Transmittal - 1/28/2022DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_____________________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ____________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 25, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Central Business Investment Area (CBIA) – Future Considerations
STAFF CONTACTS: Ben Kolendar - ben.kolendar@slcgov.com;
Lorena Riffo-Jenson – lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com
Jolynn Walz – jolynn.walz@slcgov.com;
William Wright – william.wright@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Written Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: NA
BUDGET IMPACT: SAAs are funded through the assessment by property owners.
COORDINTATION: Department of Economic Development, Siobhan Locke with The
Langdon Group, The Downtown Advisory Board, & Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office,
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In July 2021, the City Council adopted the Resolution of Intent to Designate the
assessment area for the Central Business Investment Area 2022 (CBIA-22) for
downtown Salt Lake City. During that meeting, Council members stated that although it
was too late to make any changes to the current Special Assessment Area and process,
they tasked the Department of Economic Development (DED) to research and review
future holiday light options. Council member Valdemoros asked DED staff to look
particularly into the potential of adding holiday lighting along the walkway bridge on
North Temple from 400 West to 650 West and along 200 South between Main Street &
200 East.
The surrounding properties are unique given that the bridge isn’t directly adjacent to the
properties that would be assessed like other assessment areas for holiday lighting.
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 28, 2022 14:50 MST)01/28/2022
01/28/2022
The holiday lighting is an additional assessment to property tax within the assessment
area. The holiday lighting map can be found here (hyperlink). The assessed rate is
$12.79 per linear foot. The 2019 assessment was for $177,318 for the entirety of the
downtown for all three years.
This assessment area is by linear foot for those properties that receive holiday lighting.
Because special assessment areas are not funded by the City’s General Fund, but by
property owners that are assessed within an assessment area, the DED coordinated with
the Downtown Alliance to engage with property owners to gain insight from their
perspective.
To help manage this effort, the Department of Economic Development hired Siobhan
Locke with The Langdon Group to facilitate a discussion with the Downtown Advisory
Board (Board) on January 10, 2022. The Board is compiled of property owners within
downtown and the current CBIA-19 area who pay the most in assessments.
Additional Holiday Lighting
The Board felt that the current holiday lighting was satisfactory, any future holiday
lighting needed should be placed strategically, and a more robust conversation would be
needed.
The two areas suggested by the City Council seemed a bit randomly placed, and the
Board felt that there are better ways to determine holiday placement, such as looking
into areas like “Gateways to the City” or creating more of a corridor along 200 South.
Another issue with the suggested area along the North Temple bridge is that there are
no properties to assess to cover the cost of the lighting. Also, the group felt that the
current budget to cover costs within the SAA was divided appropriately and they did not
want to take from one category to pay for another. Any additional lighting would need
an additional funding mechanism such as expanding the current CBIA boundaries or
tapping into additional funding sources within the current boundaries such as assessing
single-family leased commercial property owners.
Below are additional issues or comments that were raised during the
holiday lighting discussion.
SAA Creation & Expansion
In 2016, the Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) boundaries were expanded.
This process was initiated under the City Council’s direction and not at property owners’
request.
Any creation or changes to a special assessment area are typically led or have support
from the property owners due to a statutory requirement of a minimum of 60%
approval. If property owners of 40% or more of the valuation in area boundaries protest
the creation of or changes to the SAA, the area cannot be created or changed, per Utah
Code.
11-42-102. DEFINITIONS.
(1) As used in this chapter:
(a) "Adequate protests" means, for all proposed assessment areas except sewer
assessment areas, timely filed, written protests under Section 11-42-203 that
represent at least 40% of the frontage, area, taxable value, fair market
value, lots, number of connections, or equivalent residential units of the
property proposed to be assessed, according to the same assessment method by
which the assessment is proposed to be levied, after eliminating:
11-42-206. Public meeting -- Adoption of a resolution or ordinance regarding a
proposed assessment area -- Designation prohibited if adequate protests filed --
Recording of resolution or ordinance and notice of proposed assessment.
(1) (a) After holding a public hearing under Section 11-42-204 and within 15 days
after the day that the protest period expires in accordance with
Subsection 11-42-203(1), the governing body shall:
(i) count the written protests filed or withdrawn in accordance with
Section 11-42-203 and calculate whether adequate protests have been filed;
and
(ii) hold a public meeting to announce the protest tally and whether adequate
protests have been filed.
(b) If adequate protests are not filed, the governing body at the public meeting
may adopt a resolution or ordinance:
(i) abandoning the proposal to designate an assessment area; or
(ii) designating an assessment area as described in the notice under
Section 11-42-202 or with the changes made as authorized under
Subsection (1)(d).
(c) If adequate protests are filed, the governing body at the public meeting:
(i) may not adopt a resolution or ordinance designating the assessment area;
and
(ii) may adopt a resolution or ordinance to abandon the proposal to designate
the assessment area.
Board members felt that expanding the current CBIA boundaries to 700 South makes
sense and an expansion to 900 South could work, but that it should be sometime into
the future.
Board members stated that expanding to the Granary Area could be an option, but
sentiments of the property owners should be taken into consideration. Granary Area
property owners may have different needs and priorities than property owners in the
CBIA. Within those discussions it needs to be determined if the Granary Area should be
its own special assessment area or if the current CBIA area should be expanded to
include it.
Single Owner - Multi-Family Leased Structures
Board members felt there should be a focus on maximizing opportunities within the
current CBIA boundaries first before looking at any boundary expansion. One option
would be looking into whether single owners of multi-family structures, such as
apartments, should be or can be included in future assessments. Currently, these
property owners who fall within the boundaries may receive the benefits of an SAA, but
they do not actually contribute financially because they are not being assessed.
Property Owner Priorities:
The following items below are additional topics discussed during the facilitated Board
meeting.
Boundary discussion
Clean streets
Safe streets
Utilities working well
Ambassador program
Police on bikes
Open Streets
Urban Forestry
Holiday lighting
Top priorities from the list and what Board members want to see funded through the
SAA are:
Safe streets
Ambassador Program
Open Streets
Police on bikes
All other items in the list were felt to be a secondary priority.
Attachments:
CBIA Lighting Map with proposed areas
The Langdon Group Report
200 S
400 S
300 S
500 S600 W400 W300 W200 WState 200 E300 E500 W100 S
Main C B A 1st
North Temple 800 W2nd
3rd
South Temple West Temple I-15 Northbound I-15 Southbound Rio Grande 765 WI-80 EB I-15 NB I-15 NB I-80 WB 200 N
50 N 700 W870 WI-80 EB I-15 SB Market Edison Regent Jeremy Canyon Plum Jackson
Pierpont
Emeril I-15 SB I-80 WB Floral Exchange I-15 SB 400 S Off Blair Social Hall
Pacific
Gallivan Dubei Eccles Poplar Wayne I
-80
WB
5
0
0
S
O
nI-15 NB 400 S On Moffatt I
-15SB400SOnDelmar I
-15NB400SOf
f
Orpheum
Arnold Cactus Marguerite I-80EBI-15SB600SOffCanyon (E) Peasant Shelmerdine Woodbine I-15SB400SOff
E
B Weechquootee Butterworth I-1 5 NB400SOnEB300 S
South Temple Main 300 S
Jackson
Pacific
300 S
200 N
700 W100 S
500 S Jeremy Pierpont
100 S 500 W700 WJeremy 500 S
Pacific
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Current CBIA Map 405001,000 1,500 2,000250Feet1 inch = 300 feet
Drawn By: K. BellSalt Lake City CorporationInformation Management ServicesDecember 2021
Legend
Possib le L igh tin g
Holida y Lig hting S tree ts
CBIA Lig hting B ou nda ry
Downtown Alliance
Advisory Board
Facilitated Meeting
JANUARY 10, 2021 ‐ MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE LANGDON GROUP
Report Prepared by The Langdon Group January 18, 2022
DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA
January 10, 2022; 10 am – 12 pm
Virtual Meeting
Meeting Summary
Meeting Purpose and Goals – To talk directly with property owners within the Downtown Alliance (DTA)
Special Assessment Area (SAA) – via their representatives on the DTA Advisory Board – to understand
their high‐level priorities for allocating their funding through 2025 and to gather feedback on a few
items that community members and staff have proposed over time.
Meeting Planning/Process – Salt Lake City Economic Development asked a third‐party facilitator to
come in to assist with this meeting to ensure a neutral approach and that no SLC staff member could be
seen as advocating for particular outcomes or programs and so that participants could feel free to share
feedback and thoughts regardless of their relationship with the city or its staff.
Originally planned to be an in‐person meeting at the standing meeting of this group at the Downtown
Alliance offices, COVID restrictions and rising case counts warranted a pivot to an online Zoom platform
for safety reasons.
Meeting Agenda
1. Meeting Purpose and Goals
Discussion
2. Agenda Review
3. Presentations/Discussion
a. High level overview of how
funds are allocated through
the SAA process
b. Holiday lighting discussion
(map was shown for
discussion – see fig 1. Below)
c. Property Owners priorities
5 MINUTE BREAK
4. Review and prioritize discussion
items
5. Roll call and vote
6. Review Next Steps and conclude meeting
Figure 1 ‐ Downtown Alliance Holiday Lighting Area
Report Prepared by The Langdon Group January 18, 2022
Meeting Notes and Key Takeaways
Attendees
Downtown Alliance Advisory Board Members Salt Lake City Leadership and Staff
Dee Brewer, Executive Director DTA
Nico Priskos, Internet Properties & Chair of DTA
Lloyd Allen, CBRE
Holly Yocom, Salt Lake County Community
Services Director
Linda Wardell, City Creek
Derek Miller, President and CEO of SL Chamber
Chloe Gehrke, Vector Management
Chris Kirk, Colliers & Co‐Chair of DTA
Bruce Bingham, Hamilton Partners
Kim Abrams, Goldman Sachs & Past Chair of DTA
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Ben Kolendar – Director of Economic Development
William Wright – Project Manager, Economic
Development
Jolynn Walz – Executive Manager, Economic
Development
Siobhan Locke – The Langdon Group, facilitator
Meeting Notes
Holiday Lighting Discussion Summary
Existing Holiday Lighting Areas
‐ Overall, most members felt that the current holiday lighting plan was sufficient, and costs are
covered in the current budget.
People also expressed that additions to holiday lighting might be best linked to increased funding
within the current boundaries and/or to additional funding coming in through widening the
boundaries. Suggested New Areas
‐ North Temple Bridge ‐ Due to the bridge not being associated with any commercial properties
there is nothing to assess and no property owners to cover the additional expense of the holiday
lighting. A funding source would need to be determined in order to add lighting to the bridge.
o If we were to shift our thinking to highlighting “gateways into the city”, the group
thought there could be merit to that but that the funding would have to be more of a
conversation because there might be some big pushback if residential and industrial
property owners were asked to foot the bill
‐ 200 S. (between State and 200 E.) ‐ might be a good fit but really, the areas that feel
“intentional” and “city‐sponsored” are the areas like Main and State that are continuous –
perhaps looking into a 200 S. holiday lighting corridor would have more merit than looking
block‐by‐block
Report Prepared by The Langdon Group January 18, 2022
Property Owner Priorities (as identified by the members of the Advisory Board)
Other Priorities Brainstorm
‐ Boundary discussion
‐ Clean streets
‐ Safe Streets
‐ Utilities working well
‐ Ambassador program
‐ Police on bikes
‐ Open Streets
‐ Urban Forestry
‐ Holiday lighting
Other Priorities Discussion
Boundary Expansion ‐ looking at expanding to 700 S makes sense (900 maybe at some future time),
granary makes sense for the most part ‐ depending on the sentiments of the property owners, consider
scheduling a tour and discussion with these folks. Granary area property owners may have different
needs and wants than property owners in the core of downtown.
Focus on Maximizing Opportunities within Boundaries First ‐ before Looking at boundary expansion by
looking at assessing Leased Multi‐Family Residential
Ambassador program ‐ this program is a huge help and warrants expansion (in current and new areas),
not just more ambassadors but the right ones – maybe need to discuss recruitment for this later
Open Streets ‐ looking into making that permanent and – the barriers now aren’t pretty – focus on
beautifying when/if it becomes permanent
Urban Forestry – more trees the better – looking into this further may be supported
Priorities Ranking Discussion Summary
The Facilitator went around to each participant to ask (1) does the list of priorities cover everything that
is important to you in this conversation? (2) what would you put at the top of your list if you were to
rank these items?
1. Participants all confirmed the list reflected everything they would want to see funding through
the SAA
2. Overall, the group wanted to see the following items brought to the top of a priority list
a. Safe Streets, Ambassador Program, Open Streets, Police on Bikes
And, thought these were still important but perhaps lower down on the list
Report Prepared by The Langdon Group January 18, 2022
b. Clean streets, utilities working well, Holiday lighting, boundary expansion, urban forestry
Associated Thoughts for Consideration raised by the property owners
‐ It can be challenging to think about the future into 2025 – right now the current allocations feel
comfortable especially with the uncertainty in the future
‐ Reallocation thoughts
o Q. Can we move to further support ambassador program without adding to the total
budget?
o A. We’ve looked at this closely – and we have things appropriately allocated – we
don’t want to take away from the other things we’ve funded. Adjusting the
percentages wouldn’t be great because of all the thought that has gone into the
investments to‐date (many contribute to safety that may not seem to on their face) –
probably looking at increasing the funding base – expanding boundaries, etc. would be
best