12/12/2022 - Meeting Minutes MEETING MINUTES
SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE
ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2022
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
Steve Cornell, Committee Chair Riley Bird,SLC Facilities
Anne Oliver *41tl'h`C"" C°"n"'kludb""g Joan Swain, SLC Facilities
#mllabanco&NBC Conunalce
Barbara Murphy _ � ® Aiden Lillie, SLC Planning
Rob Pett f Karilyn Anderson, SLC Engineering
Catherine Tucker Asee 01/09/2023 Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering
Jennifer Hale , Jaysen Oldroyd
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Kathy Davis
John Kemp, Vice Chair
Steve Cornell welcomed everyone to the December 12, 2022, Salt Lake City and County Building
Conservancy and Use Committee Meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 1: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14, 2022, MEETING MINUTES.
Steve asked the Committee Members if they have had a chance to review the minutes and if not to take
a minute to look these over and then asked if anyone has any comments.
Rob Pett had a question related to Agenda Item 3 regarding the "Love Your Block" program, which Rob
stated he received, but explained that once he clicked on the link,there is no information about what
you're supposed to do or how you are supposed to contribute.
Joan explained that this was an email sent from the Mayor's office asking that it be forwarded to all
Committee Members with the idea if anyone was interested in being involved they could contact the
person named in the email for more information. There were specific funds allocated to be used for
potential projects or upgrades throughout the city.
Steve asked if there are any other comments or questions. There were no comments, so he asked if
there is a motion to approve.
Rob Pett suggested that he was present at the last meeting and has looked through the minutes and
would make a motion to approve the minutes.
Steve asked if there is a second to the motion. Barbara Murphy seconded the motion. Steve asked for
a vote. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion.
AGENDA ITEM 2: BUILDING INTERIOR SIGNAGE.
Steve explained that he and Rob asked this item to be added to the agenda just for a quick discussion
about the interior signage in the building. Steve wanted to know if when the building is re-painted, will
the signs be taken down and then put back up as part of the re-painting, as it is his understanding that
1
this is not part of the project, and it is his understanding the plan is just to tape around the signs unless
they have to replace the plaster and after painting they would just put the signs back up.
Karilyn said the signs will be removed and then put back up because the paint job doesn't look very
good when they just tape around things like this, but as far as questions about changing the look of the
signs, that is not included in the project.
Rob explained that the Committee understands that there is no intent on replacing the signs with more
current and appropriate signage but asked if it is going to go back as it is currently, including the paper
signs that are just taped to everything. Rob suggested that because this is going to be a large repair
project for the city and for Engineering would this offer us an opportunity to address the signage that is
now 40 years old and very inflexible. Rob noted there are a lot of people on camera today that cannot
just walk through the building and see what some of the issues are, but we as a committee must
consider how the building is being used and if the signage is appropriate and if the City has funds to
assist in some analysis of the current conditions and what could possibly be corrected or modified. Is
there a timeframe that we would want to work into the same timeframe as the repairs of the building,
so we are not just putting back the old signage and then trying to turn around and replace it?
Steve explained that part of what's prompting this is that in some cases there are 3 signs for the same
room. One is the sign they put up in the 80's as part of the restoration project, another might be an
early version of an ADA sign and in some cases there's a third sign that is a duplication of that ADA sign.
If you take all those signs off, what are you putting back on after you re-paint? Will all the signs be put
back up? We are working through this and just suggesting that the city consider this as a future or
current project.
Karilyn explained that it might be something that will have to be surveyed among departments, because
they are the ones that are affected most by the signage. They would probably have some
ideas of what they would like to use instead or what kind of wording message they would want outside
their office. Karilyn explained that how the insurance works is that the City will get the money to
replace whatever that got damaged or affected and put it back as it was, anything that varies from that
then is money that the City will have to come up with, noting this is a question for the Mayor and the
Council to see if there is budget for this.
Rob explained that when the Committee developed the criteria for the Master Plan to help the
departments understand what they can do and how,when faced with furniture needs or repairs or want
to add this or add that. Guidelines are provided, including guidelines for signage for correcting both
interior and exterior for signage. If they were to change,then the guidelines suggest that they be
brought up to code, as the signs currently do not meet code. Does this responsibility fall totally under
Facilities or under Engineering?
Riley Bird suggested that he would talk to Jim Cleland next week and see he can do and what kind of
funds might be available.
Steve suggested that perhaps what they are looking to do is just recognize that this is an issue that the
Committee sees in the building and suggest to the City to consider this and report back next month as to
if there are budgets available and to think about the process to address this issue.
2
Karilyn responded that there is time to work through this, the construction is going to be a year and a
half to 2 years allowing time to think about and find a budget solution for additional or updated signage.
Karilyn will bring it up to Engineering and ask for input from the GSBS Architects who have been working
on the repair project.
Rob suggested it might need to be two-fold where there is first an analysis of what is currently there and
where the deficiencies are and what could be corrected and then there's a 2nd of procuring it,which is a
totally different number.
Barbara noted that assuming there may not be enough money to do it all, the priority"A" spaces should
be considered first and then as are outlined in the study might be a way to look at where we start with
that.
Karilyn suggested that maybe just starting with the public places such as the corridors and make the
upgrades and then go from there.
Barbara suggested that the corridors would be part of it, but it would be like the City Council Chambers
and the other spaces that are priority "A" that are outlined in the Master Plan report.
Sean Fyfe suggested it appears we all agree the interior repair project provides an opportunity to update
the signage and that it's necessary. If separate funding can be procured to make it a reality that would
be great but clarified the current interior repair project does not include a rework of the signage. If
there is funding that can be identified to address the signage and bring it up to code and make revisions,
this project would be implemented as best we can and it may be it's not within the interior repair
project, but a separate project. Experience has proven that these types of signage revisions can take a
long time. There's an assessment that must be done as to what is there currently, what the deficiencies
and remedies are and then, usually there's a master signage plan that is develop. This can take years to
coordinate with the various departments within the facility. Each must evaluate what their needs are
and things of that nature. We all know the timing of the current project and must be clear that those
schedules may not align.
Rob agreed that these schedules may not align, but this is an opportunity to bring the signage issue to
the table and if it could align within the current schedule, and we have two or three years okay, but it
also has to do with the sequencing of the completion of the work and whether there's sign-off on each
floor and the signs go back or do we wait until the end, so it is a discussion. From the standpoint of the
Committee, do you see it as requiring a letter from the Committee to the Mayor as a need?
Sean suggested it would be a benefit, but the way he sees it unfolding, given it's somewhat urgent and
because we're looking to bid this project in February and have a contractor start work in March, he
doesn't see any scenario where we can have any kind of direction on signage by the end of that first
phase. Sean suggested that Facilities may be able identify some funding to have GSBS start evaluating
what's on the building now, which they may have already done and then provide a description or a
study that shows what the deficiencies are from at least code perspective and just start the ball rolling
from that side, hopefully with some minimal funding with the hope that from there we can develop
either a budget amendment application or a CIP application that can address whatever deficiencies the
study identifies. That way we can at least start having conversation with a consultant, but we do need a
little bit of money to at least do that.
3
Rob and Steve both agreed. Steve asked if there were any other comments and suggested that what he
is hearing is we will just get an update from Sean next month.
Sean suggested he is hoping to talk to Jim about this to see if Facilities may have some money that can
be allocated to this to get the ball rolling and he is not sure where it will be in January, but at least well
have had that conversation internally at the very least and maybe try to craft a plan update in January.
Riley explained that Jim has been out sick, but may be back tomorrow and Riley will be happy to bring
that up with Jim.
Karilyn asked if the Committee wanted another summary of the project today.
Steve suggested that she doesn't need to go back through the presentation she gave last month, but if
she can tell us where the project is at in the process.
Karilyn reported that there was a roof inspection in the last week and there was no structural damage
found, but some of the tiles were damaged on some parts of the roof and repairs will be scheduled.
Engineering is still working through the insurance funding and discussion about how much will be
needed for the construction. The insurance company has been working well with the team and has
been open to ideas and comments. This week we should be getting the final construction drawings and
specs for review, and she will send those out to everyone that is interested in reviewing those. Also, in
the next few weeks the drawings will be submitted to the estimator so that he can give us an estimate
of the cost of construction and according to that we will proceed with getting the project,which will
depend on if we have enough money to do the entire project or if we will have to split it in phases. We
are still estimated to start construction at the beginning of March or end of February. In
December we will sort out the contractors that bid on the project to make sure they are qualified, Rob
will be part of that selection committee.
Rob suggested in last month's meeting Jennifer had suggested about sequencing suggesting that main
stairs being started first since they are the entry to the building and what the thoughts were about that
suggestion.
Karilyn explained that the team agreed that the main entry stairs should go first so the building has its
best face looking good from the beginning and they are just trying to figure out now the issue with the
restaurant, because once they close the stairs,the restrooms are not available, so they are working
through those details now. It was a very good suggestion.
Sean noted this also helped with egress on future phases as well.
Rob asked if Karilyn could tell the Committee again when they anticipate this going out to bid to the
contractors.
Karilyn suggested the thinking is mid-January to end of January. Sean suggested late January noting it
kind of depends on where the estimate comes in in early January. If that estimate comes in close to the
previous estimates,then we're probably lined up to bid in late January. If that estimate comes in higher
that we expect it,then we may have to revise the bid package a little bit and then probably bid in
February.
4
Steve thanked Karilyn and Sean for the update.
AGENDA ITEM 3: OTHER BUILDING PROJECT UPDATES.
Steve explained that he asked for an agenda item that allowed for open discussion if anyone wanted to
bring up something related to the building and this may not be worded exactly as he had intended, but
wanted to give the Committee a chance to have an open discussion.
Rob asked about the status of the new vault and the construction of that.
Riley suggested that Sean would be better able to answer that question that he could. Riley said he
thinks it's not completely designed yet and once it is designed, it will be sent out to public bid.
Sean explained that it had just been submitted for permit review and that it's in the queue. The review
hasn't started yet and depending on those review comments, I don't anticipate significant revisions, but
there may be some minor revisions and then we would hopefully, bid that out as soon as soon as the
funding becomes available and originally the funding was supposed to show up in January, but now it
seems like it may be potentially February or March. We cannot bid the project until the funding shows
up,which is the bond funding.
Joan explained, related to Steve's request for an open discussion item on the agenda, that in past years
to see what we listed for an open discussion agenda item and this Other Building Project Updates is
what was suggested as the title so that we could bring up items about the building that were not
officially listed for discussion without being too specific.
Jason suggested this was general and it is enough for quick updates, but he wouldn't suggest we vote on
anything that was brought up off that discussion.
Steve asked if there was anything else anyone wanted to bring up. No one responded. Steve thanked
everyone for their comments and question and asked if someone wanted to make a motion to adjourn.
Barbara motioned to adjourn.
Rob seconded the motion.
The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn.
5