned ultimately wants to voice support
for continued development of a trails plan for all SLC residents.
Anne Cannon (she/her)
Anne joined the public comment portion in-person and introduced herself to the PNUT
Board. She explained that she was following up from her comments during the
October PNUT meeting regarding Wasatch Hollow Park and Preserve. Anne went on to
say that residents living near the preserve have formed a committee of concerned
volunteers to address the issue of challenges faced with off-leash dogs in the park
area. Anne stated that she and the volunteers would like to invite PNUT Board
member CJ Whittaker, who represents District 6,to join them in helping find
resolutions to diversity of use for Wasatch Hollow Park in ways that will be balanced
between non-dog owners and dog owners who want their dogs off-leash. She
reiterated that they are concerned mainly about the park portion. Anne also added
that the volunteer committee is interested in engaging with some planners or folks
who could help them with the ideas that they're considering, and the survey brought
up about possibilities with the park. Further,when the committee is ready to submit
the CIP—which they have applied for—the application would have more meaningful
direction for what they would like to see happen in their community.Anne ended her
public comment by saying that ultimately,the committee would like to see the
Wasatch Hollow Park and Preserve be rebuilt for the enjoyment of the total
community; as of right now, to access the Preserve, folks must pass through the dog
park area,which is one of the challenges. She thanked the Board from their time and
looked forward to addressing the challenges together.
Ms. Binnebose thanked the public commenters; she asked Luke Allen, Public Lands
Community Outreach, Events, and Marketing Manager, to confirm the Public Lands
Planner assigned to work with the Wasatch Hollow resident committee.That Planner is
Makaylah Respicio-Evans.
Seeing no further public comment, Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item.
4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:25 PM
PNUT board member stipend update—Luke Allen 5 mins
Mr.Allen explained that Mayor Mendenhall signed Executive Order No. 2 of 2022 on
September 30, 2022. He went onto explain the purpose of the document, which
essentially establishes the basis for adopting a citywide policy to offer stipends to City
board and commission members.
Mr.Allen further explained that the Finance Department wanted Public Lands staff to
announce this to the PNUT Board,though they are still working on the required IRS
documentation to implement the stipend payments. Mr. Allen stated that staff is
keeping track of attendance at each meeting as of the date of this signed executive
order so that when required financial and tax documentation is complete, Board
members will be paid from October's meeting onward.
Finally, Mr. Allen mentioned that Board members could decline this if they wanted.
Ms. Cannon asked if a member could decline this for all meetings but one meeting; Mr.
Allen stated he would investigate this question.
Continued Public Lands CIP FY 2023-2024 discussion—Tom Millar 45 mins
Tom Millar, Public Lands Department Planning Manager, reminded the Board that
during its October meeting, they had started the discussion regarding the FY 2023-
2024 internal CIP applications as the Department's preliminary list.Tom continued
that, during that meeting,the Department had requested the Board's prioritization of
the internal project list for today's meeting, and mentioned the constituent (external)
project list for board overview during today's meeting.
Multiple board members expressed the desire to view each other's prioritized lists of
proposed internal projects. Ms. Binnebose shared her screen displaying the Google
spreadsheet containing the internal CIP projects along with board member rankings of
each. She explained how the spreadsheet worked, reminding everyone that the lower
the number assigned to a ranking signifies a "higher priority" while the higher number
assigned to a ranking signifies a "lower priority." Ms. Binnebose listed the top 10
prioritized projects by average ranking; from highest to lowest priority,they are:
1. Fire Station Tennis and Pickleball Park Court Restoration and Amenities
2. Jefferson Park Enrichment Playground
3. Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan
4. Memory Grove and Freedom Trail Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan
5. Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parking Lot
6. Rose Park and Jordan River Recreational Concept Design
7. Pollinator Landscape Enhancements
8. 111h Avenue Park Pavilion
9. Rose Park Lane Promenade Implementation and Open Space Study
10. 337 Park Development
Ms. Cannon asked clarifying questions of the ranking spreadsheet, and Ms. Binnebose
responded, explaining that the board's priorities represented a combination of the
"Count" column and the "Average Rank" column. Ms. Binnebose showed the members
the five internal projects that were not thus far included in the top 10 priorities,which
are the following:
11. Park Strip, Median, and Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy
12. Parks Signage Replacement(10 Parks)
13. Library Plaza Repair, Improvements, and Activation
14. Warm Springs Park Tennis Court Renovation
15. Community Playground at Richmond Park
Further questions between Ms. Binnebose and the rest of the board ensued about the
ranking and those projects receiving double votes during the analysis. Aaron Wiley
mentioned that he still needs to enter his rankings.
Ms. Binnebose mentioned that they could make the final deadline for these rankings
sometime the second week of November; Mr. Millar asked if it was possible to
complete these prioritizations by end of the day November 81".The board agreed that
this deadline was doable and continued to discuss logistics of taking the survey.
Mr. Millar and Mr.Allen also discussed the due date of November 301"for the board to
return its rankings of the external constituent project lists.
The board continued to discuss the ranking process.
Mr. Millar inquired about how the board wanted to handle scenarios where there was
a two-way tie for the number 10 spot; in that case, would the board prefer to extend
the list of supported projects to 11? Ms. Cannon responded that that might change
with the addition of Mr. Wiley's rankings and the revision of Ms. Benally's ranking
survey, so she would prefer to stand by and see. Ms. Binnebose agreed.
Mr. Millar then proceeded to ask about the few projects that were not prioritized—
particularly the Warm Springs Park Tennis Court Renovation and Community
Playground at Richmond Park--which are at the bottom of the list yet closely
resemble the two most-prioritized projects at the top of the list.
Kristin Riker, Public Lands Director, explained that the Department has asked for the
Library Plaza Repair in prior years and expects that project to be approved regardless
due to critical failures at that site and its significance in the case that Salt Lake City
wins the Olympic bid. She also mentioned that the Parks Signage Replacement is part
of the Department's Master Plan that it would really like to begin work on. Regarding
the Richmond Park Playground project proposal, Ms. Riker explained that the
Department is working hard on replacing Park playgrounds little by little as their
concern is that they will have approximately 60 playgrounds to replace or shut down
all at once when they all age out at the same time in the future, since their average
lifespan is approximately 30 years. She said that for this reason,they're trying to
replace two playgrounds per year. Ms. Riker also stated that the Park Strip, Median,
and Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy project is very important to the
Department. She stated that, while she could argue the great significance of all these
projects and many more, she wanted to take some time to provide a bit more
information on those few that were ranked lower on the board's priority list.
The board continued discussion about their ranking system for the CIP lists and
alternative ways of ranking, along with pros and cons of different ways.
Mr. Wiley mentioned that having a picture of the asset(s) in question accompanying
each project proposal would be helpful; secondly, he added that as far as the ranking is
concerned,they could approach it through assigning points to each project.
Ms. Benally added that the question she kept returning to in her mind during the
ranking process was the level of activation desired for each project.
Board members mentioned reaching out and talking with each other about parks in
their respective districts and to visit parks they haven't been to.
Ms. Riker added that the Department can always provide the board with more context,
if needed; Ms. Cannon thanked Ms. Riker and the Department for all the information
they provided to the Board, from the spreadsheet to the presentation. Mr. Millar
mentioned doing a tour in the future of all the parks and sites might also be a good
idea.The board also stated that in the future,they could also spend time going
through each other's comments as to why they ranked a project the way they did. Ms.
Binnebose stated that during last year's CIP ranking process, the board was presented
both internal and constituent/external projects together, whereupon the board ranked
all 40-something projects and discussed them in-depth over the course of a two-round
ranking process.
Mr. Carroll mentioned that, in the case of Warm Springs Park, which is in his district,
he knows that the Community Council is working diligently to maintain and improve
that park since the neighborhood is changing so rapidly due to increased housing units
and so forth. Mr. Wiley added that it would be great to have discussions like this prior
to ranking so he could have a better understanding of what's at stake in each district.
Ms. Riker asked the board if they'd like to meet twice in October or November just on
CIP. Mr. Millar also added that they could also do the ranking in real time during the
meeting, and then hold board discussion. Ms. Hewson inquired how far in advance
Department staff knows of internal CIP projects ready for the board's ranking; Mr.
Millar responded that they could probably have the internal CIP project list ready for
the board's review by August or September next year.
Mr. Millar introduced the 15 constituent/external CIP projects by sharing his screen
with the group; he and Ms. Riker provided key descriptions and context to each
project, including whether they overlap or relate to any projects on the internal CIP
list.The projects include, in no order:
1. 111"Ave Park Pickleball Expansion
2. Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements
3. Jefferson Park Improvements
4. Liberty Park Greenhouse—Previsioned
5. Madsen Park Improvements
6. Rose Park Lane Improvement Project
7. Salt Lake City Petanque (Glendale Park)
8. Sunnyside Pickleball Courts
9. Fairmont Park Restroom Reconstruction
10. First Encampment Park
11. International Peace Gardens: Historic Restorations, Replacements,
Conservation Work, and Visitor Center/Reading Room
12. Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion
13. Wasatch Hollow Park Restoration and Improvement
14. Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements
15. New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails
These projects and their descriptions are also located on the Parks, Natural Lands,
Urban Forestry&Trails Advisory Board webpage in the Board Packet link for the
November 2022 meeting.
Clayton Scrivner asked clarifying questions about the CIP process, next steps, and
whether the Department had the responsibility to rank the external/constituent CIP
projects. Mr. Millar explained that the PNUT board's rankings help inform the Mayor,
City Council, and CDCIP Board ideas of what is of most interest to the board, though all
projects on both the internal and external/constituent lists will be submitted for their
final review and decision-making. Mr. Millar stated that no,the Department does not
rank the external/constituent application project list. Mr. Scrivner asked if the
Department could provide a feasibility ranking for each external/constituent
application. Mr. Millar and Ms. Riker reiterated the boundary that City staff must
respect in terms of influencing policy decisions as well as staff's limited capacity but
agreed that many of these factors plus others make the board's evaluation of these
projects more challenging. Ms. Riker also added that staff does a lot of research and
exploration regarding the external/constituent CIP application lists to provide all
decision-makers with the most information possible.
Ms. Cannon mentioned that she'd hoped there was a better criteria or decision-
making framework that constituents had to go through in order to get their project on
the application list; for example,the constituent had to undergo the necessary
research to determine whether their project proposal was part of a Master Plan or in
congruence with the long-range planning that has already occurred. Ms. Riker replied
that many of these questions are asked during the applicant process.
Mr. Millar assured that board that the Public Lands Department is allowed to lobby for
its internal CIP project application list,just as constituents can lobby for their own. Ms.
Hewson mentioned that she felt it would be ideal if the CIP process was split into two
separate processes: internal (departmental) applications and external (constituent)
applications; many board members agreed. Ms. Pehrson stated that she appreciated
the current process as it provided good insight as to which project proposals on either
list are overlapping as well as what Department staff versus constituents are
considering. Ms. Hewson clarified that she'd just love if there were two separate pots
of money that the internal and external lists were drawing from, so they wouldn't be
competing against each other through the process.
Ms. Riker emphasized that Salt Lake City is really unique in allowing constituent CIP
applications. Mr. Millar also mentioned that the Department usually does not receive
constituent applications until early October, which would limit the amount of time the
board would get to spend on that portion of the ranking process.
Mr. Millar wrapped up the agenda item and reiterated that rankings for the
external/constituent CIP application list were due on November 301",then in the PNUT
Board's December meeting, he would love to help facilitate whatever discussion
necessary in time for the final application submission on December 161".This final
application will include all the applications plus a letter from the PNUT Board detailing
the board's supported projects; this means that Monday, December 12t", is the hard
deadline for the PNUT's letter of support. Ms. Binnebose confirmed with Department
staff that the Board's internal/departmental CIP application list rankings are due on
November 8tn
5—Board Discussion and Action Items 6:15 PM
Continued discussion about board subcommittees and bylaws 20 mins
Ms. Binnebose asked if Ms. Hewson wanted to kick off this agenda item, which is a
follow-up from the board's October meeting.
Ms. Hewson expressed that there were six items she felt would be helpful to chat
about:
1. Membership
2. Who sets the schedule and the agenda?
3. What are the procedures for the meeting?
4. Code of conduct
5. Expected time commitment for individuals in the subcommittee
6. How to ensure the subcommittee stays on topic and accomplishes what is
needed without being overly cumbersome on city staff
Ms. Hewson's suggestions for each of these six items are as follows:
1. Membership—referencing the Trails Subcommittee, Ms. Hewson stated that
her key concern is around inclusivity. She explained that, in the case of an
external subcommittee member representing one stakeholder group,they're
not including other stakeholder groups.
Ms. Hewson stated that the Membership item was of most importance to her;
Mr. Scrivner also expressed concern on this item point.
Ms. Cannon responded that when the PNUT Board revised the bylaws on page
5,they really wrote those applying to subcommittees as only being applicable
to appointed PNUT members serving on the subcommittees.
Ms. Hewson reiterated that this is helpful in understanding how the bylaws
apply to PNUT Board members serving on subcommittees, but again, her
concern is specific to external, non-PNUT members who represent stakeholder
groups. Mr. Scrivner asked if it was common for other city boards to also have
external members on their subcommittees. Mr. Whittaker replied that having
external members serving on subcommittees is a common practice, but that
he understood Ms. Hewson's concern to be specifically addressing bias (e.g., a
hiker representing a hiker stakeholder group, or a mountain biker representing
a mountain biker stakeholder group).
Mr. Whittaker reminded the board that the reason the Trails Subcommittee
was formed was because it was taking up so much of the PNUT Board's time.
He also stated that it was a means for the Trails Subcommittee to move faster
since it doesn't require a quorum, hold space for experts in geology and soil
mechanics, and so forth. But, as far as representing one group or another, he
believes that is a good question to bring forth.
Ms. Cannon confirmed that the bylaws are indeed silent on membership from
those external to PNUT, but reiterated that the guidelines for PNUT members
serving on the subcommittees are fairly robust.
Ms. Finch stated that she hears the idea on the table being whether there
needs to be development of rules or guidelines around subcommittee external
membership.
Mr. Whittaker expressed concern in managing bias on the subcommittees,
when citizens—including PNUT members—can freely be members of
stakeholder and lobbying groups. Ms. Hewson responded that she is not
necessarily talking about bias; she stated that as a subcommittee, those
members of the PNUT board hold a responsibility to ensure the subcommittee
is inclusive in representation from the different stakeholder groups that hold a
vested interest in the trails.
The board continued discussing the subcommittee issue. Ms. Riker mentioned
several of the various special interest groups applicable to the Trails
Subcommittee, including e-bikers, off-leash dog owners, hikers, mountain
bikers, and so forth.
Mr. Whittaker expressed his concern that if the PNUT Board were to write
guidelines for subcommittee representation,they might become so granular
and take away the inherit nimbleness of subcommittees.
Ms. Cannon added that this is exactly the reason that the board decided within
the bylaws to have very prescriptive guidelines around a subcommittee's
project-level description,timeline, dates, who is involved, and when the work
will be completed. She added that she agreed with Mr. Whittaker's take on
subcommittee roles.
Further discussion continued between board members. Mr. Whittaker stated
that the objective of the Trails Subcommittee is to execute the governing code
of the PNUT Board in context of the trails project, which is advising the city on
what people in the respective districts want to see happen with that project.
Ms. Cannon asked if Trails Subcommittee members could bring forth the items
outlined on page 5 of the PNUT Bylaws to the Board so they could have a
better understanding of the subcommittee. She mentioned that it might be
helpful to all Trails Subcommittee members if they further defined the
committee's scope.
Ms. Riker added that subcommittees are not recognized in City Code, and are
thus not subject to the PNUT Board Code; in extension to that, staff cannot
provide the same level of support to the subcommittees as they do with the
PNUT Board due to lack of bandwidth. She added that, in discussing the
operations of the Trails Subcommittee with Department staff, she has
understood there to be a heavy reliance on this staff person for information
gathering, agenda-setting, and so forth. Ms. Riker stated that she has asked
this staff person to pull back from the Tails Subcommittee due to a lack of
bandwidth and would also appreciate if the committee members brought
forth the information that Ms. Cannon requested so that the PNUT Board
could help them with narrowing down their purpose and answer any
questions.
Ms. Cannon asked if both the subcommittees could submit the information
found on page 5 of the PNUT Board Bylaws to the board for review. Ms.
Binnebose asked if the question the Board wants to be pondering is what the
role is of non-advisory board members in its subcommittees. She also
mentioned that this may be a good discussion for a Board retreat, and
wondered if this might be the impetus for modifying the Board's bylaws. Ms.
Finch replied that she agreed with everything Ms. Binnebose stated.
Mr. Scrivner asked for more background on the past-existing Bylaws
Subcommittee,which Ms. Cannon and other members provided. Discussion
continued among the Board about the various definitions, memberships, and
purposes of working groups, ad-hoc committees, and subcommittees.
Mr. Wiley asked how to get on a subcommittee. Ms. Binnebose and Ms. Finch
explained that any new Board member not currently serving on a
subcommittee can reach out to the following members to get involved in their
committee of choice:
• Trails Subcommittee: Jenny Hewson, Phil Carroll, CJ Whittaker
• Communications Subcommittee: Brianna Binnebose, Melanie Pehrson,
Clayton Scrivner
• 501(c)(3) Subcommittee: Samantha Finch
Ms. Finch mentioned that the 501(c)(3) Subcommittee is ready to provide a report to
the Board. Ms. Finch and Ms. Cannon mentioned that, like the disbanded Bylaws
Subcommittee,that 501(c)(3) Subcommittee has not been a standing subcommittee.
Ms. Cannon mentioned that if all the current, active subcommittees do a write up of
those items on page 5 of the PNUT Board Bylaws, Department staff can post them to
the PNUT Board webpage and then send them to new Board members.
Ms. Binnebose noted the time and the remaining agenda items, moving onward in the
agenda. Before she did so, she thanked Ms. Pehrson for working very hard on the
Glendale Regional Park letter of support and Ms. Cannon for attending the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) regarding the Glendale Regional Park Plan.
Review process for upcoming board chair and vice chair elections 5 mins
Ms. Binnebose explained that by December 2022,the PNUT Board will be accepting
nominations for PNUT Board chair and vice chair; self-nominations are also welcome.
She added that the Board's December meeting is when the Board will begin reviewing
and formally accepting the nominations. Ms. Binnebose said that the January 2023
meeting will be the actual election. She mentioned that the Powers and Duties of
Officers section of the Bylaws reflect the roles and responsibilities of the chair and vice
chair positions. Lastly, Ms. Binnebose mentioned that one can submit their nomination
by sending it via email to herself and Department staff member Luke Allen, whereupon
they will confirm that the nominee accepts the nomination.The actual voting will take
place during an in-person meeting in January,though members can also participate
virtually.
Discuss letter of support for Glendale Regional Park Plan—Action Item 10 mins
Ms. Binnebose turned the time over to Ms. Pehrson, who mentioned that she had just
sent out another updated version of the PNUT Board's letter of support for the
Glendale Regional Park Plan. Ms. Cannon asked if someone could share their screen so
all members could view the final version of the letter. Mr. Allen shared his screen
displaying the letter with the board.
Ms. Binnebose pointed out that the TAB had shared its letter of support with the PNUT
Board; Ms. Pehrson had then incorporated those recommendations that the TAB's
letter of support had included in the PNUT's letter of support.
Ms. Cannon confirmed that TAB would also be incorporating PNUT's recommendations
in its letter of support as well; Ms. Pehrson confirmed this.
Ms. Pehrson presented the letter to the PNUT Board, explaining its format and
purpose.
Mr. Carroll made a motion to accept the letter of support pertaining to Glendale
Regional Park Plan and submit it to City Council.
Board members continued to review the letter. Mr. Scrivner asked what the due date
was for the letter.
Katherine Maus, Public Lands Planner, stated that the due date is prior to the
December 9 public hearing with the Planning Commission. She thanked all the
members for their help and collaboration on the letter of support.
The Board completed its editing and review and thanked Ms. Pehrson for her work on
the letter.
Ms. Cannon seconded the motion made by Mr. Carroll, pending everyone was good
with name spellings and final edits.The PNUT Board voted unanimously to approve the
motion.
Determine date and topics for January board retreat 10 mins
Ms. Binnebose asked Mr.Allen to provide the group with potential dates and times for
the Board's retreat, based on the Doodle poll results. Mr. Allen stated that the date
that seems to work with the most people is the same day as the group's January 2023
meeting, either starting a little earlier or going a little later time-wise on that day.The
one member whose schedule that did not work for was Ms. Benally; Ms. Benally
replied that she may be able to attend the retreat on January 5, 2023, if she no longer
has a conflict.
Ms. Binnebose announced that the group will tentatively plan on holding its retreat on
January 5, 2023, from 5pm—9pm, pending they hear from Ms. Benally that it works for
her schedule.
Ms. Binnebose encouraged members to email her their proposals for the January
retreat agenda, and acknowledged that the group has some topics for discussion
already.
Mr. Carroll shared that he would like to see the board formalize their CIP process on
that retreat agenda.
Ms. Cannon inquired about the GO Bond and whether the group would have anything
to discuss pertaining to it at the retreat; Ms. Riker replied that the Department would
keep in communication with the board regarding anything further they needed to
discuss, but that it would mainly be logistical items at that point.
The group began discussing potential locations for the January retreat, including the
Tracy Aviary and the Memorial House.
6—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 7:00 PM
Board subcommittee updates as needed
• Trails subcommittee
Mr. Whittaker stated that Trails did not meet over the past month so they do not have
an update for the board at this time.
• Communication subcommittee
Ms. Binnebose stated that, aside from the Glendale Regional Park letter of support and
the CIP ranking process,the subcommittee received an overview of another potential
agenda item and subcommittee topic from Public Lands Community Partnerships and
Engagement Coordinator Van Hoover. Mr. Hoover is trying to establish a criteria for
partnership with parks to help with the maintenance of community-based assets,
which may be directly related to the scope of work under the 501(c)(3) Subcommittee.
Mr.Allen added that once Mr. Hoover has established a tiered strategy for partnership
development over the winter, he will report back on that to the PNUT Board and
Communication Subcommittee, who will also report this to the 501(c)(3)
Subcommittee.
Mr. Wiley asked what the goals was; Mr.Allen explained that there are many
organizations that wish to partner with the Public Lands Department, and since the
nature of each partnership is unique,the Department is trying to develop certain
criteria and strategies so when someone approaches it for a partnership,the
Department has certain buckets it can place those partnerships in to streamline the
process. Mr. Allen referenced the City of Austin, Texas, as a good example of this:
Austin has some partnerships that are deemed "operational partnerships" where the
partner manages the space, akin to how Friends of Gilgal Gardens manages the Gilgal
Gardens space for the City of Salt Lake. Mr. Allen explained that the City of Austin has a
couple other tiers, but it's mostly to streamline the partnerships process so the
Department can make it more scalable and handle more partnerships rather than
trying to handle one-hundred unique agreements with one-hundred unique
partnerships, which is not sustainable for the Department to keep doing.
Mr. Wiley asked if any of the Department's current partnerships are recreational; Mr.
Allen replied that yes,they could be, but he wasn't aware of any now. He expects that
this type of partnership would lend itself well to a programming/recreational
partnership where the partner is running their activities in one of the City's spaces.
Board comment and question period
Mr. Wiley stated that he had the opportunity to visit the Regional Athletic Complex
(RAC) and stated that one of the things he would love is to figure out he can bring in
more recreation from a Salt Lake City perspective, specifically in terms of economic
access for those in District 1, where the RAC is also located. Ms. Riker replied that she
would love to connect Mr.Wiley with Chris Laughlin,the RAC Director. She stated that
what Mr. Wiley had just described has always been on of Mr. Laughlin's and her goals,
to increase community involvement at that site. Mr.Wiley would really like to add
baseball fields, and wondered if looping in Mr. Van Hoover in his quest to develop
partnership strategies and criteria and communicate that to the 501(C)(3)
Subcommittee,would be a good fit for the conversation. Ms. Riker agreed that this
would be an area of relevance for Mr. Hoover's work.
Mr. Wiley encouraged everyone to check the RAC out when they have a chance.
Ms. Riker added that Department staff had brought to the meeting more educational
yard signs with the GO Bond webpage link on them, free for members'taking.
Ms. Binnebose thanked Ms. Riker and the Department for all the work they'd done
with the GO Bond on public education materials, community outreach, consultant
work, and other city partnerships.
Next meeting: December 1, 2022
Request for future agenda items
Discuss and vote on location and agenda items for the board's January retreat.
Receive an update on partnership development strategy and criteria from Mr.Van
Hoover.
7—Adjourn 7:15 PM
Ms. Finch motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Pehrson seconded the motion.The
PNUT Board voted unanimously to adjourn the November meeting.
- Public Lands
C'►SIT Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf
Staff Responses to Public Comments from the November 3,2022 PNUT Board Meeting
Ned Skanchy
Ned joined the public comment portion from online. He introduced himself and thanked the Board for
their service and expressed his enjoyment of living in Salt Lake City with access to such close
recreational amenities. Ned continued that he helps coach the East High Mountain Bike Team, is an avid
trail runner, hiker, and skier.
Ned stated that, while he understands the Trails Plan is currently on pause, he wanted to voice his
support of it. Ned explained that he'd like to see the Plan taken off pause and bring more trails to Salt
Lake City residents. Ned stated that mountain biking is probably the fastest growing sport right now in
Salt Lake City, particularly amongst youth. Ned explained that mountain biking is a particularly good
sport for getting youth off their phones and engaging with nature. He went on to address user conflict
that has placed the Trails Plan on hold; he hopes that when we're talking about Dry Creek specifically,
we can encourage some action there so there can be a trail for running and hiking, and a trail for biking.
Ned stated that when he's out hiking or running, he doesn't like to be interrupted by bikers; when he's
out biking, he doesn't like to interrupt hikers and runners on the trail. Ned ultimately wants to voice
support for continued development of a trails plan for all SLC residents.
Staff Response:
Public Lands acknowledges and appreciates this comment from Ned. We have been making great strides
during the pause between Phase 1 and 11 with ecological research, trail alignment design, and planning
with stakeholders and partners to improve upon the goals of the Trails Plan and continue
implementation as soon as possible.
Anne Cannon
Anne joined the public comment portion in-person and introduced herself to the PNUT Board. She
explained that she was following up from her comments during the October PNUT meeting regarding
Wasatch Hollow Park and Preserve.Anne went on to say that residents living near the preserve have
formed a committee of concerned volunteers to address the issue of challenges faced with off-leash
dogs in the park area. Anne stated that she and the volunteers would like to invite PNUT Board member
CJ Whittaker,who represents District 6,to join them in helping find resolutions to diversity of use for
Wasatch Hollow Park in ways that will be balanced between non-dog owners and dog owners who want
their dogs off-leash. She reiterated that they are concerned mainly about the park portion. Anne also
added that the volunteer committee is interested in engaging with some planners or folks who could
help them with the ideas that they're considering, and the survey brought up about possibilities with the
park. Further, when the committee is ready to submit the CIP—which they have applied for—the
application would have more meaningful direction for what they would like to see happen in their
community. Anne ended her public comment by saying that ultimately, the committee would like to see
the Wasatch Hollow Park and Preserve be rebuilt for the enjoyment of the total community; as of right
now,to access the Preserve, folks must pass through the dog park area,which is one of the challenges.
She thanked the Board from their time and looked forward to addressing the challenges together.
Staff Response:
Public Lands staff is continuing to collaborate closely with the Wasatch Hollow Community Council
(WHCC) working group on Off-Leash Dogs. In the coming weeks, staff will be meeting on site with
members of the working group to discuss ideas for various portions of the park. Following this meeting,
WHCC intends to submit additional details on projects throughout the park in the constituent CIP
process.
Draft FY 2023-23 Budget Initiatives
Inflationary& Contractual Increases
Background:
Each year the Public Lands Department has operational expense increases related to inflationary and
other contractual price increases.This budget initiative addresses cost increases to multiple expense
categories related to utilities,fleet fuel and maintenance, operational contracts, and supplies. If these
cost increases are not fully funded this would essentially be a budget reduction to the department and
respective programs.
Cost
Utility Cost Increase $139,500
Fleet Maint. & Fuel Cost Increase $26,000
Inflationary&Contractual Cost Increase $188,500
Total Ongoing Cost $354,000-$360,000
. AM
New Properties &Amenities I Parks +Trails & Natural Lands Divisions
Background: W"
Each year SLC Public Lands acquires new property and or amenities through the City's CIP process.
Budgeting for ongoing maintenance (supplies and staff)of these facilities is requested once the Division
understands the date the project will be turned over to that Division for management.This year we have
multiple sites that will need various amounts of funding and staffing to steward the new amenities, as
well as several semi-administrative positions to activate new facilities, support communications and
engagement and maintain critical assets including signage.
New Properties: `
• lCornell & North Riverside Natural Area
• Mountain View Corridor Trail (Parks)
• Foothill Trailhead
• Glendale Par
• Fisher Mansion Grounds
• Kilyon Canyon Property
• Allen Park
Expanded Restoration Area
• 100 South Islands (parks)
• 9Lie Urban Orchard (parks+T&NL)
• Fairmont Park Springs
• Folsom Trail (Parks)
• Three Creeks Wetlands
1
Staff Needs
Cornell & North Riverside Natural Area
• Sr Natural Resource Technician .66 FTE
• Seasonal Staff
• Contractual Vegetation Management Services
Mountain View Corridor
• Sr Natural Resource Technician .33 FTE
• Seasonal Staff
Fairmont Park Springs
• Sr. Groundskeeper.33 FTE
• Seasonal Staff
Three Creeks Wetlands
• Sr. Groundskeeper.33 FTE
• Seasonal Staff
Folsom Trail
• Sr. Groundskeeper.33 FTE
• Seasonal Staff
9 Line Urban Orchard
• Seasonal Staff
• Community Partner
100 South Islands(Parks)
• Seasonal Staff
I
Cost
9@90nal StaTR4h, W37,537
Mhterials $19,950
One-time Cost $119,086
Total Cost for New Properties and Expanded
Restoration $503,473
Park Maintenance Staff Seasonal to Fulltime Conversion
Background: IWIF
Parks require continuous maintenance year-round. During winter times, full-time staff are busy clearing
snow from sidewalks and trails and removing fallen tree branches when heavy wet snows come in the
spring. Full-time staff would offer a reliable and consistent workforce where orientation training is only
required once. This is the first of a three-year phased approach to increase full-time park maintenance
staff.
2
How to relates to the Reimagine Nature Master Plan:
Protect: Action 2.1 A Provide additional maintenance, activation and improvement resources to west-
side parks in order to promote a similar degree of attractiveness and usability compared to east-side
parks (equity, not equality). Secure maintenance funding for Jordan River Parkway to make it equivalent
to other regionally-significant assets such as Liberty Park.
How it relates to the Mayor's Plan: We will support our employees' physical, mental, and economic
well-being and prioritize our workforce to recruit and retain the best public servants.
Staff Needs:
• 8 Park Maintenance Techs (grade 19)
Cost
Total One-time costs for equipment $520,000
Total Ongoing Costs $640,400-$721,000
(Includes staff and materials)
Total Department Request $1,160,400
Foothills Trail Maintenance Expansion Program
Background:
In 2020 Salt Lake City Public Lands initiated the Foothills Trail System Plan in the 6000 acres of open
space designated as the Foothills Natural Area. While construction of trails may be funded through CIP
funding and grants, the long-term care for the open space ecology and recreational amenities requires
proactive and responsive maintenance.
Long-term care includes weed removal, native planting, trail corridor maintenance, trailhead and access
maintenance, wayfinding and interpretive signage installation and maintenance, minor trail
construction.The current program operates under requests of Recreational Trail Manager using Trails &
Natural Lands' maintenance funds and equipment.
How it relates to Reimagine Nature Master Plan:
Connect: Action 1.113,Action 1.2 D,Action 2.3 B- Protect Action 1.1E
Staff Needs:
• One FTE Senior Natural Resources Technician (Grade 19)
• Two FTE Natural Resource Technicians (Grade 16)
• Four seasonal staff at scheduled locations with increased weed and trail maintenance
3
Cost
Total One-time Equipment Cost $172,500
Total Ongoing Cost $271,300-$307,000
(includes staff and materials)
Total Department Request $443,800
Trails and Natural Lands Maintenance Enhancement
Background:
This budget initiative will help support the Public Lands Department in its efforts to improve the
ecological health and resiliency of public green spaces, and provide a dedicated budget for biodiversity
and habitat enhancement. Currently the Natural Lands team has two full-time field staff who oversee a
seasonal team of eight technicians in managing almost 2,000 acres of open space properties.
How it Relates to the Mayor's Plan:
• Our Community: Inclusive, Equitable Opportunities, Safe and Affordable Neighborhoods
• Our Environment: We will lead the way on resilience and stewardship, protecting our natural
systems while addressing social inequities, advancing development, and addressing climate
change.
How it Relates to Reimagine Nature Master Plan:
• Sustain: 1.1E, 1.2E, 2.2C, 2.2E, 2.313
• Protect: 1.1E, 1.2A
Staff Needs:
• One FTE Restoration Ecologist (Grade 24)
• One FTE Senior Natural Resources Technician (Grade 16)
• Two Seasonal Natural Resources Technicians (Grade 12)
Cost
Total One-time cost for Equipment $147,500
Total Ongoing Cost $194,100-$219,000
(includes staff and materials)
Total Department Request $341,600
Parks Events/Afterhours Crew
Background:
General Park operations, mowing, irrigation repairs, trash removal and restroom cleaning happen
between 6:00 am and 3:00 pm when the park is not active, and these activities do not disrupt visitor
use. However, because visitor use happens primarily between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm, and on weekends a
second crew to manage visitor use such as garbage removal and restroom cleaning could result in a
cleaner, safer park and deter criminal activity.
4
How it Relates to Reimagine Nature Master Plan:
Protect: Action 2.1 A Provide additional maintenance, activation and improvement resources to west-
side parks in order to promote a similar degree of attractiveness and usability compared to east-side
parks (equity, not equality).
How it Relates to the Mayor's Plan:
Our Community: Inclusive, Equitable Opportunities, Safe and Affordable Neighborhoods
Staff Needs:
• One Lead Parks Maintenance Technician (formerly Groundskeeper) Grade 21
• Five Parks Maintenance Technician II (Formerly Sr. Parks Groundskeeper) Grade 19
Cost
Total One-Time for Equipment $197,500
Total Ongoing Cost (staff and materials) $461,300 -$534,000
Total Department Request $658,800
Public Way Beautification (formerly Weed Abatement)
Background:
In 2012 Salt Lake City Public Lands was assigned the weed abatement program, and transferred to PL
from Sanitation.The program provided weed removal, mowing and spraying of herbicides in right of
ways, alleys, medians and undeveloped City properties.There are no weed abatement funds in the PL
budget for this program. Since 2016 PL has requested funding for this program annually. Currently,the
program operates on a complaint basis using Park's maintenance funds to hire two seasonal staff.
How it Relates to Reimagine Nature Master Plan:
Welcome: Action 2.2 E utilized the Project for Public Spaces model and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) standards for thinking about the factors that influence active and safe
putlic spaces.
Staff Needs:
The weed abatement program will operate year-round
• Two FTE Park Maintenance Tech (formerly Sr. Groundskeeper) (Grade 19) dedicated to weed
abatement throughout the City on scheduled abatement program (District 5).
• Six seasonal staff at scheduled locations with increased mowing.
Cost
Total One-time Cost for Equipment $290,000
Total Ongoing Cost (staff and materials) $288,400-$327,000
Total Department Request $578,400
Public Lands Tree Maintenance
Background:
Over the last 5 years the City's urban forest has benefited from increased focus and funding to plant
more new trees and better preserve and maintain older trees. However, high service request demand
and substantial backlogs for tree removal and pruning work have necessitated the vast majority of the
5
Urban Foresty Division's tree maintenance resources to be directed toward servicing of neighborhood
street trees. As a result, capacity for maintenance pruning of park, golf course, and other public lands
property trees is lacking.
The additional arborist crew could provide the staffing and equipment capacity to prune between 1,000
and 1,500 public lands property trees annually.The new equipment will also provide additional
capability the OF Fleet does not currently have. Overtime the increased maintenance will improve the
health and safety of trees growing in the city's parks,golf courses, and other public lands.
Staff Needs:
• Two FTE Arborists(1 Grade 19 and 1 Grade 21), constituting one tree pruning crew
Cost
Total One-Time Cost for Equipment $457,500
Total Ongoing Cost $181,700-$203,000
Total Department Request $639,200
Additional Planning Team Capacity (3 Planners)
Background:
The Public Lands Department's Planning Team (3 FTEs) is tasked with funding applications, project
engagement and development, cross-departmental coordination, and project implementation tasks
required to deliver public lands projects.These additional full-time planners are required to better
manage the existing project backlog of approximately 100 projects.The current ratio of projects per
planner leads to project delivery delays and, therefore, budget overruns and missing opportunities to
meet community expectations. In addition,greater demands on our public lands system, higher
standards for public involvement, more opportunities to collaborate with external partners, and
dramatic increases in capital funding mean that planning and project management needs far outstrip
this team's current capacity.
How it Relates to Reimagine Nature:
• Strategy G-1: Be proactive and strategic about growth of the Public Lands System
• Action 1.1 A Increase staffing to meet capacity demands of planning& projects team, achieve
reasonable project loads for Public Lands PMs, and free up capacity for the many policy and
programmatic planning documents recommended as action items.
Staff Needs:
• Three FTE Public Lands Planners (grade 28)
Cost
Total One-Time Cost for Equipment $52,500
Total Ongoing Cost $319,641-$374,000
Total Department Request $372,141
6
Public ands
�I It Parks I Trails & Natural Lands I Urban Forestry
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Board
2023 Meeting Schedule
January 5, 2023
February 2, 2023
March 2, 2023
April 6, 2023
May 4, 2023
June 1 , 2023
July 6, 2023
August 3, 2023
September 7, 2023
October 5, 2023
November 2, 2023
December 7, 2023
Meetings start at 5:OOpm.
Location
Public Lands Building
1965 West 500 South, 2nd Floor Parks Training Room
Meetings may also be held electronically.
"Meeting date is not confirmed until meeting notice is provided"