Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Residents appeared split on a proposed "below market" lease between the University of Utah and Salt Lake City during a public hearing on the matter Tuesday evening.
Some expressed concerns with the plan or deal; some said they wished youth leagues were given better provisions; and some supported the plan and investments in Sunnyside Park. In the end, the Salt Lake City Council opted not to make a decision yet on a required public benefits analysis.
Under the proposal, Salt Lake City would lease about 1.18 acres of Sunnyside Park, at 1735 E. Sunnyside Ave., needed to build out a new stadium for the Utes baseball team. It's current home stadium, Smith's Ballpark, is slated to shut down as early as at the end of this season.
The proposed deal would be a 99-year lease at $1 per year; however, the school would donate $4.2 million toward park improvements.
It's expected that the lost land may impact one or two softball fields and a portion of the park's multipurpose field. However, some residents say it may also bring unwanted traffic to the neighborhoods near the University of Utah's southern campus line and cause additional impacts.
Others say there are issues with the project's design that could lead to flooding and other concerns in the area, or there hasn't been enough transparency about what's proposed.
James Webster, a resident who identified himself as a former landscape architect teaching drainage planning at multiple universities, called it an "infeasible plan in so many ways" that would impede the ability to expand Steiner Aquatic Center.
"If I were teaching a class at Utah State, which I have done in the past, and a student were to present this plan, they wouldn't even get a D, in my opinion," he said. "It's a terrible plan."
Residents like August Wachter, president of Foothill Youth Baseball, questioned why the city would offer a below-market rate to the university while the cost of running nonprofit youth baseball leagues continues to rise. He was one of a few youth coaches who came to the meeting to voice the issue.
"Our leagues are burdened with exorbitant fees nearing $20,000 annually for dilapidated complexes the city has neglected for decades," he said. "It's unacceptable. ... This city spends millions on dog parks, pickleball courts (and) public trails, among other things that provide no revenue, yet we pay $17 per hour to rent our fields."
Some other youth league organizers expressed similar concerns, adding that they'd like to see new softball options added at other parks if they're removed from Sunnyside Park. Kristina Robb, chair of the East Liberty Park Community Council, called on the City Council to make sure children and families have access to fields for youth programs and safe streets near the park.
But a handful of residents also spoke in favor of the plan, largely because of the money that would go toward improving Sunnyside Park. They noted that, as Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall explained earlier this month, the university doesn't need a city deal to build the stadium.
That's why they believe it would make sense to take funds that would go toward park improvements that would benefit residents of all ages.
"That park needs some love, and I think $4.2 million is really an awesome opportunity to reinvest in this park," said resident Jeremy Keele.
The Salt Lake City Council will weigh these different arguments before voting on a public benefits analysis, a step required before the city can move forward with negotiations. It's required anytime the city considers a deal determined to be below market value.
If approved, the city would be able to formalize a leasing agreement with the university. The university would build a 35-foot wall at the stadium's perimeter if it's unable to reach an agreement with the city.
It's unclear when the council will vote on the measure, but its next meeting is scheduled for March 5.
