Loading...
04/03/1990 - Minutes PROCEENGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT•DI UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale Councilmember Whitehead was absent. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. Council Chair Alan Hardman Wednesday with a reception follow- opened the meeting. ing. The Council interviewed Tim In reviewing the meeting Chambless prior to consideration agenda for the evening, she indi- of his appointment to the Board of cated most of the items were Adjustment. He indicated he had consent. Councilmember Hardman been a Salt Lake City resident for inquired if there were any re- twenty years, and had taught quests to pull any of the consent government and served as a re- items. There were no requests. search assistant to Mayor Wilson. He expressed his interest in Ms. Gust-Jenson indicated serving on the board as a citizen that Jim McGuire, Lee King and and active member of the communi- Roger Cutler would be available ty. He said he was aware of the for questions regarding Item F-1. time commitment. Councilmembers asked to receive a briefing during the meeting on Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council this item. Executive Director, said that Councilmembers should have re- Regarding F-3, Ms. Gust- ceived their travel information Jenson noted the motion for this and expense checks for the confer- included a clause for a five-day ence in St. George. She re- waiting period which was required quested the Council ' s approval to for annexations. post an agenda stating they would be attending the conference. Regarding F-4, the bonds for Previously press releases were the Steiner Aquatic Center, Ms. issued, but this practice was Gust-Jenson indicated motions had discontinued when a burglary been included in the packets since occurred to a Councilmember' s action was required by both the home while they were away at a Municipal Building Authority and conference. The Council agreed to the Council. Buzz Hunt, Cheryl post an agenda as was routinely Cook and Dick King were present to done for other meetings, but not provide further information re- issue any press releases. garding the financing for this project. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the agenda for the NAHRO conference Mr. Hunt said changes had would be available upon arrival in been made since an overall savings St. George, and the first meeting would be realized by the City. was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Dick King reviewed the details of 90-102 III PROCEEPNGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY; UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 the transaction for the Council. Mr. Hunt said the amount for the bonds was enough for the City to seek a rating and they had re- ceived a triple A level. Ms. Cook said these bonds were combined with the City' s overall debt and this was the final step in the financing for the project. With the changes in the amount for the bonds, Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council would need to strike the word "approximately" and read the correct amount of $1, 825, 000 for the record. Ms. Gust-Jenson explained the memo distributed regarding the concerns from the citizens on the Senior Golf Committee. She said they might be present this evening and their concerns had been ex- plained to her, which in turn were itemized in her memo to the Coun- cil. She suggested that the Council could adopt the ordinance regarding the group golf reserva- tions, and then request an updated report from the Administration at the first of the year as to how the program was working. It was noted that Councilmember Kirk would conduct the meeting and would read the resolution regarding the Steiner Aquatic Center. The briefing session ad- journed. 90-103 PROCEF.'DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale Councilmember Whitehead was absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and S.R. Kivett, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Kirk conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES recipients of the awards and honored Wanda McDonough as the #1. Police Chaplain Robert Reading Is FUNdamental worker of Schrank gave the invocation. the year. He said she had been involved in the program for over #2. The Council led the 15 years and had touched the lives Pledge of Allegiance. of thousands of children. He said she had donated countless hours to #3. Councilmember Godfrey the city library and the Friends moved and Councilmember Horrocks of the RIF program. seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the #5. The Mayor and Council regular meeting held Tuesday, presented a resolution of recogni- March 20, 1990, which motion tion to Kimball Young, Betsy Hunt, carried, all members present voted Steve Lowe and Maryanne Webster aye. for their efforts in conjunction (M 90-1) with the establishment of the Steiner Aquatic Center. #4. The Mayor and Council presented awards to students for Councilmember Kirk said the the Reading Is FUNdamental "Cele- Steiner Aquatic Center was a bration of Reading" contest. model project of a public and private partnership. She said the Mayor DePaulis and Council land for the center had been given Chair Hardman presented the to the city by the federal govern- awards. The Mayor said they had ment, and the money had been made these presentations for contributed by the Salt Lake City several years and enjoyed support- School District, Salt Lake City ing this important effort. They Corporation, and private dona- presented the awards to Andrea tions. Councilmember Kirk read Bailey, Edison Elementary, Amanda the resolution. Oviatt, Jackson Elementary, Jamie Osborne, Franklin Elementary, and Councilmember Godfrey moved Roy Blair, Guadalupe Elementary. and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 38 of 1990, The Mayor congratulated the which motion carried, all members 90-104 IIP PROCIINGS "THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT KE CI UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 present voted aye. tion of an east-west alley between "K" and "L" Streets, and llth and Councilmember Kirk and Mayor 12th Avenues, pursuant to Petition DePaulis presented the awards to #400-764-89. those individuals who were hon- (P 90-85) ored. (R 90-1) #5. RE: Setting a date to hold a public hearing on May 8, CONSENT AGENDA 1990, at 6:30 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopt- Councilmember Godfrey moved ing an ordinance adding Section and Councilmember Hale seconded 21. 10.090, providing for waiver of to approve the consent agenda, fees for alley vacations in resi- which motion carried, all members dential districts. present voted aye. (P 90-86) #1. RE: Setting a date to #6. RE: Setting a date to hold a public hearing on April 17, hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990, at 6:20 p.m. , to receive 1990, at 6:40 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopt- public comment and consider adopt- ing an ordinance amending Title 9 ing an ordinance amending Section of the Salt Lake City Code relat- 21.76.080 of the Salt Lake City ing to health and safety, by Code, relating to airport zoning adding Chapter 9 .48 dealing with and height regulations. cost recovery for negligently (0 90-5) caused fires. (0 89-14) #7. RE: Adopting Resolution 30 of 1990 authorizing the execu- #2. RE: Setting a date to tion of an interlocal cooperation hold a public hearing on April 17, agreement between Salt Lake City 1990, at 6:30 p.m. to receive Corporation and Utah State Univer- public comment and consider adopt- sity providing for laboratory ing an ordinance amending Title 9 services for the City's Depart- of the Salt Lake City Code relat- ment of Public Utilities. ing to health and safety, by (C 90-151) adding Chapter 9 .44 dealing with cost recovery for hazardous mater- #8. RE: Adopting Resolution ials emergencies. 31 of 1990 authorizing the execu- (0 89-40) tion of amendment No. 3 to an interlocal cooperation agreement #3. RE: Adopting Ordinance between Salt Lake City Corporation 16 of 1990 amending Section 14. - and the Utah State University 12.080, Salt Lake City Code, to Foundation to add monitoring the eliminate the requirement of bonds irrigation quality of the Jordan or insurance on encroachments for River from April through September fences or landscaping improve- 30, 1990. ments. (C 87-75) (0 90-9) #9. RE: Adopting Resolution #4. RE: Setting a date to 32 of 1990 authorizing the execu- hold a public hearing on May 8, tion of an interlocal cooperation 1990, at 6:20 p.m. to receive agreement between Salt Lake City public comment and consider adopt- Corporation and Salt Lake County ing an ordinance vacating a por- allowing for reimbursement of 90-105 PROCEEPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY-, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 expenses incurred by the County to reappointment of Afton Kyriopoulos move a City water main to allow to the Housing Advisory and Ap- for County road improvements. peals Board. (C 90-152) (I 90-6) #10. RE: Adopting Resolution #17. RE: Approving the 33 of 1990 authorizing the execu- reappointment of Kathy Scheaffer tion of an interlocal cooperation to the Housing Advisory and Ap- agreement between Salt Lake City peals Board. Corporation and the State of Utah, (I 90-6) Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation #18. RE: Approving the allowing certain City property reappointment of Maj-Greth Holm- along the Jordan River Parkway to berg to the Housing Advisory and be used for jogging, walking and Appeals Board. bicycling. (I 90-6) (C 90-153) #19. RE: Approving the #11. RE: Adopting Resolution reappointment of Byron Haslam to 34 of 1990 authorizing the execu- the Mosquito Abatement District. tion of an interlocal cooperation (I 90-8) agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Depart- #20. RE: Approving the ment of Transportation for the reappointment of Jim Webb to the rental of City equipment and Mosquito Abatement District. equipment operator services for (I 90-8) the purpose of planing road as- phalt for road and street improve- #21. RE: Approving the ments. reappointment of John Wennergren (C 90-155) to the Tracy Aviary Board. (I 90-14) #12. RE: Approving the appointment of Timothy Chambless NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS to the Board of Adjustment. (I 90-3) #1. RE: A resolution autho- rizing the execution of an #13. RE: Approving the interlocal cooperation agreement reappointment of Patrick Shea to between Salt Lake City and the the Airport Authority Board. U.S. Department of Housing and (I 90-11) Urban Development (HUD) for a special projects grant to combat #14. RE: Approving the drug use among young people resid- reappointment of John Williams to ing in public housing. the Central Business Improvement District. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey (I 90-12) moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and #15. RE: Approving the on first reading adopt Resolution reappointment of William Cutting 35 of 1990, which motion carried, to the Central Business Improve- all members present voted aye. ment District. (C 90-154) (I 90-12) #16. RE: Approving the 90-106 40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT ' UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS balance was approximately $679, 000 and it would not reach $900, 000 #1. RE: A resolution until September of 1990. He said committing Urban Development Clark asked the Council to take Action Grant repayment funds to an action so they could secure their economic development project financing and proceed with the (Clark Financial Corporation loan project. application) . In regards to this project, ACTION: Councilmember Hale he said staff considered the moved and Councilmember Hardman national objectives and whether or seconded to adopt Resolution 39 of not the project was within those 1990 committing UDAG repayment parameters. He outlined the funds to the Shopko project with objectives which were: 1 ) if the condition four revised as follows: project would benefit low and "No loan funds will be provided moderate income people, 2 ) if it until and unless all delinquent would address slums or blight, or property taxes due on the Shopko 3) if it met an urgent community project area have been paid in development need. He said staff full. " considered the urgent community need and applied criteria used by Councilmember Pace made a HUD to process a UDAG loan. substitute motion, seconded by Councilmember Godfrey, to change He said they determined a condition number four to read: public benefit and need, and "No loan funds will be provided whether or not the loan was appro- until and unless all delinquent priate. He said they considered property taxes due on the Parkview the number and type of jobs creat- Plaza have been paid in full by ed or retained, other development June 30, 1991, " which motion which would be stimulated in the failed, Councilmembers Horrocks, area, an increase to the tax base Hardman, Hale, and Kirk voted nay including property, sales and/or and Councilmembers Pace and income tax, and if there was an Godfrey voted aye. increase in needed services. Based on these four criteria, he The Council then voted on said staff recommended that the Councilmember Hale' s motion, which city enter into the agreement and carried, all members present voted loan Clark Financial $900, 000. aye except Councilmembers Pace and He referred to an attachment which Godfrey who voted nay. outlined the loan and repayment schedule along with four condi- DISCUSSION: Lee King, Commu- tions. nity and Economic Development, said Council action on this issue He said the funds for this would decide whether or not the project would come from five city would loan Clark Financial sources: A construction loan from $900,000 in UDAG funds to con- First Security Bank, Salt Lake struct the Sugar House Shopko City' s revolving loan, an RDA tax project. He said the Council increment loan, sale of land to first took action on August 1, Shopko, and a Shopko contribution 1989, when they passed a legisla- to site costs. He said this tive intent to loan Clark Finan- totaled $16, 915,000 and staff cial the $900,000 from UDAG re- recommended loan approval with the volving loan funds. He said fund four conditions specified in 90-107 PROCE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 Attachment A to the resolution, be disbursed by mid 1991. Mr. King said according to another condi- Councilmember Godfrey asked tion of the loan, the $900,000 Mr. King to explain condition four would not be disbursed until the regarding payment of delinquent loan from First Security had been property taxes due on Parkview drawn down. Plaza. Mr. King said the Parkview Plaza was a previous UDAG loan Councilmember Kirk asked agreement in the Sugar House area Steve Lowe, Clark Financial if he and at this time they were three was aware of the problem with the years behind on their property tax increment money. Mr. Lowe said taxes, which totaled about $453, - he understood that the increment 000. He said staff recommended projected was on the Shopko this condition as a mechanism to development and not the Parkview get the taxes paid. Plaza, so Shopko would not be affected. He also said the legal Councilmember Godfrey asked entities for the Shopko project why they would attach this condi- and the Parkview Plaza were dif- tion to an unrelated project. Mr. ferent. King said both projects were owned by Clark Financial. Councilmember Hale said some Councilmember Godfrey asked if the of the same partners were involved city was guaranteed the tax money with Shopko as Parkview Plaza and in the event the Parkview Plaza both pieces of property owed back was sold. Mr. King said the taxes taxes. He said taxes due on the would be paid if the project went Shopko property were $380,000 into default but the question was which would be paid in full by May whether or not the city wanted to of 1990. He said he didn' t see a wait five years. connection between the $450,000 in taxes due on Parkview and the Councilmember Pace said she Shopko project. He said he didn't was not opposed to the development want to jeopardize the Shopko but was concerned that if taxes project by making them responsible were not paid the city didn't get for the taxes due on Parkview. He its tax increment and had to said Shopko was important to Sugar forego the use of the tax money. House and the benefits of the She said the longer it took them project outweighed the risks. to pay the more it cost the city in terms of tax money being un- He said the estimated number available, of full-time jobs which would be created was 175, with 275 part- Councilmember Kirk asked if time jobs. He said the estimated the RDA would be able to follow increase in gross sales would be through on the tax increment if $54,000,000 a year and annual the taxes were not paid. Mr. King sales tax revenue to Salt Lake said that was what he understood City would be $164,000. He said after talking to Dick Turpin of business license fees would gener- the RDA. He said the tax incre- ate $10,000 of revenue for the ment money was not available city. He also said this project because the taxes had not been would be a catalyst for further paid. development and he knew of inter- ested high-volume tenants. He Councilmember Pace said staff said this project could attract projected that the $900,000 would new businesses such as Toys R Us 90-108 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 and a 10-screen movie theatre. Councilmember Pace said this was a matter of principle and Councilmember Godfrey said he precedent regarding "bailing out" preferred that the taxes on Park- developers. Councilmember Hale view Plaza be paid as a condition said he considered this a means to of the loan. In regards to Clark improve the Sugar House area. Financial 's original UDAG, he said they had indicated that as a Roger Cutler, city attorney, justification for the loan the said the county collected the Parkview Plaza would generate city' s property taxes as a trustee property taxes. He said if public and the city was entitled to money was loaned then it should be interest on their portion of the returned and the taxes paid. He taxes. agreed that the Shopko project would be an asset to the area but Councilmember Kirk said if he said people had to pay their the city could increase the tax property taxes. base in Sugar House this would raise a tremendous amount of He said if there was diffi- money. She said she thought there culty with the Shopko project and was a slight risk but said this something went wrong, the question request was worth supporting. would arise as to why the Council loaned money to people who had not Councilmember Horrocks asked paid their property taxes. He what the impact would be if the said if the city was going to lend taxes on Parkview Plaza had to be public money, they should have the paid by June 30, 1991 . Mr. Lowe expectation that people would pay said this would have the same their property taxes. impact as the staff 's original condition since UDAG funds would In regards to Parkview Plaza, not be disbursed until 1991. He Councilmember Hale said he didn't said they had not paid taxes but think the city was at risk since they had made the UDAG payments the taxes had to be paid by 1992. and paid the bond indebtedness. He also said Clark Financial had He said they had created a project $2,000,000 equity in the plaza so of value which secured the UDAG he didn't think the company or the and the taxes, and the taxes bank would let the project fall to would have to be paid through the a tax sale. established enforcement mechanism. Councilmember Godfrey said he Mr. Cutler said taxes were was concerned about the timeliness assessed and became due and pay- of the city receiving the taxes. able on November 30. For sake of He said the city had been without clarification, he said he inter- the money for five years and preted Councilmember Hale' s motion wouldn't receive any interest. to mean that the taxes past due and payable would be paid, but not Councilmember Hale said with taxes that had been assessed and Shopko coming into the Sugar House were not yet due and payable. area, there had been increased (C 90-156) interest in leasing space in the Parkview Plaza. He said revital- #2. RE: An ordinance amend- ization had increased interest in ing Section 2.04.055A of the Salt the area. Lake City Code, relating to board appointments -- terms in office. 90-109 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember Pace establish uniformity between the moved and Councilmember Horrocks boards as to the number of years seconded to adopt Ordinance 17 of constituting a term. 1990. Mr. Cutler said the language Councilmember Hardman moved in the ordinance was designed to and Councilmember Horrocks second- address those who had served ed to amend the motion by striking partial terms. He said those the phrase, " . . .or eight years, people could serve two terms or whichever is greater. . . " . This eight years. Councilmember motion was withdrawn. Hardman said he didn't want the language to be a subterfuge for The Council then voted on people to serve longer than two Councilmember Pace' s motion, which terms. Mr. Cutler said a person carried, all members present voted could not serve additional terms aye except Councilmember Godfrey if the appointment would extend who voted nay. beyond eight years. He reminded the Council that they didn't have DISCUSSION: Councilmember to ratify any appointment. Hardman referred to the ordinance and said he was concerned about Councilmember Godfrey said the phrase, " . . .or eight years, when the Council previously con- whichever is greater. . . " He said sidered this issue, they concluded there was no uniformity between that eight years should be the boards as to the number of years maximum. He said the emphasis was which constituted a term. Using on eight years and not the number the Landmarks Committee as an of terms. example, which has three-year (0 90-13) terms, he asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, if people could serve #3. RE: An ordinance three full terms, which would be recognizing the adoption of amend- nine years, or if after eight ment 14-B to the Master Annexation years they would have to step Policy Declarations; extending the down. limits of Salt Lake City to in- clude the Carrigan View Phase 1 Mr. Cutler said a person Annexation, zoning the same resi- could serve full consecutive terms dential "R-1" with Foothill Devel- but could not serve longer than opment "F-1" overlay zone, by eight years. He said this ordi- amending the use district map as nance was a self-policing power adopted by Section 21 . 14.020 of for the Council and they could the Salt Lake City Code; amending choose to not confirm an appoint- Salt Lake City Council District ment recommended by the Mayor. He and School Precinct Boundary maps, said this would not purport the and specifying conditions prece- Mayor' s power to make a recommen- dent to said annexation. dation for appointment. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey Councilmember Hardman said he moved and Councilmember Horrocks thought even though the Council seconded to adopt Ordinance 20 of limited appointments to two terms, 1990 and authorize signing pend- they still had flexibility to ing a five-day waiting period, appoint people beyond that based which motion carried, all members on extraordinary circumstances. present voted aye. He suggested that the city should (P 90-45) 90-110 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT• UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 #4. RE: A resolution of the ed to adjourn as the Board of Board of Trustees of the Municipal Trustees of the Municipal Building Building Authority of Salt Lake Authority of Salt Lake City, which City, authorizing the issuance and motion carried, all members sale of lease revenue bonds (Stei- present voted aye. ner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A, in the aggregate Councilmember Godfrey moved principal amount of $1, 825,000 to and Councilmember Hale seconded to be dated as of April 1, 1990; reconvene as the Salt Lake City authorizing the execution and Council, which motion carried, delivery of a second supplemental all members present voted aye. indenture of trust, a second (Q 90-3) amendment to master lease agree- ment, a Steiner Aquatic Center #5. RE: A resolution of the ground lease, a construction Municipal Council of Salt Lake agency agreement, a collateral City, approving the issuance by assignment agreement, a tax cer- the Municipal Building Authority tificate and other agreements and of Salt Lake City, of lease reve- documents required in connection nue bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center therewith; ratifying the contribu- Project), Series 1990A, in the tion of a preliminary official aggregate principal amount of statement relating to such bonds $1, 825,000 to be dated as of April and authorizing the preparation 1, 1990 and approving the terms of and distribution of a final offi- said bonds; authorizing the execu- cial statement relating to such tion and delivery of a second bonds; approving the sale of such amendment to master lease agree- bonds; and authorizing the taking ment, a Steiner Aquatic Center of all other actions necessary to ground lease, a construction the consummation of the transac- agency agreement, a collateral tions contemplated by such resolu- assignment agreement, a tax cer- tion. tificate, a bond purchase agree- ment and other agreements and ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey documents required in connection moved and Councilmember Hale therewith; approving the form, seconded to recess as the City terms and provisions of a second Council, which motion carried, all supplemental indenture of trust; members present voted aye. and authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the Councilmember Godfrey moved consummation of the transactions and Councilmember Hale seconded to contemplated by such resolution. convene as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authori- ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey ty of Salt Lake City, which motion moved and Councilmember Hale carried, all members present voted seconded to adopt Resolution 37 of aye. 1990, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved (Q 90-3) and Councilmember Pace seconded to adopt Resolution 36 of 1990, which PUBLIC HEARINGS motion carried, all members present voted aye. #1. RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to receive comments and Councilmember Godfrey moved consider adopting an ordinance and Councilmember Horrocks second- approving the Northwest Community 90-111 PROCEIPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CAI UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 Master Plan Update. use conflicts between residential and industrial uses. ACTION: Councilmember Hale moved and Councilmember Horrocks The third area encompassed seconded to close the public unincorporated land and the area hearing, which motion carried, all north and east of the airport. members present voted aye. She said this plan should address coordinated land use policies for Councilmember Hale moved and agricultural and residential Councilmember Godfrey seconded preservation, as well as aero- adopt Ordinance 18 of 1990, which space, aviation, commercial, and motion carried, all members industrial uses. She said the present voted aye. plan should provide a comprehen- sive analysis to establish the DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, development capacity of the area Planning and Zoning staff, out- and should also provide strate- lined the area on a map. She said gies for the development of public this plan would update the 1980 infrastructure and circulation Northwest Community Master Plan systems. She said the plan should and would provide additional consider mitigation measures for information. She said there was environmental constraints in the a boundary adjustment in the area such as the high water table, Northwest Community and the east- wet lands preservation, and soil ern boundary would now be I-15 . conditions. She said the update estab- She said the three community lished criteria to be used as a councils in this area, North guideline in considering commer- Redwood, Northwest, and Rose Park, cial rezoning requests, and it supported the adoption of the established urban design guide- update. She said the Planning lines for residential and commer- Commission recommended adoption. cial developments. She said it established parameters to be used Councilmember Horrocks re- when considering revitalization of ferred to the commercial strip on existing commercial areas. North Temple and asked how far west it extended. Ms. Jardine She said the plan identified said it would probably extend to three areas for small area master the western boundary of the air- plans. The first area was the port. She said beyond that bound- North Temple corridor which func- ary the area became the Northwest tioned as a gateway into the city Quadrant. She said this corridor as well as a commercial strip. needed a comprehensive master plan She said the small area plan in order to coordinate the zoning should identify guidelines which and land uses, and provide a would provide for coordinated coordinated development policy. development. She said the Northwest Community was actually divided along North The second area was north of Temple but because this was the the Rose Park Golf Course. The North Temple commercial corridor, plan should examine and provide the small area plan would include mitigation procedures for environ- both the north and south sides of mental issues such as flooding and North Temple. soil suitability. She said it should also address possible land No one from the audience 90-112 PROCEIPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 addressed this issue. to approve the change. She said (T 90-5) next year would be the school ' s centennial and the senior class #2. RE: A public hearing at was presenting the honorary name 6:30 p.m. to receive comment and signs as their gift. consider adopting a resolution approving the honorary name of No one from the audience "Panther Way" for 300 North be- opposed this petition. tween 200 West and 400 West, (P 90-66) pursuant to Petition #400-782. #3. RE: A public hearing at ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey 6:40 p.m. to receive comment and moved and Councilmember Hardman consider adopting an ordinance seconded to close the public amending section 15. 16.035A of the hearing, which motion carried, all Salt Lake City Code, relating to members present voted aye. group reservations at City golf courses. Councilmember Hale moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey adopt Resolution 40 of 1990, which moved and Councilmember Pace motion carried, all members seconded to close the public present voted aye. hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning staff, said Councilmember Godfrey moved this was a request from the stu- and Councilmember Horrocks second- dents of West High. She said ed to adopt Ordinance 19 of 1990, honorary name changes did not which motion carried, all members legally change the street name and present voted aye. the signs were installed below the legal street sign. She said the DISCUSSION: John Gust, students were advised that the Director of Parks, explained that cost for the signs would be they were under constant pressure $110.00 and they were also in- for tournaments so they wanted to formed that if the signs were have one Saturday and one or two removed the students would have to Sundays per month to allow reser- pay for new signs. She said the vations for tournaments. He said city previously granted honorary a minimum of 5 and a maximum of name changes for Judge Memorial 20 tee times could be used. He High and Highland High. She said the cost for 9 holes would be recommended approval of the reso- a $1.00 fee increase and a $2.00 lution. increase for 18 holes. He also said the players would be required Councilmember Pace asked who to use carts if available. He was technically liable if the said during the week each course signs were stolen. Ms. Jardine could schedule two tournaments said the city would not prosecute after 11:00 a.m. , following the anyone and the school would have same criteria as weekends. to replace the signs. He said they anticipated Kirsten Clawson, petitioner, additional revenue of $51,000 if said the senior class, administra- all the tournament times were tors, and alumni supported this booked. He said this revenue did request and she asked the Council not include golf carts or golf 90-113 411 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 balls. He said the golf courses 6. He asked hypothetically had preliminary reservations and what would happen if 20 people most of the weekends were already booked the time and 5 didn't show. booked. He said the ordinance Mr. Gust said since they would would not apply to men' s or wo- have paid in advance, they would- men's associations; it would only n't get a refund unless the tour- pertain to tournament golf. nament members could fill the 5 vacant positions. He said they had operated a successful golf program and he 7. He asked if this ordi- didn' t want to affect usual play nance would apply to the men' s by tying up the courses too much association, women' s association with tournament play. He said and UGA tournaments. Mr. Gust this year they wanted to monitor said it would not apply. the program to determine its effectiveness and then make modi- 8. He referred to the open fications if necessary. scheduling for tournaments after August 31 and asked for clarifica- Lou Skokos, P.O. Box 1535, tion. Mr. Gust said after August asked several questions: 31 there would be no restrictions on the use of the courses for 1. He asked if they would tournaments. He said golfers use a centralized phone system for would still be required to use reservations. Mr. Gust said they golf carts. were not addressing the phone system in this ordinance. 9. He asked if after August 31, tournament play would still 2. He asked about refunds on begin after 11:00 a.m. Mr. Gust cancellations. Mr. Gust said said the time would probably move refunds would be given if the up one hour since they would be time was booked with another entering the shorter season, tournament. If the time was rained although at this point he said he out, the money would be refunded. wasn't really sure. 3. He asked who would be Councilmember Hardman asked affected by the ordinance. Mr. if there was a market for tourna- Gust reiterated that the ordinance ments and Mr. Gust said there was. would apply to people who wanted to book a tee time months in Councilmember Hardman asked advance for a tournament. how the Council could make sure the policy didn't change substan- 4. He asked about the use of tially from the copy given to golf carts and Mr. Gust said if them. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council carts were available, tournament Executive Director, said the players would be required to use Council had the policy for infor- them otherwise they wouldn't get mational purposes but this was the reservation. an administrative issue. 5. He asked if the purpose Councilmember Hardman wanted of this ordinance was to generate assurance that the policy wouldn't the $51,000 in lost revenue from change substantially without the passes. Mr. Gust said the ordi- Council' s knowledge. Mr. Gust nance was a response to the mar- said the Council had his assurance ket. and he wanted to come back before 90-114 PROCEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITP1 UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 them in the fall with a report. He reiterated that he didn't want this to be detrimental to usual play. Councilmember Hardman said he wanted to be informed of any substantive changes in the policy. (0 90-11) The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. lit COUNCIL HAIR I R D .R 90-115 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, April 3, 1990 A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State 1 . Report of the Executive Director 2. The Council will interview Timothy Chambless prior to consideration of his appointment to the Board of Adjustment. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1 . Invocation 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4. Presentations a) The Council and Mayor will present awards to students for the Reading is FUNdamental "Celebration of Reading" contest. b) The Council and Mayor will present a resolution of recognition to Kimball Young, Betsy Hunt , Steve Lowe and Maryanne Webster for their efforts in conjunction with the establishment of the Steiner Aquatic Center. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen comments to the City Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Ordinance: Negligently Caused Fire Cost Recovery Set date to hold a public hearing on April 17, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. , to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to health and safety, by adding Chapter 9.48 dealing with cost recovery for Negligently Caused Fires. (0 89-14) Staff recommendation: Set date. 2. Ordinance: Hazardous Material Cost Recovery Set date to hold a public hearing on April 17, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to receive public and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to health and safety, by adding Chapter 9.44 dealing with cost recovery for Hazardous Materials Emergencies. (0 89-40) Staff recommendation: Set date. 3. Ordinance: Permit Bond Requirements Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 14. 12.080, Salt Lake City Code, to eliminate the requirement of bonds or insurance on encroachments for fences or landscaping improvements. (0 90-9) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 4. Alley Vacation: Petition #400-764 submitted by David Thomas Set date to hold a hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating a portion of an east-west alley between "K" and "L" Streets, and 11th and 12th Avenues, pursuant to Petition #400-764-89. (P 90-85) Staff recommendation: Set date. 5. Alley Vacation Fee Waivers Set date to hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adding Section 21 . 10.090, providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts. (P 90-86) Staff recommendation: Set date. 6. Zoning Amendment : Airport Set date to hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21 .76.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations. (0 90-5) Staff recommendation: Set date. 7. Resolution: Laboratory Services Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State University providing for laboratory services for the City's Department of Public Utilities. (C 90-151) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 8. Resolution: Jordan River Water Quality Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of amendment No. 3 of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the University of Utah Foundation to add monitoring the irrigation quality of the Jordan River from April through September 30, 1990. (C 87-75) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 9. Resolution: Reimbursement of Expenses Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County allowing for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the County to move a City water main to allow for County road improvements. (C 90-152) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 10. Resolution: Jordan River Parkway Trail Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation allowing certain City property along the Jordan River Parkway to be used for jogging, walking and bicycling. (C 90-153) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 11 . Resolution: Lease of Equipment Operator Services Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for the rental of City equipment and equipment operator services for the purpose of planing road asphalt for road and street improvements. (C 90-155) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 12. Board of Adjustment Consider approving the appointment of Timothy Chambless to the Board of Adjustment. (I 90-3) Staff recommendation: Approve. 13. Airport Authority Board Consider approving the reappointment of Patrick Shea to the Airport Authority Board. (I 90-11) Staff recommendation: Approve. 14. Central Business Improvement District Consider approving the reappointment of John Williams to the Central Business Improvement District. (I 90-12) Staff recommendation: Approve. 15. Central Business Improvement District Consider approving the reappointment of William Cutting to the Central Business Improvement District. (I 90-5) Staff recommendation: Approve. 16. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Afton Kyriopoulos to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Approve. 17. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Kathy Scheaffer to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Approve. 18. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Maj-Greth Holmberg to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Approve. 19. Mosquito Abatement District Consider approving the reappointment of Byron Haslam to the Mosquito Abatement District. (I 90-8) Staff recommendation: Approve. 20. Mosquito Abatement District Consider approving the reappointment of Jim Webb to the Mosquito Abatement District. (I 90-8) Staff recommendation: Approve. 21. Tracy Aviary Board Consider approving the reappointment of John Wennergren to the Tracy Aviary Board. (I 90-14) Staff recommendation: Approve. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 . Resolution: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a special projects grant to combat drug use among young people residing in public housing. (C 90-154) Staff recommendation: Suspend and adopt. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Resolution: Clark Financial Corporation Loan Application Consider adopting a resolution committing Urban Development Action Grant repayment funds to an economic development project. (C 90-156) �� (�(�C(0)11 1 Staff recommendation: Adopt. i 000),„).04-)( 2. Ordinance: Board Appointment Terms Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 2.04.055A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to board appointments--terms in office. (0 90-13) Staff recommendation: Adopt. Ordinance: Annexation and Zoning 3. g Consider adopting an ordinance recognizing the adoption of amendment 14-B to the Master Annexation Policy Declarations; extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation, zoning the same residential "R-1" with Foothill Development "F-1" overlay zone, by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 21 . 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code; amending Salt Lake City Council District and School Precinct Boundary maps, and specifying conditions precedent to said annexation. (P 90-45) DiVA'Cil Staff recommendation: Adopt and authorize signing pending five-day waiting period. 4. Resolution: Steiner Aquatics (Municipal Building Authority) Consider adopting a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, authorizing the 0 issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project) , Series 1990A, in the aggregate principal amount of 14 .1 $ .-&OO,000 to be dated as of April 1 , 1990; �V authorizing the execution and delivery of a second supplemental l indenture of trust, a second amendment to master lease agreement, a Steiner Aquatic Center ground lease, a construction agency agreement, a collateral assignment agreement, a tax certificate and other agreements and documents required in connection therewith; ratifying the contribution of a preliminary official statement relating to such bonds and authorizing the preparation and distribution of a final official statement relating to such 4.3,J\.91111DU�4 /OI) bonds; approving the sale of such bonds; and authorizing the cc,\,J111 taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by such resolution. (Q 90-3) - qL - \iv 1 Staff recommendation: Convene and adopt. 5. Resolution: Steiner Aquatics Center Bonds (Council) Consider adopting a resolution of the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, approving the issuance by the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, of lease revenue bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project) , Series 1990A, in the aggregate principal amount of approximatcly $4,8967b6'O"to be dated as of April 1 , 1990 and approving the terms of said bonds; authorizing the execution and delivery of a second amendment to master lease agreement, a Steiner Aquatic Center ground lease, a construction agency agreement, a collateral assignment agreement, a tax certificate, a bond purchase agreement and other agreements and documents required in connection therewith; approving the form, terms and provisions of a second supplemental indenture of trust ; and authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by such resolution. (Q 90-3) 15 a IY'DD CSD Staff recommendation: Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:20 P.M. 1 . Ordinance: Master Plan Adoption Receive public comment and consider an ordinance adopting the Northwest Community Master Plan Update. (T 90-5) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 6:30 P.M. 2. Street Name Change Petition #400-782 Receive public comment and consider adopting a resolution approving the honorary name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West, pursuant to Petition #400-782. (P 90-66) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 4t/3. • ce: Golf Course Group Reservation 0 Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending section 15. 16.035A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to group reservations at City golf courses. (0 90-11) t/M CVO Agili4 . A� (� ) ` Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. • f DJOURN ENT. f' FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: March 30, 1990 • BY: CITY C DER HIEF DEPUTY STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 3Oth day of March, 1990 I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. Y ECORDERCHIEF DEPUTY Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3Oth day of March, 1990. ../...d . •, Notary Public residinj 'n the State of Utah 9 Notar Pubic 1 451 Z.J.;•eit.S1Rm 41 s U Salt y,Utah 84102,' iS; My sion Exp;ems i0 - 199316PR01TAt � s-,� a , .aa- cm rJ 101-11/23Z/Z IEXECE DIRE PROCEEDINGS G.. THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT 1-1KE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Nancy Pace Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Councilmembers Hardman, Kirk, and Hale were absent. Council Vice Chair Pace presided at the meeting. The meeting was called to order by March 27, 1990, would be starting Nancy Pace, Vice Chair at 5:06 at 1:00 p.m. not at 2:00 as she p.m. had previously indicated . Mac Connole, Police Sergeant, said Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive the Guest Speaker would begin Director, was asked to brief the speaking at 2:00 and prior to his Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson began by speech was a general briefing. telling the Council to pull item E-2, concerning an ordinance for a Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the golf course group reservation, Council if they wanted to resched- from their packets to use the ule the Northwest Community Master information for Thursday' s Commit- Plan Tour. Councilmember Pace tee of the Whole agenda. said this was not a controversial issue and there was not enough Councilmember Godfrey asked time to reschedule. Council- if the Council would still be member Godfrey asked if the Coun- voting on this item tonight. Ms. cil could plan a time to resched- Gust-Jenson said that the Council ule. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that would be voting on it at tonight ' s planning wanted to conduct a 1/2 meeting because the Administration day tour on the Northwest Quadrant was anxious to have it approved area with the Council. Council- before the upcoming golf season. member Pace said she had seen the area but would like to be briefed Ms. Gust-Jenson said the on the issues. addendum to the agenda was issued because William Cutting was listed Ms. Gust-Jenson said the as a reappointment to the Golf Planning Commission wanted to Course Advisory Board which was conduct a retreat with the Coun- not the board that he was being cil. Councilmember Godfrey asked reappointed to. if there was a pressing issue at hand, or if this could be delayed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item G-5 She said the Planning Commission involved an annexation and the wanted to discuss working rela- staff recommendation was to adopt tionships. Council-member Pace it in concept, pending a five day said this was a nice gesture at waiting period. Ms. Gust-Jenson improving communication. Ms. said the annexation would be Gust-Jenson confirmed with the placed on the Council agenda for Council that the general consensus consent on April 3, 1990. was to hold the retreat but to Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Gang wait until the budget process had Violence Prevention Training on been completed. 90-90 PROCEEDINGS Ok THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LACE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 Councilmember Pace asked if there were any further comments. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 16 p.m. 90-91 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Nancy Pace Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Councilmembers Hardman, Kirk, and Hale were absent. Mayor Palmer Depaulis, Steven Allred, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Vice Chair Pace presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES stipulations even though that was what the Planning Commission and #1. There was no invocation. staff recommended. #2. The Council led the He said six months ago the Pledge of Allegiance. Sugarhouse Community Council asked Salt Lake City for the use of this #3. Councilmember Whitehead property. The City told them that moved and Councilmember Horrocks they were not allowed to give or seconded to approve the minutes of donate property to any group. He the Salt Lake City Council for the said the City suggested that the regular meeting held Tuesday, Sugarhouse Community Council bid March 13, 1990, which motion or compete for the property carried, all members present voted through another process. He said aye. the Community Council felt cha- (M 90-1) grined by this because the proper- ty was located in Sugarhouse and COMMENTS was given to Salt Lake City for the benefit of the Sugarhouse #1. Ken Eltinge, 2319 Foot- area. hill Drive, said he was speaking on behalf of the Sugarhouse Commu- He said the Community Council nity Council. He said there had went through the process and lost been a decision made last week to the bid and the property would now dispose of some property located be developed or used by someone in Sugarhouse (on the corner of outside the Community Council . He 500 East and Commonwealth Avenue) asked that this decision be abated which had been donated to Salt and consideration given back to Lake City a little over a year Sugarhouse. ago. He said it had been donated on the premise that the property Councilmember Godfrey said he was to be used by and for the contacted Mayor DePaulis ' s Office Sugarhouse Community Council. He today and the City had information said it was obvious that when Salt that conflicted with what Mr. Lake City accepted the property, Eltinge was saying. they did not accept it with those 90-92 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 Mayor DePaulis asked the structed to do by the Planning Council if they wanted him to go Commission and the Board of Ad- through the information with Mr. justment, and had followed the Eltinge now. Councilmember God- official intent. He reiterated frey said he thought it would be that he would meet with Mr. better to meet later with Mr. Eltinge and discuss the issue in Eltinge and discuss the informa- detail . tion. Mr. Eltinge said he wanted the issue resolved because a house #2. Dennis Murrow, 648 South being donated for the property 600 East, said he wanted to must be moved within a sixty-day address the problem of hate crimes period or they would lose the committed against gay and lesbian donation. Councilmember Godfrey citizens of Salt Lake City, and said he thought there were already the Police Department ' s inability, firm plans to move a house to the ineffectiveness or their disregard property. to respond in an effective and just manner to these crimes . He Mayor DePaulis said his said on Friday, March 9, a office had all the information and situation occurred in which a there seemed to be a conflict with gentleman was hit in the head with what Mr. Eltinge was saying. He a baseball bat. Mr. Murrow said said his office researched the witnesses were able to take minutes and notes dating back to license plate numbers and make April 4, 1988, and he had a packet positive identifications of the of all motions, discussions, and people who had committed the recommendations on the issue. He crime. He said the crime was suggested that he meet personally reported to the police who said it with Mr. Eltinge to discuss the would be looked into but not to information. expect anything. He said the police officer told them that they Mr. Eltinge said he had gone were not the victims, but were through the minutes and the intent bringing this on themselves for was that the property would be who they were. He said gay people donated to the Community Council. were victims of hate crime and Mayor DePaulis said the Sugarhouse were not bringing it upon Community Council was specifically themselves. He said they were mentioned in each of the motions, targeted by others and the Police but the minutes also specified Department was unwilling to there should be a process, which respond. He also said the Police had been accomplished. Department practiced a discrimi- nation policy. Mr. Eltinge said the Communi- ty Council had letters from the He said Memory Grove was a property donor which stated that public park open until 11:00 p.m the property was for the Community but on Saturday, March 10, police Council. Mayor DePaulis said that officers came to Memory Grove at conflicted with what the donor 8:30 p.m. and chased people out of said in all of the official meet- the park because they were alleged ings and also conflicted with the homosexuals - not because they Planning Commission and Board of were doing anything illegal . He Adjustment recommendations. said the police told them that if they did not leave, they would be Mayor DePaulis said the City ticketed. He said he wondered if had done everything it was in- people in other parks were cleared 90-93 PROCEEDINGS Or THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 out at 8 :30 p.m. or if this was an #2. RE: Set a date to hold a isolated incident based on non-advertised public hearing on prejudice. April 3, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. , to receive public comment and He asked for the Council ' s consider adopting a resolution support to change the attitude of approving the honorary name of the Police Department and their "Panther Way" for 300 North unwillingness to do anything about between 200 West and 400 West, this. He said he was speaking for pursuant to Petition No. 400-782. a large group of people and said (P 90-66) they were tired of being victims and tired of not having the rights #3 RE: Set a date to hold a and protections that were granted non-advertised public hearing on to everyone else. He asked the April 10, 1990, at 6:20 p.m. , to Mayor and the Council not to take receive public comment and a neutral stand, even though this consider adopting a resolution was an unpopular issue. He also modifying the restrictive asked the City Council to put covenants on Block 79, 84 and the justice and fairness before what south half of Block 85, Plat A, was popular. He said the gay and Salt Lake City Survey, to allow lesbian population constituted the construction of the Jazz Arena about ten to fifteen percent of and Plaza. the vote in Salt Lake City. He (W 90-3) said they had the right to be treated equally like every other #4 RE: Adopt Ordinance 14 citizen because they were like of 1990 amending the staffing every other citizen. He said he document for the Office of the went to the Mayor's Office to get City Council to eliminate the an appointment, but could not. He Auditor/Budget Analyst position said he wanted a chance to sit and establish a Community down and talk about this issue Development Coordinator position since it concerned human lives. at one Full Time Equivalent employee. Mayor DePaulis said (0 90-12) complaints were taken very seriously and he would be glad to NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS look into Mr. Murrow' s complaints personally. He said he would be #1. RE: An ordinance sure that everyone received amending Section 2.37.030 of the adequate information about the Salt Lake City Code, to increase complaints and their disposition. the number of voting members on the Salt Lake City Recreation CONSENT AGENDA Advisory Board. Councilmember Whitehead moved ACTION: Without objection and Councilmember Pace seconded to Councilmember Godfrey referred approve the consent agenda, which this to the consent agenda. motion carried, all members (0 90-10) present voted aye. #2. RE: An ordinance #1. RE: Approve the amending Section 15. 16.035A of the appointment of David Svikhart to Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Historical Landmark Committee. group reservations at City golf (I 90-9) courses. 90-94 PROCEEDINGS 01, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember ACTION: Without objection Horrocks moved and Councilmember Councilmember Godfrey referred the Pace seconded to set the public reappointment to the consent hearing for April 3, 1990, at 6:40 agenda. p.m. and refer to Committee of the (I 90-11) Whole, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. #8. RE: The reappointment (0 90-11 ) of John Williams to the Central Business Improvement District. #3. RE: The appointment of Tim Chambless to the Board of ACTION: Without objection Adjustment. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the consent ACTION: Without objection agenda. Councilmember Godfrey referred the (I 90-12) appointment to the Committee of the Whole. #9 . RE: The reappointment (I 90-3) of William Cutting to the Central Business Improvement District. #4 RE: The appointment of Terri Hartlauer to the Golf ACTION: Without objection Advisory Board. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the consent ACTION: Without objection agenda. Councilmember Godfrey referred the (I 90-12) appointment to the Committee of the Whole. #10. RE: The reappointment (I 90-5) of Afton Kyriopoulos to the Housing Advisory and Appeals #5. RE: The appointment of Board. Colleen Minson to the Library Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the ACTION: Without objection reappointment to the consent Councilmember Godfrey referred the agenda. appointment to the Committee of (I 90-6) the Whole. (I 90-13) #11. RE: The reappointment of Kathy Scheaffer to the Housing #6. RE: The appointment of Advisory and Appeals Board. Kenneth E. Louder to the Urban Forestry Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the ACTION: Without objection reappointment to the consent Councilmember Godfrey referred the agenda. appointment to the Committee of (I 90-6) the Whole. (I 90-15) #12. RE: The reappointment of Maj-Greth Homberg to the #7. RE: The reappointment Housing Advisory and Appeals of Patrick Shea to the Airport Board. Authority Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the 90-95 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 reappointment to the consent ACTION: Councilmember agenda. Whitehead moved and Councilmember (I 90-6) Pace seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all #13. RE: The reappointment members present voted aye. of Byron Haslam to the Mosquito Abatement District. Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Horrocks ACTION: Without objection seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of Councilmember Godfrey referred the 1990, which motion carried, all reappointment to the consent members present voted aye. agenda. ( I 90-8) DISCUSSION: Pamela M. Joklik, 1127 Oak Hills Way, spoke #14. RE: The reappointment in favor of CDBG funds for the of Jim Webb to the Mosquito development of the Children' s Abatement District. Museum Workshop. She said the Children' s Museum had been in the ACTION: Without objection same building for six years and Councilmember Godfrey referred the needed to expand into the upper reappointment to the consent level. She said in 1988 the agenda. museum had 64, 000 visitors which (I 90-8) rose to 77, 000 in 1989 . She said this year the museum was already #15. RE: The reappointment 50% ahead of 1989 . She said the of John Wennergren to the Tracy museum had obtained an elevator Aviary Board. which would make the upper level accessible to the handicapped. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the She said in May, the museum reappointment to the consent would be participating in the agenda. Jason Project, which would be on (I 90-14) loan from the Children' s Museum in North Carolina. #16. RE: The reappointment of Cindy White to the Tracy Aviary She said they wanted an Board. auditorium in order to house the project and CDBG funds would be ACTION: Without objection used to build it. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the Committee of Councilmember Pace asked Ms. the Whole. Joklik to explain what the Jason (I 90-14) project was. Ms. Joklik said it was an underwater exploration with PUBLIC HEARINGS a submarine. She said the project showed two galleons which sank #1. RE: A public hearing at during the battle against the 6:00 p.m. which was continued from British in the Great Lakes Area. March 13, 1990, to receive public She said as the ships sank, they comment and consider adopting a turned and were in perfect resolution approving the 1988-1992 condition on the bottom of the Community Development Plan. ocean. She said schools had been given program material to study before visiting the museum. She 90-96 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 said this project could progress Mr. Blackman said the Se further if the City Council would Rancho Motel was for sale which support CDBG funding. She said if could possibly be used for the museum could have this transitional housing. He said technology 365 days a year, then people were ready to move out of they would be able to link into the homeless shelter, but there programs by NASA and other was no other housing. institutions which would give children a chance to participate He supported the Crossroads in actual events. Urban Center request for CDBG funds for a Fish and Garden Councilmember Horrocks asked Project and said refugees if the elevator they acquired was benefited from the project. He brand new. Ms. Joklik said it was also supported funding for the almost new, but was safe and in food pantry. In conclusion he good condition. asked the Council to support funding for the New Hope Center so Councilmember Godfrey read a they could finish their card from Jackie Greb, 840 North renovation. 300 West, who did not wish to speak but supported the Children' s Leam Moeung, 1133 West Museum. Brooklyn Avenue, supported the Wasatch Fish and Garden Project. Steve Blackman, 1102 West 400 He said this program was very North, supported the City helpful to refugee people living Council ' s efforts to preserve low in Salt Lake City. He said they income housing. He suggested that needed help to become self the City establish a fund to be sufficient in the United States, used to construct low income and this project provided that housing. He also encouraged the help. City to continue their efforts to (T 90-8) force landlords to renovate homes or to let Salt Lake City take the #2. RE: A public hearing at homes and work in conjunction with 6:00 p.m. which was continued from Neighborhood Housing Services to March 13, 1990, to receive public renovate them. He said there were comment concerning general housing a number of boarded-up homes in and community development needs the area north of North Temple which can be addressed by from about 600 West to 1000 West. Community Development Block Grant He also said services like Habitat funds. For Humanities wanted homes they could renovate for low-income ACTION: Councilmember people. He referred to an Whitehead moved and Councilmember incomplete housing project across Pace seconded to close the public from Pioneer Park and suggested hearing, which motion carried, all that the City could obtain this members present voted aye. property and complete the project for low-income housing. DISCUSSION: This hearing was considered at the same time as the Councilmember Horrocks said first hearing. the City could not obtain this (T 90-8) project, even though they wanted to, because it was in bankruptcy #3. RE: A public hearing at court. 6:00 p.m. to receive public 90-97 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 comment and consider adopting an Councilmember Whitehead said ordinance amending the Fiscal Year he opposed subsidizing the Steiner 1989-90 Budget. Aquatics Center. ACTION: Councilmember Pace Councilmember Godfrey said moved and Councilmember Whitehead the Council was dealing with the seconded to close the public Steiner Aquatics now because the hearing, which motion carried, all City received this property from members present voted aye. the federal government and either needed to use the property or lose Councilmember Whitehead moved it. He said the school board, and Councilmember Horrocks private individuals and the seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of Steiner Family had donated over 1990 amending the Fiscal Year $1. 5 million to give the community 1989/90 budget without reference an amenity which it could not to the Steiner Aquatics Center, otherwise have. He said the City which motion carried, all members could not pass up this opportunity present voted aye. and said it was a good example of the public and private sectors Councilmember Pace moved and working together. Councilmember Horrocks seconded to approve the funding for the Councilmember Godfrey said if Steiner Aquatics Center in this the Council did not act on the budget amendment, which motion Aquatic Center now, it would not carried, all members present voted make money and the City would aye except Councilmember Whitehead continue paying in the future. who voted nay. Councilmember Whitehead said DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett the City was being asked to fund from the City' s Policy and Budget $250, 000 for extra items because Division said this was budget there were no other funds amendment No. 5 for the Fiscal available plus there would be some Year 1989/90. He said the operating costs. He said he did amendment had been on public not think it was a good deal for display for the last week and the Salt Lake City right now. hearing had been advertised according to law. He said the Councilmember Pace said she City Council had previously been thought many items amended into briefed regarding the budget the original budget could generate amendment but City staff members income for the Aquatic Center were present to entertain which she thought was very questions. important. Councilmember Godfrey asked Councilmember Godfrey asked if the Council adopted the Steven Allred, Assistant City ordinance would the Steiner Attorney, if the Council could Aquatics Center be included. make a motion to separate the Steiner Aquatics from the budget Cindy Gust-Jensen, Council and then make a motion on the Executive Director, told the Steiner Aquatics. Mr. Allred said Council that in their motion they the issues could be voted on might want to specifically include separately. Councilmember White- the Steiner Aquatics, but the said he would prefer to vote revised budget schedules included separately since he didn' t want to it. 90-98 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 vote against the entire budget. Councilmember Godfrey asked (B 89-5) if the conditions mentioned by the Planning Staff were included in #4. RE: A public hearing at the actual language of the 6:20 p.m. for Health Care ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright said Facilities Bonds (Tefra Hearing) . the conditions had either been embodied in the subdivision plat ACTION: The hearing was or in the annexation agreement, cancelled - to be rescheduled. but all concerns had been (C 90-102) addressed. #5. RE: A public hearing at John Schaar, petitioner, said 6:30 p.m. to receive public he had been working with the City comment and consider adopting an since 1987 to put this annexation ordinance recognizing the adoption together. He said the main of amendment 14-B to the Master objective was to furnish an Annexation Policy Declaration and entrance to the Salt Lake City extending the limits of Salt Lake Water Department for access to City to include the Carrigan View their water tanks and also to Phase I Annexation and Zoning, correct a neighborhood problem. pursuant to Petition No. 400-582- He said the neighborhood had a lot 87. of disturbances with beer parties. He said he felt this was an ACTION: Councilmember excellent addition to Salt Lake Whitehead moved and Councilmember City and said there would be forty Pace seconded to close the public feet between houses and houses hearing, which motion carried, all would not be built closer than members present voted aye. twenty feet to the property line. Councilmember Horrocks moved Robert Steffensen, 2321 and Councilmember Pace seconded to Lakeline Drive, said he was adopt the ordinance in concept and currently the President of the refer it to the April 3, 1990, Arcadia Heights Neighborhood consent agenda for approval of the Association and this property was full Council, which motion located in his area. He said he carried, all members present voted called a meeting of the Board of aye. Directors last evening who voted in favor of adopting the petition. DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, In reference to the possibility of Planning and Zoning Department, a park in the proposed said this annexation included 3.42 subdivision, he said Lot No. 5, acres of property located in which was the proposed site, was Council District 7 at the mouth too small. He referred to a of Carrigan Canyon. He said the location in the Benchmark petition had been considered by Subdivision which would be more Salt Lake City since 1987 and suitable. He said the park was a there had been extensive priority of the Community Council. negotiations to reach the current position. He said neighborhood Jerry Bergosh, 1961 Scenic issues had been resolved and now Drive, said he lived down the hill everything was in order for the from the proposed development. He City Council to consider the said he was the official annexation ordinance. representative for the Wasatch Scenic Drive Neighborhood group 90-99 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 which had a number of concerns. Councilmember Horrocks asked He said he had seen incremental if there had been any engineering development on the hillside below studies done on the hillside to the "H" rock and expressed his determine stability and asked what concern that this request was one would happen if a forty degree cut more step toward eventual was made. development of the hillside. He said Mr. Schaar had prepared plans Mr. Wheelwright said these for Carrigan View Phase II which issues had all been thoroughly showed development across the explored and the City had a hillside and this was a great geotechnical review of the concern to the neighborhood. He project. He said this site was said Mr. Schaar had a long history unique since it sat on a little of development in the area and bench and was actually a part of expressed concern that the next Lake Bonneville' s high shore stage would develop the rest of bench. He said there were the hillside. extremely steep slopes above and below this project and he shared He said the City had less the same concerns as Mr. Bergosh. stringent slope requirements than He said that was why this the County and he believed that annexation was configured in a was the reason for annexation. He particular way. He said this was asked the Council to recognize the an extremely small portion of the neighborhood' s concerns and said original petition by Mr. Schaar there were other petitions before and the Planning Commission felt the Planning Commission for good about this 3.42 acre development on this hillside. He annexation. He said the City had asked the City Council to vote control over the issues once the against this petition and said the property was annexed. Eastbench Master Plan outlined the problems with these undeveloped Councilmember Horrocks asked areas. He said they wanted an if concerns about future overall plan for the hillside developments had any validity. since it was probably one of the Mr. Wheelwright said the City' s only remaining hillsides without interest in this had been building scars. adequately protected and the City had all of the control it needed Dee Baxter, owner of Lot 609 to ensure that future development on Lakeline Drive, said he was done according to City understood that over the 5,000 guidelines. foot level there was a moratorium on building. He asked if this was Councilmember Godfrey asked considered and said other than if the County' s slope requirements that, he had no objection. were stricter than the City' s. Mr. Wheelwright said he believed Mr. Wheelwright said in 1976 that Mr. Bergosh was referring to the City placed a six-month the fact that the City had a 40% moratorium on the approval of new exclusion on slopes which were 40% subdivisions that were above the and steeper and the County had a 5, 200 foot contour. He said it 30% exclusion. He said the City lasted for six months and the end was exploring that issue with the result was the adoption of the "F- Planning Commission and it would 1" and "P-1" zones. be discussed at length this summer. He disagreed with the 90-100 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LaKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 comment that the City was less restrictive than the County because of the way the City administered 40% versus 30%. He said the City did not allow averaging of slopes which was allowed in other jurisdictions. He said he believed the City was more restrictive, but the issue would be thoroughly explored in the future. Councilmember Godfrey said the Council was considering this annexation at this point and whether or not issues fit into the Master Plan would be solved in the future when petitions went before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said the remaining property would be developed according to the Master Plan. He said according to the Eastbench Community Master Plan, the property was identified as an area of future development and consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan update. Mayor DePaulis asked if the petitioner could develop this property if it were not annexed. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that he wouldn' t be able to since the County was not in a position to provide services. (P 90-45) The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 90-101 I move we adopt the Resolution committing UDAG repayment funds to the Shopko project, but revise condition number four on Attachment A to read: "No loan funds will be provided until and unless all delinquent property taxes due on the Shopko project area have been paid in full. " )117 , ,,4Øfr Sugar House Center Benefits of Project Jobs: Estimated full-time jobs created by project 175 Estimated part-time jobs created by project 275 Revenue: Estimated increase in gross sales due to project $54,000,000 Annual Sales tax revenue to SLC resulting from increased sales $164,232 Annual Business License fees resulting from project $10,000 Reduced General Fund Expenditures: The proposed development will result in a net decrease in the level of service provided by Salt Lake City from the General Fund. There will no longer be maintenance costs for Simpson Avenue, Stringham Avenue, Ashton Avenue and the associated city-owned alleyways. Garbage collection will now be handled privately rather than by the city. Likewise, the costs of police and fire protection should decline as an area of deteriorated housing and commercial structures is replaced by viable new and rehabilitated and new retail development. Catalyst for Further Development: The proposed development is widely accepted in the Sugar House business community as the catalyst required to generate additional redevelopment in the area. Since announcement of the proposed project, several other property owners in the area of 2100 South and 1100 East have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties. Ownership of Project The project will be owned by Sugar House Development Partnership, a joint venture of Sugar House Partnership 1, CFC79 Sugar House Associates Ltd. and Clark Holdings Partnership. Combined, these three partnerships have more than 70 limited partner investors. Tax Deficiencies The following tax deficiencies have been included for payment within the development budget of the proposed project: Sugar House Shopping Center Partnership I $184,255.31 CFC79 Sugar House Associates Ltd. 84,882.34 Clark Holdings Partnership 113,448.57 $382,586.22 Clark Financial Corporation `Jwt,i�t�, nru/ Financial/ Investment Consultants ,June 11 , 11 • The Honorable "1ayor Ted OH .on City and County i3ciliing , boom 2 Salt Lake City , ttah ,4111 Dear Mayor 1i 1.son o RE : City Loan ' ji-ee;lent/Hupinr House COAL Aejreel�Ient/'Marl. Financial Corooration Please find submitted herewith ions your signature , four ( 4 ) copies of the City Loan Ayreeirent between Clarl: Financial Corporation and the City relative to the Sugar House Urban Development Action Grant „Iroo snt which provides funding assistance on our Phase _ office building. The Loan AUreecent has been sigecd by SLeve Lowe , Vice President with Clark Financial Corporation , and it is portant that there be an understanding os the reasons for our signing the agreeaent. As you know, HUD sent out g 30-cry recision letter requir- ing Clark Financial C'orcor;;';_ ion to semonstreLe their ability to perform oil the ero_jset '57 , rovibi„g regat] v hioding Comait;lents p[i1=scant t , the DDi,C •bbLeeo.lent , dated and sign- ed by you on b y 2 , lb 3 . That agreement, as well as sub- se,juent amenurients to the agreement , fail to accurately address the economic tsDiis of the City ' s participation in the deal. On two dit.LerenL occasions , we have met with HUD representatives in an eiftorl to resolve this issue , but , so far , have been urisuccu:>`H r i In getting language reduced to writing which is consistent_ with what was negotiated and agreed to by HUD represeet�zr.i';fs ( Charles lhindrick and Debbi Hurd) . It is , therefore , (mu intention to Hake application through the city to recu='st_ an n rridment to the business side of Lne UJmJ , in o;_0er L. ,)ring it into copliance with what has been vtrr.Jolly agreed Lc, previously and to Hake the development of our Phase I office building economically possible. The purpose for providince The Lserally L. inding Commitments is to simply " rescue" tee UDC. Once that has been accom- plished , it wi Ll as iiaportunS La ,liove :_ruickly with proces- sing an applica'=iorl Lor :,- ending the agreement. J Arne nnnn ...., ('..It I 14,,k OA117 AACi') r1M_77R_5522 '4 The Honorable Mayor Ted GJilson June 14 , 1984 Page Two To expedite this application process , we have enclosed a copy of the document which contains language consistent with the participation issue as negotiated. We invite you , to- gether with your staff members , to review it so that we can move forward with amending the UDAG and begin site work construction on August 30 , 1984 . We appreciate your support and interest in our project and all the help you continue to he. If you have any questions or concerns , please give me a call. Sincerely , CLARK FINAIICIAL CORPORATION 1 lrJ r r .,/�G.f�- Doug1 s 0. Bu _ni Vice4?resideht DOD:pmf cc : Spence Clark Steve Lowe Tai Biesinger Doug Carlson Jim McGuire Enclosures 7 .C. (1) and (2) Clark Financial Corporation ,#eciaiai A007,6f dianaympteld e Financial/ Investment Consultants 4" `'""`f 'K�.169f�f�1 D7 �p� WY L t noneze.[al Julien&. January 14, 1982 Department of Housing and Urban Development 1405 Curtis Street Executive Tower Inn 26th Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 Gentlemen: Clark Financial Corporation in cooperation with Salt Lake City has been diligently working for several years to stimulate the rejuvenation of the Sugar House community in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is felt that by constructing the proposed mid-rise office building in Sugar House on 1300 East by Wilmington Avenue, that such rejuvenation will begin and take hold in this community. The building planned for development is approximately 12 stories high and will cost approximately $14 million to build. The project will be financed by a combination of Industrial Revenue Bonds, corporate and investor equity funds, and an Urban Development Action Grant. The Industrial Revenue Bond inducement resolution is for $10 million. The UDAG amount is for approximately $2 million and corporate and investor funds will provide the balance of the funds up to $4. 5 million. The Industrial Revenue Bond is projected at a cost of thirteen percent (1 3 0) for twenty-five (25) years at a 1 . 2: 1 debt coverage ratio. The Action Grant funds will be used to finance the construction of the parking deck and certain utility relocations. These funds will be repaid to the City at eight percent (8%) interest over a 25- year amortization period. The security for the repayment of the UDAG funds will be in the form of a second mortgage on the real estate. Clark Financial Corporation will consolidate and locate its Corporate Head- quarters into a portion of the new building and will move its 50 to 70 employees into the City from the unincorporated Salt Lake County area . All existing jobs will be retained in the City which are related or involved in the location 23 Department of Housing and Urban Development January 14, 1982 Page 2 and construction of the building . There will be approximately 150 to 200 construction jobs provided during the development of the project. The equity funds will be provided in part by Clark Financial Corporation and also in part by Limited Partners who have been clients for several years. I am the President of Clark Financial Corporation and the General Partner of the Limited Partnership to be formed to complete the development of the Sugar House Office Building . I am willing to sign a legally binding commitment upon award of an Action Grant to build said Office Building and explicitly state that my commitment is contingent upon receipt of the total Action Grant. We will not be able to build said building without the Action Grant. My latest Statement of Financial Condition, as both President of Clark Financial Corporation and General Partner of the Sugar House Office Building, will be sent under separate cover to the appropriate authority and must be held in strictest confidence. My Financial Statements are personal and confidential . Sincer , / // Sbence Clark President, Clark Financial Corporation General Partner, Sugar House Office Building Associates, a Limited Partnership SC/TB/Ica 24 Clark Financial Corporation S,,aia , tiffarnerinwni Financial/ Investment Consultants givi Wn May 27 , 1982 nFUIVFn {..92 Department of Housing and Urban Development Executive Tower Inn 26th Floor 1405 Curtis Street Denver, CO 80202 RE : Clark Financial Corporation Office Building Development Gentlemen: The enclosed letters , Agreement , and plans document Clark Financial Corporation' s commitment to commence a redevelopment program for a significantly depressed and blighted area of Salt Lake City known as Sugar House. This community has experienced an unusually high number of bankruptcies , vacancies and general economic and physical deterioration over the past fifteen years. Clark Financial Corporation has been working with Salt Lake City and the Denver HUD Regional Office for several years to initiate a program of revitalization for Sugar House. The enclosed documents and the Urban Development Action Grant application represent concrete beginnings of this revitalization pro- gram. Clark Financial Corporation has been involved in the real estate investment business for over fifteen years, specializing in the management leasing and development of commercial properties. We own and manage over $350 million of real estate investments in eleven states and represent over 390 investor clients in 29 states . As a professional investment firm, we have established certain parameters for corporate investments as well as limited partnership investments. These parameters stipulate reasonable limits on equity downpayments, cash-on-cash returns , tax incentives , and appreciation; as well as cer- Page 2 tain criteria that deal with determining levels of risk, market potential , etc. By following these guidelines , we have been successful over the past fifteen years as an investment and development firm and have an excellent track record in this area . With these parameters in mind , we prepared the attached income, expense, and development pro formas for the proposed, office building development in Sugar House. As you can see , without UDAG, this development would require almost 57% cash equity downpayment and would return only 2. 39 percent on the cash downpayment. The sizeable downpayment also significantly reduces the tax incentives of investing in this particular project. The project is simply not feasible in the conventional marketplace . It would not be possible to obtain investors or to risk corporate funds to invest in this project , especially in such a depressed economy and deteriorated area . The only way that Clark Financial can consider pioneer- ing a new development in this community and taking upon ourselves the primary risk of rejuvenating the area is if, somehow, the development can be handled on a more feasible economic basis. We believe this is possible by virtue of an Urban Development Action Grant in the amount of $1 ,150 ,000 . This amount will reduce the cost of the development such that our equity investment is reduced to 40 percent, which is the maximum downpayment we have ever paid on any invest- ment, and represents the upper limit of our downpayment parameters . The cash-on-cash return is raised to 3. 32 percent which is still too low; however, the tax incentives will carry the project for the first three years until we can increase the rents in year 4 when our cash-on-cash • return would reach our minimum requirement of 10 . 5 percent. For this reason , the repayment of the UDAG to Salt Lake City at 7 percent interest would not commence until the fourth year after completion. We believe that the construction of a new office build- ing in Sugar House will be a positive catalyst and incentive for other firms and property owners to build new facilities and fix up run-down properties . We believe greater atten- tion will he drawn to Sugar House as an office and commer- cial center and over the next several years, Sugar House will regain vitality. The new project will create new construction jobs and permanent jobs will be available in the new facility. Property taxes will be strengthened and increased by the improvement of the area. Page 2 Your support of the UDAG for Sugar House will be an important step in assisting an ailing area and is the only means whereby Clark Financial Corporation will place its capital at risk in this community. We cannot do this devel- opment without your support. We look forward to your favorable consideration of the proposed development. Sincerely, Tai Biesinger Director of Development Clark Development Company TB: sj Attachments I move we adopt the Resolution committing UDAG repayment funds to the Shopko project, but revise condition number four on Attachment A to read: "No loan funds will be provided until and unless all delinquent property taxes due on the Shopko project area have been paid in full. " 40)A61(3,U " Cr) I' ' The Salt Lake Tribune, Wednesday,April 4,1990 B5 - S.L. Lets Developer.er Slide on Taxes, Then Gives It a Loan • . .p I4 By Russell Weeks funds,an$11 million loan from First back taxes on a previous project— precedent,"she said."My question pay back taxes on the Parkview P1a- the taxes on the plaza hadn't been - Tribune Staff Writer Security Bank and$4.4 million from the Parkview Plaza at 2180 S.1300 is do we bail out developers on a reg- za to paying delinquent taxes on paid because"the office market in , Dropping a demand that a devel- Shopko Stores Inc.,which is negoti- East.According to Salt Lake County ular basis? It's beginning to seem property within the planned shop- Salt Lake City has been difficult.". • • oper pay back taxes on a previous ating with Clark Financial to build a records,a total of$454,570 is owed like we do." ping center.The center is"a tremen- But other office buildings had been r. project,the Salt Lake City Council discount department store on 9 acres on' the property for the tax years Mr.Hale,who represents the Sug- dourly important thing for the Sugar taken over by lenders while the�. approved a$900,000 loan Tuesday of the site. , 1987,1988 and 1989.Clark Finan- ar House area disagreed.Approving House area,"he said. Parkview Plaza had paid its bills,he• to help fund a 17-acre shopping cen- Clark Financial has planned since cial is a member of a limited partner- the loan for the planned develop- The proposal was meaningless be. said. ter in Sugar House. - last summer to develop a shopping ship that owns the Parkview Plaza. ment while waiting for back taxes on cause Clark Financial already I understand Tom's and Nancy's.: The council voted 4-2 to OK the center In an area bordered by High- - Mr. Godfrey and Ms. Pace sup- the previous project wouldn't place planned to pay delinquent taxes on .concerns,and I believe the taxes will' loan to Clark Financial Corp.for a land Drive(1100 East),1300 East„ ported retaining the condition.Mr. the city at risk,he said. that property with money from ifs be paid.The taxes must be paid,":� planned development that is expect- Simpson Avenue(2235 South)and Godfrey said that although Parkview Moreover,the project would gen- $11 million bank loan. Mr.Lowe said. ed to include a discount shopping Interstate 80. Plaza was owned by a limited part- erate jobs and sales that would bene- Steven Lowe,president of Clark Deep in Evidence `' center.Councilwoman Roselyn Kirk The loan approved Tuesday was nership,Clark Financial had sought fit the city.In addition,Clark Finan- Financial's Commercial Division, , , joined Councilmen Alan Hardman, the last financial support the compa- and obtained an Urban Development cial has$2 million in equity in the told the council that It also was un- Police Wayne Horrocks and Don Hale in ny sought' 'from the city. Besides Action Grant for that project and Parkview Plaza and a plan to pay off comfortable for him to tell them tax- Davis Police Burn voting to make the loan.Councilman money from the Redevelopment had promised jobs and property tax- the back taxes by Nov.30,1992,Mr. es on the Parkview Plaza weren't is • Tom Godfrey and Councilwoman Agency, city officials last year ap- es. Hale said. paid.But the company isn't a bank, $200,000 in Drugs::. Nancy Pace voted against it.Council- proved closing three streets and rev- "The expectation is that if public The date coincides with the five- and the project must sustain itself, Special to The Tribune man Ronald Whitehead was out of eral alleys at the project site in ex- funds are being used,you pay taxes year limit the county has on repaying he said. LAYTON—More than$200,000 town on business. change for public improvements to on it. For me, the bottom line is delinquent taxes for the project.If In addition,he reminded the coun- in drugs confiscated by the Sheriff's The loan will be made in Septem- be done by the developer. The people have got to pay taxes,"he they're not paid,the county can hold cil that Clark Financial hadn't Department were burned at the Da-,:. ber and will come from a fund estab- streets and alleys have been ap- said. a tax sale on the property to recoup missed a payment on its Urban De- vis County Energy Recovery Plant, lished from repayments to the city of praised at a total value of$647,000. Ms.Pace said she supported re- the taxes. velopment Action Grant for the eliminating an unwanted buildup of" federal Urban Development Action The council dropped a condition of quiring Clark Financial to pay back Mr.Hale proposed and the council Parkview Plaza or on debt service evidence,said Sheriff Harry Jones. Grants.It will supplement$600,000 the$900,000 loan that would have taxes on the Parkview Plaza as a approved changing the condition for that project. Sheriff Jones,citing the upcoming: ! in city Redevelopment Agency required Clark Financial to repay matter of principle. "It's also a from requiring Clark Financial to After the meeting,Mr.Lowe said, transition to the new Davis County Criminal Justice Complex, said it was necessary to eliminate as much= He Came In at a Tough,Time,' Says His Boss evidence as possible. • The items destroyed had been cleared for disposal by the County Director of State Lan• ds, ForestryResigns After 3 Years• Meer Nor Office. Most ore. evlt• dence had been confiscated by the. Metro Narcotics Strike Force. Evidence destroyed included mar-, ijuana,cocaine,LSD,PCP,amphet By Mike Gorrell •that he would like to better utilize his velopers of 116,000 acres of state- Mr.Spurgin also was director of he added."I think all of that state amines and drug paraphernalia.The.'' Tribune Staff Writer law degree. owned land inUtah's national parks the division when it was instructed land and all of that[federal]land is sheriff and representatives of the Patrick Spurgin has resigned after Mr.Spurgin was appointedDavis County Solid Waste Manage--;: g g' to head and Indian reservations. by the lands board to sell a 640-acre fundamentally important to the fu- ment and Energy Recovery Special.' three years as director of the Divi-' the division after serving two years- The board,which is legally man- parcel of state property along the ture of the state." District were on hand to make sure' sion of State Lands and Forestry,cit- as director of the state's high-level !dated to maximize the economic re- Burr Trail to Garfield County,which Nevertheless, the outgoing divi- all the drugs went up in smoke,Sher..:: ing a desire to pursue outside inter- nuclear waste office. ,turn from state lands for a school is improving the dirt road between sion director remarked,"in myheart iff Jones said. _ ests. In that capacity,he was responsi- trust fund,reached that decision af- Boulder and Bullfrog Marina on of hearts,I know there's a lot more "I've been involved with state goy- ble for coordinating Utah's partici- ter the state was unable to trade scat- Lake Powell. work that needs to be done...The ernment in an administrative capaci- potion in a federal Department of tered state parcels to the federal Mr.Hansen praised Mr.Spurgin's state needs to take a much greater Woman Who Mushed,- ty for five years and now it's time for Energy plan to deal with nuclear government,principally for proper- handling of these sensitive issues. role in land-use planning and evalu • - ' me to move along,"Mr.Spurgin said waste products,a process that at one ty along the shores of Lake Powell. "I think Pat has done a terrific job. sting technically the role of re- Tuesday. To N.Pole to Speak He submitted his resigns- time considered construction of a The board's action generated con- He has been under some very,very sources in the state economy.There Special to The Tribune tion in early March to state Depart- waste repository in southeastern siderable public opposition,includ- tough circumstances,"he said."He needs to be less rhetoric and more SNOWBIRD—Ann Bancroft,the ment of Natural Resources Director Utah,just outside the Canyonlands . ing former Gov.Scott Matheson's ob- came In at a tough time.The board factual evaluation." - first and only woman to reach the 1 Dee Hansen,but said the announce- National Park boundary.His office jection that the proposed sales was at odds over a number of issues. w �_•-__:__, .,..__-.:-._A Nnrth Pnlw lw dnoclad will nrx xnt The approval of the appointment of Timothy Chambless to the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for your consideration on tonight's consent agenda. Please refer to item D-12 to review related information on this individual. 4 c.i.) cia RacTIoi\) RIF (Reading is FUNdamental) "In Celebration of Reading" Winners in the annual RIF (Reading is FUNdamental) "In Celebration of Reading" contest sponsored by the Friends of the Salt Lake City Public Library will be announced on Monday, March 12th. Mayor Palmer DePaulis will present the four elementary age students with Awls the City Council meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, rt 4.0, 1990. Winners are: Andrea Bailey, a 5th grader at Edison, Amanda Oviatt, a 3rd grader at Jackson, Jamie Osborne, a 6th grader at Franklin, and Roy Blair a 1st grader at Guadalupe. Each year students in Salt Lake RIF schools participate in a reading contest entitled "In Celebration of Reading." Children agree to read or are read to for a specified period of time each week for two weeks. The names of children who successfully complete the project are then entered in a random drawing to represent their school. RIF is a national organization that originated over twenty years ago. It is designed to motivate children to read by using a simple device: give children inexpensive, attractive, new paperback books about things they know -- people, characters, history, events, ideas that interest them. Let the children freely choose the books they want from a wide selection approved by educators. And, finally let the children keep the books for their very own. The national goal of RIF is to make books and reading a natural part of every child's daily experience, to make reading a way of life for America's children. The Friends of the City Library have been involved in the goal of reaching children for many years. Thousands of children have been reached by RIF since it first began at the City Library in 1974. Currently, nearly 4,000 Salt Lake area children receive free books courtesy of the Friends. For more information about RIF or Friends of the Library, please call the Salt Lake City Public Library at 363-5733. ##### 3/6/90 -r P;T "`-',�;.,7y. -,, ��z�`.:i ,<. ,,,arr A.` l - '"`�'.'r •:� fir,. z 'T a24.^:'. ��"p.; lr7^:�'..''_� "5 kLa « _ _.` .� ? Y lc+` lEe�i 1 Y y n _ ,:.3d iZ3h� ram: t_ s a . �Y F fie. . r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 11 EziYhYtt nt :_i 0 oi 11 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF 'r SALT LAKE CITY , UTAH f=' I k`7 SS g 11 WHEREAS, Mr. Kimball Young, Ms . Betsy Hunt, Mr . Steve Lowe and +y I Ms. MaryanneWebster have spearheaded a community drive to establish and raise funds for the construction of a li community recreation center; and ;. if WHEREAS, these citizens have devoted countless hours over six years r t; to increase the quality of life for Salt Lake families with V' r; the developement of the Steiner Aquatic Center; and WHEREAS, these citizens have been instrumental in working with _ Community Council organizations , Salt Lake City, the Salt Lake City School District , private entities and other groups and have worked diligently to find creative solutions to Iproblems as they arise; and ci ;e. WHEREAS, these citizens have taken the time to support many community If projects in addition to the Steiner Aquatic Center; f. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor K that we hereby recognize the extraordinary service Mr . Young, sa q•• Ms . Hunt, Mr . Lowe and Ms. Webster have rendered to Salt , Lake Cit10 4y and its citizens . 11 I . • Dated this 3rd day of April , 1990. y j S !k I Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor Alan G . Hardman, Council Chair *; 1 • �i Ronald J. Whitehead L . Wayne Horrocks �i • • Al I Nancy K. Pace Tom Godfrey =' Roselyn N . Kirk Don C. Hale a; OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 March 29, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL.MQMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON\ SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & NEGLIGENTLY CAUSED FIRES ORDINANCES The Hazardous Materials and Negligently Caused Fires ordinances, recommended by Councilmember Wayne Horrocks, are on your consent agenda to set hearing dates. I have checked on the questions raised at your recent Committee of the Whole meeting, and am recommending that you move forward with these. Questions included: 1. Why do the ordinances indicate that payment of fines to the City does not constitute an admission of liability? The Attorney's Office indicates that this language is part of the enabling language in State Statute, 2. Does the appeals process need to be further detailed? The Attorney's Office indicates that the City has access to independent hearing officers, and one would be appointed by the Mayor for each case according to City procedure. There is thus no need for further detail in the ordinance but, if you wanted to have detail of the hearing process added, it could be added. I have reviewed this information with the Attorney's Office and the Fire Department, and I recommend your support of the ordinances. The approval of the appointment of Timothy Chambless to the Planning Commission is scheduled for your consideration on tonight's consent agenda. Please refer to item D-4 to review related information on this individual. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Hazardous Material Emergency Cost Recovery Ordinance) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO HEALTH AND SAFETY BY ADDING CHAPTER 9 .44 DEALING WITH COST RECOVERY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCIES. WHEREAS, the 1989 Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 95 allowing local governments to establish procedures and collect costs for the local government' s response to hazardous materials emergencies; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that such cost recovery would be in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, Ee it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Chapter 9 .44 is hereby enacted to read as follows: 9.44.010 Purpose. This chapter shall provide procedures for recovering costs incurred by the City for City assistance in hazardous materials emergencies pursuant to §63-5-6(4) , Utah Code Annotated. 9 .44.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (A) "Hazardous materials emergency" means a sudden and unexpected release of any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, presents a direct and immediate threat to public safety or the environment, and requires immediate action to mitigate the threat. • (B) "Expenses" means the actual labor costs of government • and volunteer personnel including worker's compensation benefits, fringe benefits, administrative overhead, costs of equipment, costs of equipment operation, costs of materials, costs of disposal and the cost of any contract labor and materials. 9.44_030 Recovery Authorization and Procedure. The City is hereby empowered to recover from any person, corporation, partnership or other individual or entity whose negligent actions cause the hazardous material emergency expenses incurred by City agencies directly associated with a response to a hazardous materials emergency pursuant to the following procedure: (a) The City shall determine responsibility for the emergency and notify the responsible party by mail of the City' s determination of responsibility and the costs to be recovered: (b) The notice shall specify that the determined responsible party may appeal the City' s decision before a hearing officer . designated by the Mayor and establish a date by which the notice of appeal shall be filed. The appeal date shall be no less then fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice. (c) In the event the determined responsible party appeals the determination, the hearing officer shall hold a public hearing to consider any issues raised by the appeal, at which hearing the appealing party and the City shall be entitled to present evidence 'in support of their respective positions. (d) The hearing officer shall, after the hearing, make a recommendation to the Mayor who shall issue a decision assessing responsibility and costs. (w) -2- r 9.44.040 No Admission of Liability. WY The payment of expenses determined owing under this chapter does not constitute an admission of liability or negligence in any legal action for damages. 9.44.050 Action to Recover Costs. In the event parties determined to be responsible for the repayment of hazardous material emergency costs fail to make payment to the City within thirty (30) days after a determination of any appeal by the Mayor or thirty (30) days from the deadline for appeal in the event no appeal is filed, the City may initiate legal action to recovery from the determined responsible 'parties the costs determined to be owing, including the City' s reasonable attorney's fees. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -3- . • . • f . • • Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: . . CITY RECORDER • BRB:pp • • •. • • -4- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Negligently Caused Fire Emergency Cost Recovery Ordinance) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE . RELATING TO- HEALTH AND SAFETY BY ADDING CHAPTER 9 .48 DEALING WITH COST RECOVERY FOR NEGLIGENTLY CAUSE FIRE EMERGENCIES. WHEREAS, Section 10-8-55, Utah Code Annotated, allows the - City to establish its Fire Department and make other necessary rules and regulations and to fix penalties; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that recovering costs from negligently caused fire emergencies would be in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Chapter 9 .48 is hereby enacted to read as follows: 9.48.010 Purpose. This chapter shall provide procedures for recovering costs incurred by the City for City assistance in negligently caused fire emergencies. 9 .48.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter: A. "Negligently caused fire emergency: means a fire proximately caused by the negligence of an owner or occupier of v _ property and/or structures which presents a direct and immediate threat to public safety and requires immediate action to mitigate the threat. B. "Expenses" means the actual labor costs of government and volunteer personnel including worker's compensation . benefits, fringe benefits, administrative overhead, costs of equipment, costs of equipment operation, costs of materials, costs of disposal and the cost of any contract labor and materials. 9.48.030 Recovery authorization and procedure. The City is hereby empowered to recover from any person, corporation, partnership or other individual or entity whose negligent actions cause fire emergency expenses incurred by City agencies directly associated with a response to a fire emergency pursuant to the following procedure: A. The Cityshall determine responsibility for the emergency and notify the responsible party by mail of the City' s determination of responsibility and the costs to be recovered. B. The notice shall specify that the determined responsible party may appeal the City' s decision before a hearing officer designated by the Mayor and establish a date by which the notice of appeal shall be filed. The appeal date shall be no less than fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice. C. In the event the determined responsible party appeals the determination, the hearing officer shall hold a public -2- hearing to consider any issues raised by the appeal, at which hearing the appealing party and the City shall be entitled to present evidence in support of their respective positions. D. The hearing officer shall, after the hearing, make a recommendation to the Mayor who shall issue a decision assessing responsibility and costs. 9.48.040 No admission of liability. The payment of expenses determined owing under this chapter does not constitute an admission of liability or negligence in any legal action for damages. 9.48.050 Action to recover costs. In the event parties determined to be responsible for the repayment of negligently caused fire emergency costs fail to make payment to the City within thirty (30) days after a determination of any appeal by the Mayor, or thirty (30 ) days from the deadline for appeal in the event no appeal is filed, the City may initiate legal action to recover from the determined responsible parties the costs determined to be owing, including the City' s reasonable attorney' s fees. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1988. CHAIRPERSON -3- 1 S. A p 0 • 0 ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's action: Approved Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: . BRB:rc -4- ROGER F. CUTLER S,,--� 'llr v GIT�Y G,;ORP • 110N ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS LARRY V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8411 1 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS CECELIA M. ESPENOZA TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 JANICE L. FROST February 15, 1990 Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis 451 South State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Permit-Bond Requirements Dear Mayor DePaulis: We have been reviewing the City' s policy concerning requiring insurance and bonds. We have concluded the cost to track insurance on minor encroachments is not worth the benefit received by the City. The risk of loss is slight. We have not received a claim since we went self insured in 1977 for areas in which we have allowed fencing or landscaping on the City' s right-of-way. We suggest it would be appropriate to add proposed subsection B. which eliminates the requirement of bonds or insurance when the encroachment is for a fence or for landscaping improvements. Most of these requests are from home owners, although some businesses will also be affected. Passage of this proposal will eliminate the need for them to keep requesting annual renewal notices to go to the City. Very t my yours, GREG R. HAWKINS Assistant City Attorney GRH: rc Attachments DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Permit-Bond requirements) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14. 12.080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PERMIT-BOND REQUIREMENTS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 14. 12.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, as amended, relating to Permit-Bond Requirements, be and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 14. 12.080 Permit-Bond requirements. A. The applicant for such permit shall provide a corporate surety bond in the amount of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars, conditioned on the removal of the encroachment on city request, and shall also provide a policy of insurance in the minimum sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars per person, five hundred thousand dollars per incident, which names Salt Lake City Corporation as an additional insured and gives the city thirty days ' notice of cancellation of the policy for whatever reason. B. Provided, however, no bond or insurance will be required where the encroachment is for fencing which separates the occupied property from the traveled portion of the right of 1 way or for landscaping. Any such fencing or landscaping shall conform to all applicable city ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990. Published: GRH:rc -2- MIKE ZUHL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 'ID: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-764 submitted by David Thomas Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-764 submitted by David K. Thomas. The petitioner is requesting that the alley located between "K" and "L" and between llth Avenue and 12th Avenue be vacated. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this request and recommend that the entire alley be vacated. The abutting property owners are not in agreement as to how the alley should be vacated, therefore, we have prepared two ordinances. One ordinance vacates the alley and requires the property owners to enter into agreements allowing joint use or joint access to the alley. The other ordinance vacates the alley with the alley being divided equally among the property owners. One other option has been discussed which would have provided access to half of the alley with the other being vacated, this option is not recommended by the departments reviewing this petition. As part of the 12th Avenue Subdivision a bond exists guaranteeing the future construction of grading, paving and driveway approach improvements for this alley. The bond funds will be held until a decision is made on the requested vacation or until the improvements are installed to City specifications. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinances and they are attached for your action. S mitted by: M CHAEL B. Z I terim Director SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Vacating a Portion of an East-West Alley Between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues pursuant to Petition No. 400-764-89 ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EAST-WEST ALLEY BETWEEN K AND L STREETS AND 11TH AND 12TH AVENUES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-764-89 . WHEREAS , the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an east-west alley between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues , which is the subject of Petition No. 400-764-89 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is , vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. Said alley is more particularly described as follows : Begin at the northwest corner of lot 16 , Block 166 , !� Salt Lake City Survey Plat D, and running thence east -3/i1' � 330 feet, thence north 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, / 11 thence south 15 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS . The above vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities , including the City' s water and sewer facilities , and all of them. Said vacation is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed . MAYOR -2- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19 . Published: BRB:ap -3- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Vacating a Portion of an East-West Alley Between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues pursuant to Petition No. 400-764-89 ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EAST-WEST ALLEY BETWEEN K AND L STREETS AND 11TH AND 12TH AVENUES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-764-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public all described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an east-west alley between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues, which is the subject of Petition No . 400-764-89 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. Said alley is more particularly described as follows : Begin at the northwest corner of lot 16 , Block 166 , l�� Salt Lake City Survey Plat D, and running thence east �;�,i!�o 330 feet, thence north 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, �� thence south 15 feet to the point of beginning. '�'` SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS . The above vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities , including the City' s water and sewer facilities , and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties SECTION 3 . CONDITIONS . This ordinance shall be conditioned upon proof acceptable to the City that the abutting property owners have entered into such agreements as necessary to provide for any joint use or joint access to or through the vacated alley. SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE . This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication . The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this ordinance until the condition required by Section 3 has been met . If the condition has not been met within one year the May may grant an additional one year extension. If the condition fails to be met within the time allowed, this ordinance shall be null and void and not be published . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action : Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19 Published: BRB:ap -3- ROGER F. CUTLER S JJ A AKE CITY CORPORATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPEND LOVE BRUCE R. BAIRDRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 JANICE L. FROST MEMORANDUM TO: LuAnn Fawcett Community & Economic Development FROM: Bruce Baird ; Assistant City Attorney DATE: February 22, 1990 RE: Thomas Petition No. 400-764-89 Pursuant to discussions which you and I have had with Cindy Gust-Jensen I have drafted two ordinances concerning the above petition. The first is a simple alley vacation. The second conditions the effectiveness of the alley vacation upon proof to the City that all of the abutting property owners have agreed to whatever type of joint use agreement they want. Obviously, the first draft is easier to handle. If you have any questions, please let me know. BRB:ap 1/4 9 '' ), .- r,." V? L" ` SALT .CITY CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - _ PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 February 12, 1990 Michael Zuhl Chief of Staff Director of Community and Economic Development 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT RE: David Thomas Petition 400-764 to close alley. Dear Michael, Attached is petition number 400-764 from Mr . David Thomas requesting the vacation of an entire east-west alley located in the Avenues. The location of the alley is on block 166 of Salt Lake City Survey Plat D. The alley runs east and west from K to L street in the mid-block. The block is situated between llth and 12th Avenues . The current zoning is R-2. Various City departments have been notified of the petitioners request and have responded. Transportation - is in favor of a full alley vacation, and not in favor of a partial vacation. Fire - supports a full alley vacation and does not support a partial vacation. Engineering - recommends approval. Real Property - recommends approval. Public Utilities - recommends approval. Planning - recommends approval of an entire alley vacation. In meeting with Mr . Thomas, it was indicated the intent of the petition is for the vacation of the entire alley. The City " s position is to either 1 ) close the entire alley or 2 ) proceed with the construction of improvements to the entire alleyway as originally provided for in the re-subdivision of the Block, known as the 12th Avenue Subdivision. It should be noted that there are differing viewpoints of the abutting property owners concerning the alley closure. As can be determined, the abutting property owners have expressed one of the three following options, 1 ) To close the entire alley and to build a structure on the east portion of the alley, and to allow private access to K street only, 2 ) Property owners on llth Avenue agree to the alley being closed, but wish to keep a maintenance access to the rear of their yards from the west as a right of way. This option would require deeds and easements for each of the properties. 3) Mr. Tirrell wishes to close the entire alley, but does not wish to allow a right of way access across his portion of the alley. The Development Coordination team has indicated that the 12th Avenue Subdivision included a bond guaranteeing the future construction of grading, paving, and driveway approach improvements for this alley. These bond funds will be held until a decision is made on the requested vacation or until the improvements are installed to City specifications. The legal description for the alley is as follows: Begin at the southwest corner of lot 17, Block 166, Salt Lake City Survey Plat D, and running thence east 330 feet, thence south 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, thence north 15 feet to the point of beginning. , ; From the viewpoint of the city, it is desirable to close the entire alley and ownership and have the maintenance turned over to the adjacent property owners . The petition should be presented to the City Council for an advertised ( once a week for four weeks ) public hearing and final determination. Sincerely, • Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning D9 ector PETTT1ON 400-764 THOMAS ALLEY VACATION POLL OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS I . (;ALEN TIRRELL ( 756 -7460 ) Galen resides in Alpine. HT and owns lour at the six lots in the new 12th Avenue subdivision. He is in favor of closing the alleyway and would fence half at the alleyway. Not in favor of providing access to the street . ( 12/6/ , 1/19/90 ) 2 . SHARLENE & VIEoPIL HAY / ( ').61 - 392 , 262-575 ) ) Trying to sell property or duiekly as possible. Has no strong feelings one way or the other if the ally is vacated. Wants the least costly alternative. Mr Hayes signed the petiti )n originally to help Mr . Th,7,in with his building plans. ( 1. /5/89 ) 3. HAL LUDLOW ( 355-2098 ) Mr . Ludlow slows not have strong feelings one way or the other to close the alley. Prefers the least costly alternative to him. Concerned that he would assume responsibility for the alley right of way. Prefers to see the alley improved and to have his lot remain the same as it presenIly is . ( II/n/8c), I1/24/09 ) 4 . JEEEREY ( JAY ) HARkoW ( 36 - -4006 ) Unable to contact ov:tpi. 5. ENOCH & BRIDGET H'.11-711 ( 355- 0707, 364-8477 ) Mr . Smith r-Jops not hoc- ore way or the other_ to close or leave'? tho 011 Montioned that he would like some sort of access too tear loc maintenance. A dirt access as it now exists 1 " ( II/29,102 ) 6 . MCREAN-DAVIS PARTNEkHil-2 ( 532 - '3750 ) Spoke to Merrill Davis . iert ill 5---iih.1 )e wduld _like to retain an access through the hack ot n ! ..: Hsore-' , her is not -:,et f_)It any particular alternative. ( ), I 7. MARTAIN CARAVATTI ( .-- (54 -( 287 ) Currently does not have :=in -:i-.ce:-is to the lee:1r o:: his pLooerty, nor does he use the ajleywdy. In 1-. --_,vor ot ciosing and vaating, though is not of stren opiniem one way or the (Abel . :=':iid hi: does not plan to use the a11ey In the tuture. 8. DAVID THOMA:=.j ( '7, -.,0-- :301: ) ( PetitiOner ) /1 . ..---- --- ---' -- ----* 1 I I 1:6 ("WOIKVV1 hot)) --r-tReul..- fikReLi, 1- (.6' 1m -rIKRE.L1- Hnyr-S IC -•,. I, 2-. I 1 /II tEr Perate,OE..o ti) r . .Mgit.lainqlt\...,rc) 1..,r_ 105 6.b n'aiag:MMAE:atlaN]ii.aim.L:iiiirRi] ] , I 3' 5, 6, fi. 8. Ltivtoi...1 1-14/0o..../ .5t1rrw ?-tc 0 e I:44,- cm INitliri -A-10/14s I r----5fe Pc) (7(39) (7/ ) (?23) (7 zi) (737) I I I I i I fr I___ I?; • . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 201 JOSEPH R. ANDERSON TIA701IlY P IIARI'S T. P E SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PUBLICWOlili`, fJIRECTOEt CITY TRAN`__ FION F-N:;IM1Ei=;i (801) 535-6630 Ocicdwr d , I `)si9 Allen G. McCandless Planning & Zoning 4th Floor - City Hall RE: Petition #400-764 - Alley Vacation Dear Allen: The Division of Transpor La L i on ' s silo review comments and recommendations are as follows : ( 1) We recommend denial of partial alley vacation in that it creates a dead end on a very narrow public sway and adds additional hazard and hardship to emergency services . ( 2) We strongly support full alley vacation , but require approval by all abutting property owners and coordination with utility easements . Sincerely , Scott R. Va tier laus Traffic _Engineer I SRV/lh cc : Steve Meyer Barry Wa l sly file SALT LAKE @ITY CORPORATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PETER O. PEDERSON 305 EAST 200 SOUTH CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 799-4101 October 18, 1989 Allen McCandless Planning and Zoning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 Re: Petition #400-764 Dear Allen: It would appear to me from the present petition that we would be vacating only part of this alley and that we would be creating a serious dead-end situation. The only way the fire department could grant this petition is for the entire alley to be vacated, use stopped and accesses blocked. Sincerely, Rama Hunsaker Fire Code Enforcement Supervisor RH/js SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PALMER DEPAULIS City Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSON, P.L. MAYOR 444 SOUTH STATE STREET CITY EN;INEEY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7E71 TO: ALLEN C. McCANI)LESS , ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANES, FROM: HARRY EWING, ENGINEERING DATE: OCTOBER 16 , 1 9 8 9 SUBJECT: PETITION 400-764 This department has reviewed petition 400-764 requesting the City vacate the East-West alley on block 166 Survey Plat D, located north of Ilth Avenue running between "K" to "L" Street . The alley north and south entering from 12th Avenue was vacated July 26 , 1955 bill No. 56 . We would like to recommend approval of this petition and will process the changes in our records upon notification from your office . HE: cp cc : Max G. Peterson Vault SALT CITY CORPORATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 345 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PROPERTY (801) 535-7133 October 16, 1989 TO: Allen C. McCandless Environmental Plannerl�C� FROM: Linda Cordova jY Property Manager SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 400-764 ALLEY VACATION, EAST-WEST ALLEY ON BLOCK 166, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, PLAT "D" Property Management has no objection to the alley vacation based on single family residential development. Any multifamily development abutting the alley should be considered commercial_ and treated as an alley closure rather than vacation. LC/mt McCandless.Alley.Vac. LEROY W HOOTON, JR DIRECTOR WENDELL E EVENSEN, PE �., WAiER`SUP RINIL NOEEAWGRI« SALE''DIKE'CITY CORPORATION; E TIM DOXEY suFERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY A WATERWORKS PALMER DGF'.AuLIS JAMES M LEWIS, C PA. WATER RECI AMATION M YOR CHIEF FINANCE 8 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, RE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING & ZONING FROM: E. T. DOXEY WATER RECLAMATION SUPERINTENDENT DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1989 SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 400-764/EAST-WEST ALLEY ON BLOCK 166 S. L.C. SURVEY PLAT"D" The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the Petitioner ' s request. There are no water or sewer conflicts. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Ray Eastman at 483-6787 . /kg FORMS cc: File THE REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE 244 WEST 400 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 801-530-5005 Doug Wheelwright Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street #406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 January 20 , 1990 Dear Doug: As per our conversation with you and Allen McCandless , I have mailed a certified letter to each owner, abutting the alley between "K" and "L" streets and between llth and 12th Avenue . Copies of these letters are enclosed. Please make formal application to the city council for "closure" of the alley concerned. ( lf the closure is approved) , please have the necessary legal papers drawn up , which allows for the right of way, as outlined in the petition signed by the owners in July of 1989. My thanks to you and Allen for the time spent with me personally. Your personable attitude and understanding was appreciated by myself. Thank you . Sincerely, • avid E. "Thomas Service in Real Estate Since 1950 Management, Sales, Leasing and Rentals Homes, Apartments, Office, Warehouse, Storage Units, etc. January 19, 1990 Galen Tirrell "K" Street Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Dear Galen: This letter is being written to inform you and update you on the alley closure connecting our properties. It is my understanding that the city is prepared to do the following: 1. Based upon the petition signed by all residents, except for 4 Mr. Ludlow who is not opposed to the petition, the city is prepared to bring this matter before the city council for a closure action. If the closure is approved, then the city legal . department will issue deeds giving title to us as owners. Also included in the deed, will he n right of way from "II" street ' through to the owner of 729 llth Avenue, Martin Caravati. Decnuse Mr. Ludlow did not sign the petition it is my understanding that the city will do one of two things. They will deed the property to him, and nllow for the right of way. Or the property will remain in the ownership of the city, which will allow those concerned to use it as a right of way. If there is not opposition from us as owners, then the closure will proceed as outlined above. It is my wish and I hope yours, that the city will close the alley as per our petition. The deeds giving ownership will allow the right of wny necessary for those located in the center of the block, and control its use by us. 2. If the city does not approve the petition, then a contractor's bond of $20,000 dollars, which is being held, will be used for improvements. In other words, on inviting "street" alley will he made, which will be accessible, not only by ourselves, but also, kids, prowlers, sightseers, etc. , 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for as long as the property remains a dedicated alley. I hope we es residents con realize the negative impact choice two would have upon our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our homes and rear yards. We ns a neighborhood have one of two choices, an access controlled by us for our own private use or a thoroughfare through our backyards. I hope choice one is the wise and accepted choice of the neighborhood. Thank You, \=.—,4; avid E. Thomas 73 7 // /ii 5.3o--s 2f5 -4v 3 2z --y . , 'c ilnittsp7d'i1 .11if typ :tea 1 :4: t fbFA s:. . ./-.c �� p� r si}� ��.: f' , -c c u n t\ � '.'.._f'i ,�.r_\'. 8 L, P 879 550 293 (''' J ll'OSO j n 0 .; e] •K rr ,� w ` - Vr 3 V YSy+vi.{4i r r :•MAIIt,r;: , i, r:1ft{i. \� !:T// i _ 64', .!,,,4 Ni. a X w yQ m1401") 5-1)12112°' cn Q ' 011,j41,0 lu THE REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE 244 WEST 400 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 801-530-5005 Mayor Palmer DePaul is � p 1 City County Building Salt Lake City , Utah September 13 , 1989 Honorable Mr . DePautis : We place before your consideration a petition to close the alley on the Danford Suhdvision , Block 166, Plate "D" . Enclosed is a true and exact cony for your records of that petition . The petition has been signed by all owners except for the resident at 558 K Street , a Mr . Hal Ludlow. However , it should be noted that he is at the west end and a closure would not affect him . We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter , and look forward to an immediate response to this petition . Any questions or requests for further information may be directed to me at 530- 5005 . Sincerely , • David E . Thomas 737 11th Avenue . Salt Lake City , Utah Service in Real Estate Since 1950 Management, Sales, Leasing and Rentals Homes, Apartments, Office, Warehouse, Storage Units, etc. A PETITION TO CLOSE THE ALLEY ON THE DUNFORD SUBDIVISION, BLOCK -48-- As a consideration and a condition of our signing the closure of the alley abutting our properties , we the owners agree to the following concerning the alley and the alley only: /66 Upon closure of the alley on the Dunford subdivision Block 108, we agree to the following: P/4,k '2. 1 . That that part of the alley abutting lots 7 , 8, and 9, totalling from the east of L Street going west , 99 linear feet , be divided equally into a northerly half belonging to the owner of lot 6, and a southerly half, belonging to the respective owners of lots 7 , 8, and 9. 2 . That that part of the alley abutting lots 10 , 11 , 12 , 13, 14, 15 , and 16 on the south , and lot 17 and the westerly 66 feet of lot 6 on the north, be left open as a right-of- way as it is presently. 3 . That this is binding upon all present and future owners of the concerned properties . Signed • and d a t e d =/ ,y Owner of lot 7 and part of lot 8, known as 74 / /7/4/ • • •c• ,u:• E1 and dated 1 0 . Owner of part of lot 8, all of lot 9, and- part of lot 10, known as ) 2 0% 11 ' 1t • - 0_._ and dated 1_2x0,21 Owner of part of lot 10 , all of lot 11 and part of lot 12 , know: as flit I (.5 a '�(,Q.1 �,r� ; 1 i c (.4 /, ,, .. Y. r -page 2- Lc e v/IN '!' and dated 7/-, �,;y Owner of part of lot 12,, and part of lot 13 , known as 7L7 t ,7 " !,.��. ',) ` , ci, vJ j -' .',A^ .� ) and dated LJ 1 S I El' / / )Owner of part of lot 13 all of lot 14 and part of lot 15 , known as -RA_ J.= / I RI / i �' and dated Owner of part of lot 15 and all of lot 16 , known as . and dated 7—.0 - 87 Owner of all of 1..ot---1-17 , known as - 61,,'r 4 o1-5 2i3,f anci 6 - -Z.rr.--e, X-, / � = and dated 7 .�/� 7 Owner of all of lot 6, known as4___A / I/ /I i'S- 1( I-N- C " '' H '' / ' ' , , _ pi,/ ( '3iS. : SC (. -irt�l; 1 x I tc): `�l c ` J 7- ' - 2 -,0„, t :IT:-........> 1, 1 ....- I-z T AVE; i ^ 1 \\\ I ? i_ - :1 I p ; J F- -i —____ i , -1/ 0 d e_.xIST\N (7 i. cv —)— 17 0 o -f' DF 'Z f n UN 1 O.D 5UE5UIViswr) ijV1 ; 2 8 8 a t : r, 3 ,� p ` 1 I / TH. AVE 4 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' \\ D RO P O 3 C \\ . 7 ' /VI0VQlIE SQlCBDfl Q/85zoav AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS /-6, /7-22, arid VACATED 20f1. ALLEY OUNFORO'S SUED/V/S/ON TfiIS PLAT IS 51AOE SOLEIii.v,;410iFysy0c.R, OF BLOCK /66, PLAT "D" SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY PURPOSE OF ASSISTING INIHELAND.AH THE COMPAAUGUST, /986HOLIABILITYOR VARIATII+.'•' / 2 i ' A V E N U E ANY. WITHANA�TU LSU . • ti L / 1 v4 _1 - +,-r r'z .V es,•S/'-,'-;yam _.SO.O 'Cccsr! 1 ii Q . • I j / . )7 • 0 ,,,! -\\3 ‘,.\'„ , ,;., ,, ' 1, '1 • iT /0/JJ rr. I ; 1 \1 = I tJ:r__/- IO K M ► �'. \ N \ w\_ ',11 ,: t) t 6 .. e • 1 I� -------�---- ' J'd9'T/'.'J-c ALLY r 1 r �y 51 'ice — i— i 1 T :— — {.,� { k i ° lI `� I I ' '"1 , `•Js� )).11../'11,:', k \. \I � Al 't1\ 1U in/itcn.) .t- Petition No. 400-764 ;, By David E. Thomas i �� 'L D d ��4 1 i,-ii'r rLAI\ Requesting permission to close the ?ONING CC 1 alley on the Dunford Subdivision Block 166 — Plate "D" 1 1 1 1 1 1 II' I I i 1 1 Dale Filed September 20, 1989 Address 737-11th Avenue _ NOTICE OF HEARING SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City is currently reviewing petition number 400-764 by David Thomas requesting the vacation of an entire east-west alley located in the Avenues. The location of the alley is on block 166 of Salt Lake City Survey Plat D. The alley runs east and west from K to L Street in the mid-block and between llth and 12th Avenues. As part of their consideration the City Council is holding a public hearing. During this hearing information will be presented during the hearing relating to the petitioners request. Anyone desiring to address the Council relating to this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: May 8, 1990 TIME: 6:20 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Room 315 Salt Lake City and County Bldg. 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Please share this information with your neighbors who may be interested. If you have a question relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Allen McCandless during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. office hours at 535- 7757. 1 , .1' e`e. '‘. ',,'• -.-*•,..-..:ti:::`,7_-,_ .14,. ,%'4 - --......„ - i • . - -' • - - - - / 3 i -7,11 - - . /..:::, ‘•-,,, '•.5:--;1-.-.!)(I -71 -771 .. . IS .., :• -7-71 '41 :1' .. •..1* Ilk :-f," *•.,L .... ...•• ' . . ,.: ..4! "rile -11'.._ C • i.: ,.4:,fr:;., , 't ' • ...=.fr.... "7"'' ••, •P. '''' °Will31' 111' ' 1. . fr ; . •;t.-4,' ,„''.k:. -i•.‘1's';'. * (Nc Jr . ... . . ^71 •40•4flor.... 1 f. tr.tf t,,:f.'• ,4_1:.. ' 67' ..,-..-- '• ',.-:. ,'!3,• . "' . --:--;,'..1 ,-, '711 ICS F..,,,,...;....:, -,._,,, • - , .. ,, : ,,, , .,,i 44k . . .,,,, 1,. "...' 1 G 5 -V1 -7"rj ,,..1. , - -!''A .,..- ..tealit.t4.*i•'14-•-;..',44,:'d /6.5 f' •, ---''' - --'-'-•''''-*-4.,..,' ,,.- , -, r . :p., ,:. • 7',7.:„. •_. , '..' -.40!.: •-, -... Vac. 1 • --:-, • -•_., .4.: .---_-•4'.....-''''T Ili":iVItt:' .., . ..,..1...‘..4)., •. ...:- :Ai:'L'Artv'll'••Ail" 24 7.5 "4•..„:"•.,-,.._,',„7,7:t.:. . ,-.L..., kiZto:c..... ii kn r -i AVE t\i - lie . to.... ,...i t.,-,...........4..*,,;.-7.•,- -, •Ir- , - , , „..8, •. AAri„.,,,,,,-,..,64,:c:;'°"7"..'4'..77.7,!..1:::,-'.**t,•*-1. ...••..7"' -. *' t(77:Z i•1.,,, • ,AL.5,-`;`1 Nlirt.: 9' ••.4 -•. , -...,-. : - .. . ,' ,.'....'.-. ' •c'','...-„ -.'-'i., t'r" ..",' Ii2;$''. , .A`ik`• - •." 4:i,' %.,))_,i.-.. , .7.• ,.;::,,,:. '.i.n.4,, : .. ..- • - . ,., milhoi6 .,'....:4 '.„,, . .,-, '.- ,L,.. •..•'.4.....4."'`,'.',:',.;,-- ''..•.7. , .20,v ...zii,:.,;;;3,,....,,, 7 • :, ,- ' ..C"C'':..''''' - '1.:‘.004. ' '..*' ttaS ' ,.. ; , . .jz. ”,; -,,,,-., ,'''',,,..., ..' ' '‘.'-'1.,...., .,' • - ". - _ '4,., -' 0 ,!, .„ .--,Z..7 4 - 1,4/ r' ''' •,... . .-, • • - .i., 1...,•• • ,, •,''w . . . .. 11-1 "1-.•, .., . ,..• '''"'"'•••• ' .-:,•••••,4,..;4e . - , ...... ,.'. , ,•,,i, --,-. .. ' '71 -*,IN '::,-.,.',..... ''' -''...,`,.. .„,.-,,...-.- .-,t,•.,.6.- ,,.,-...",.r.',:3',;,... ../ , . . . N• :••••• •••; '-'•;••71;- :. ,;-' •-- .., , - tSP.• ,'lri, ''','.-.-,•.''.4,, , ,_ . ....., , ":%, • . ;. ,...:, • ..r '.!;7 t;::- :;-,, , 2 t„- *-71,7"7 :-" s'. •..,,:1„., ..,:‹,..c* i- , • , . , ,.,,. . .'-',''', lic,37. L' .,, .:: t % •.7 .41,7 '••••:''''- I Iran - 1*--, Tsti •..A7' -- A. - - ..: .'4,1i4 .• . ...•,,, .,, '-.4• -• •- . 4 ..! '--','*. . ' ., .' 1.., : D ''!.,, , ' ''„%.•,.!.,.%., f..'.-:$:2-,i•i 4••,„r.1.t1,4-..;':!;'-''.•t,-‘..',..:!1•, .4."."7,4-.,,:.).',,;_v'C'.'`i e,z.',,.',--..-...r,4-!-!1,.1,...,.'..'7,.-•..7..=,,a-..-=;-;-,.-,,,-c ..:-.....-.1'%'' '',3."4 - • •. . '•'•.. . -'... .,_•... ''',, ...4:.) ..i'.-- • .. .. ..-... ".,.;, ..ft..,.r.,,„,•.-••.„--,•..;.;;-:.'°'',.,•-,'r-.---.---A-;„. ' • / : r t :- r - • .. k < , . ,; ,.t, .r 7 3 . A:,04t4 , )1a , _ . - . :„,,, ... ,• -t ,- • 00 t :t .1/4:..1„:‘,:.--. .' •,.:' ' •.,c.i.,&.S•4,;7 - ; - . . .. ' •'...! . ' .'-'•*.-, -:-':•• • .'- - 7 ' ., -'*-7'7.; .. •7•ii, •> :' \:••,-.,••••-.-1-.,t....'-•''t 4- -I\''-.‘•:• • ;''jf 41‘.! . .'.,.•-.:);c 4...1..•'•I,t,V' '''' • 4 •- .. .., -A.---Ni - - . . , .. . t'i--.. •f-. .1 . 0,f ...‘ ''' i,v., .4.1,.. • _ '.. .4 'e 4_, 4 :',... i,- ,'I . '2,i,i.1T*.',,-.0--Y.- -.!1•4,„,4 ..',,„,„0, ,,,I,,,..,- - „ . , , tr ,•,.. r , •••., --&-.'- •.. " - "'" . , -,LY•Te.tt-7,'' - • , .--• +.'"1.'''',. ;7 , ;',"' :.-,,'", ,.:;':,t-,.''- l'i„:4:,t„.!':.••'. 1:',, ,.„ . ,, , . . . ,....,, , . • l'-',.'i I.:It . '.... .. -!-. , - .' ,:.:• ...4:'-,-,;$"1.!-.".:.'1;`.`."---, Jk-' - '..:,,v.-.',„ • • , . it, tiutt•,,,:.4t,,,.--G-:„.;:. . .-. -.4::: : , ,.....:;....-:,,,,',-,,,,,..?'i2,14-:fr,.- ' '''cl!zi 4'. -,) .4:- ' ,i,,,„,. ' ,1; 4r. i .' .21.. • • c, • '', , ' '''...6 V 1 ' '...-. •.1'...‘T.r. .' i''.', N."'.''. .., ,.. ... ..., ''-,1.# """°" ": 7;;:.";:: ::: "":".5:*:''' ,•-;... .....:.*. .E.igaiii.i.'an.';.E.ii.]aMiMMiiir,,i],h.. _, •.•,i:.,•:••:•:.::iiimiiiii:fi::-:••••••s%:::-!-:••••••,:,:m..m9viipi:-E:';'.:T.;'2,;;;J,-"i:!:" Y.;,,;:..ig.:•;:4140::"..;:o....4..-, ,,;„. ..._ :...,,t....-.V4,...-:::r,-7^.;','`....4''''''-------------------,'"----`•........ '::-74:. , ,... ,. ... -.• - , ,„i 7•1--' - 4444. .'''''••• :-.f•':' '";••:-'.1%•"••',"•;.`";'• .,''',..;',.,' - -;•-•• 1.1ftl4f;;Y'''!'i.74- '-- •`•••1*. •>7" '.. .7::,;',:- .1i..''',*1'‘! ..., ..,;'';''':1 "...' •;:!:.; :xcit. , . .. -,- L:‘ .:'. ..,.,, v.., ' • I .4' '... 't'-:•. •' '' - - •-• .' ''''-' ' . = . .- '-. _ • . , -.-., '••. ;,,,i110, : 1.- ••,1 • •: , ,s, • -:.:3 ., -g- ?_ ,,- ,:'";''' ioei, „ •• '•".' • ..., -- _ •-.• •; ; • , '•5! i • ,.-1:.t'T,. ''..P"' ,1.-} t,-- ,...;; .:-7: ''.`4---• 'L••''4,-, .•,‘-,,.47 .-: ',i...;...I.'-'••. c..:., , • ' ,•••'.:3147, - ,_ , . .1 '"•. '1 -•-1'0. *.'51i;,.; ri-: ,ff-''. :...:-,',va.-..', ,'--;,. -";(,.V;•••.-:;.-.t.-A5,ilii ---.•' ' ,, -:-. ,•.'.1-, - \. • - ' •; t• /-' --;• ',4 i',.... . • ..2.-{:...;17''''..:i':',..''• k.,,:. ... *.of,;..t. ..„7T,1..'"-:': . '.,.;.:;..-;•-,::!',,,,,,,,:Vt,--.' 'IV!IL:' ,.- ' ' . ,,,4'4-'mSi -''.. - N. i I' ••-•--'1,.;/la' -..'7'•-"iii,', -'' 1-- 1 -"c' ..,•,',..„.,•••.--. ''''" ' :,:•.' '''''''' ,4', i..---- ...,- al - •, TS .. ."'7-.'4iti,,i..i....r,;.... r.,„;.,•, ',.• ,... rr, •,, ',,--'.. • ..,.;•,.-;„„iiii4,6%.•.1,-.;:'! *c ,._..f.iy,,:,7, .•.",;-,W - . :!.„4'.--i ;4,,,,_ . ,- --,.• ...,:, ., *,:.'-4 -,•,...7K;1,440 L ... - -' •.4,----•- . •-•t:...;.4.,,,,,.. ,i. 'l ; -011,,,- ",..(1-.;., • ,• A sc) _.. . . r .... ::-.-A:-...•-,1,-:-- . N4 .-'..' 4, 4. •-• Il L:. %,,r3i,','•E,: I -_,-..e. ..-7 J•,-. ..LI 4 : sC) 1 ' Q, . N. :1- .:r , 1 • - ... _ „r1 .;',t...e.....- si! 11 - : " 4:.7:',v...7k1-..- , • . ... -.. .. . •,;•,.. ,i. .",.F.: f , -_, . ... . • •,?. . , .. • it ' . - . , .. • r-, . \ ' 1-:- :.: ---- . i '441 ,. • .. .-.-. '..r• •, . s•••••.. .-i, • 7--, „NAL • „,4 cn 'Q) t.....„ ..,. ..--,,, : • ., •,..,-,_, .0, . • "..,......,..-, .,,,... -, ..-.r- ., - --..--- . --,......,.. --..... -----. - .,,,'. ---,,, N.,:--7-.---• - -A .:.!:..: ,c, .:::,•• ' i 1 r ---.5,.. 1 f '''' ;.,-;•••• ;--,‘"4. .. 1•":Z`, .. A 7* ?.- 7.rri!-.7'. ,,...,-,. . .. •- i• -L-[ kkr '4'. A.•rit t-,--1.14/*_., ''s• ,' 771,-*, 7'4. *.* iF,' ..•4-- •-4477‘ li..fli, ,f 7"t ..{,iilis‘4. ___AhAzik - ... •,,, ....., - - ,- * -,_%dtf._ •,• t;••!..f'-',- ;;A,A.;•. -','''. ':•• *''''..."- *- -.....,.. t.. 7"• -',.i.,le. •-."'---•'it'll ,,td:,...1''k4111. 0 '-.4,...- 7.-.7...t'4• ‘77-•--;:'•-':'..',..' 1"'i ;''''''''1:N" - . 4'.'k7,-* .,:r,.•,. Y/., /?, • Jeffrey J 6 Jae B Harrow Brigitta Wray 709 East llth Ave 718 Northview Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Inger P. Ludlow 558 North K Street 't Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 noch L 1, Nathan R Smith i17 East llth Avenue ~ t;✓ Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 V IRC?L £ 51-1/0CLENE MAy�S McKean-Davis Partnershin 2166 South Wellington Street 5S zS S00"+.-1 'ion Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Surr� 3�0 LRue- C tom/ UT xµj17 E. Martin Caravati 729 East llth Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 David E B Kay D Thomas �� 737 East llth Avenue \V 00 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 eU Cr. Greg M. Larsen t //:///' 1010 North Hillfield RD. 01 \ 7\A Layton, Utah 84041 Clissold Investement Co. 1500 South Foothill Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 MIKE ZUHL SALTLAKE'GIT Y GORPO1Oi,1 LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 Re: Petition No. 400-778 Legislative Action Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Legislative Action to waive the fee for alley vacations in residential areas. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The City is supportive of alley vacations. We realize that many alleys in the City are not maintained, are a haven for illegal activities and are dumping grounds for garbage. It has been the City's informal policy to waive the fee for any request that has the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners and we still support that policy as the best solution. By requiring the $100.00 filing fcc it is an incentive for the owners to contact their neighbors and discuss all options together, this of course does make the City's job easier. There are some occasions where a property owner cannot be contacted or for some reason will not sign the petition. However, if there is no incentive to contact your neighbors, will requests come in where no other neighbor has been contacted and their first contact with the alley vacation idea is a notice from Salt Lake City inviting them to the public hearing. This will add to the length of the public hearings because it will be the owners first opportunity to meet and discuss this issue. We are also recommending that a new application form be adopted that would make the petitioner responsible to provide information required to evaluate and process the request. This form is similar to the one we require on street name changes. It will still be necessary for the staff to review and verify the accuracy of the information provided, however, staff time should be reduced significantly. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared throe ordinances 1) waives the fee for residential alley requests 2) waives the fcc for residential alley requests on a temporary basis and 3) waives the foes for alley requests who have 1000 of the abutting property owners signatures. .mitted by: ICHAEL B. Z Interim Direct lf/ ROGER F. CUTLER SALT L id111, \JIl 1', CORPORATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY - - - - - RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPENDLOVE BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 JANICE L FROST MEMORANDUM TO: LuAnn Fawcett Development Services FROM: Bruce R. Baird j ' Assistant City Attorney f) +. -� DATE: March 8, 1990 RE: Residential Alley Vacations We already had two versions of the ordinance waiving residential alley vacation fees . One was a temporary one for a time to be specified and the other was permanent . This third version is a permanent waiver only in the event of 100% consent . If you want, or the Council wants , I can add this 100% requirement to the temporary ordinance. I have stamped all three ordinances so the Council can take their pick . If you have any questions , just let me know. BRB:ap SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21. 10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts where 100 % consent of the abutting property owners has been obtained. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21 .10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21 .10. 090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. The fee waiver provided by this section shall be in effect only from , 19 to 19 . SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - _ - PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 February 28, 1990 Mike Zhul, Director Community & Economic Development City & County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-778 - Tegislative Action, Alley Fee Waiver in Residential Zones Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition 400-778 a Legislative Action from the City Council requesting that the Planning Coninission review an ordinance providing for the waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential areas. It has been City policy to vacate alleys whenever such vacations would not create new problems or compound existing ones; such as: creating dead end situations which restrict or cause hazards for emergency vehicle access, or removing needed access for abutting property owners. It has also been an informal policy that if the person submitting the alley vacation request has the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners on the petition the filing fee is waived. Alley vacation requests require the involvement of many City Departments. Through the review process of this Tegislative Action several City departments have been requested to provide an approximate cost for reviewing alley vacation requests and also to provide comments on waiving the fee for alley vacation requests in residential zones. The departments who have provided comments have expressed concern at the loss of revenue (as small as it is) to cover the cost of time and personnel for reviewing and dealing with alley vacation requests. As you can see from the attached cost sheet, the present $100.00 filing fee does not come close to covering the City's cost in handling such requests. Page 2 Mike Zhul February 28, 1990 Re: Petition 400-778 - Legislative Action, Alley Fee Waiver in Residential Zones Based on these comments and in keeping with established City policy, I would recommend the following: - add to the proposed ordinance language which will cover the condition that if 100% of the abutting property owners sign the petition requesting an alley vacation in a residential zone, no filing fee or advertising fee will be charged; - establish an application process where the petitioner will be responsible for providing the information required to evaluate and process the request (see attached form) . It will still be necessary for staff to review and verify the accuracy of the information provided for such requests, however, staff time should be reduced significantly. If you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Alle /C. ohnson, AICP Pla in Director ACJ:JJ ALLEY VACTION PETITION REVIEW PROCESS COSTS COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - administration and petition preparation $ 40.00 ATTORNEY - ordinance preparation and clerical work $ 45.00 ENGINEERING - research, correspondence and data base change $ 80.00 FIRE - administration and field check $113.00 PLANNING - administration, coordination of review process, $160.00 Planning Commission and City Council meetings (approximately 8 hrs. @ $20.00/hr. ) PUBLIC UTILITIES - administration and clerical $ 40.00 REAL PROPERTY - administration and research $ 50.00 RECORDER - ordinance, notice and staff time $165.00 TRANSPORPATION - administration and field check $ 51.00 '101'AL $744.00 RESIDENTIAL ALLEY VACATION REQUEST APPLICATION •Dt P D ID Date: / / Petitioner's Name: Petitioner's Address: Zip Petitioner's Phone: Property Owner's Name (if different from above) : Property Address (if different from above) : Zip Please submit the following information with this application: 1. Identify the reasons why the alley should be vacated. 2. Submit with this application signatures of the abutting property owners who support this alley vacation request. 3. A legal description of the alley vacation area. 4. A copy of the appropriate Salt Lake County Ownership Map ("Sidwell") including aerial photo and property line overlay. Outline on this map the alley or segment of alley requested to be vacated with a colored marker. Indicate on the "Sidwell" map with a colored dot those properties supporting this request. These maps are available from the Salt Lake County Recorder, Room N1600, 2001 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1051, Phone: (801) 468-3391. WHERE TO FILE Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development Room 418 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7777 FILING PEE $100.00 SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER DATE ALLEY vPCATIcN/crmJRE REQUEST INEURMATTCN An alley vacation/closure is a process where Salt Lake City officially ends the right of the public to unrestricted access to the alley, and allows the City to then dispose of it's real property interest to the abutting property owners subject to various conditions and fees. Generally, an alley vaction is for areas with residential zoning and the request comes from the residential property owner(s) . If an alley vaction request is approved, property transfers are generally made at no cost to abutting property owners by the City Recorder's office recording with the County Recorder the City ordinance vacating the alley. An alley closure is for an areas with commercial zoning and the request comes from the commercial property owner(s) . If an alley closure request is approved, property is offered for sale at fair market value to the abutting property owners. The property owner(s) are responsible for obtaining a property appraisal and for recording the property deed with the County Recorder. City departmental review for Alley vacation/closure requests include Community and Economic Development, City Attorney, Public Works, Finance, Public Utilities and Fire. SALTMP O GORPO 'ION DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR (801) 535-7676 MEMORANDUM TO: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning FROM: Linda Hamilton, Director of Finance DATE: December 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Waiving Alley Vacation Fcc The Department of Finance would like to express concern over the proposed ordinance waiving the $100 alley vacation fcc, even though the waiver is for residential areas only. While the intent of the legislation may be well meaning, it should be pointed out that the current fee does not cover the current cost of processing vacation petitions. The Finance Department Property Management Division incurs costs of $50 on routine petitions alone. Transportation, Engineering, Planning and Zoning and Fire Department must also review and process such petitions, and obviously incur similar costs. The concept of charging foes for services is most appropriately used when those who pay the fee directly and nearly exclusively benefit from the services provided. Petitioners are the direct beneficiaries of alley vacations. Property is typically deeded to them and thereby incre,9ses the value of the petitioners' private property. Waiving the current fcc of $100 (which is likely insufficient to cover processing costs) will simply require a subsidy of other general fund tax revenues for the direct and exclusive benefit of petitioners. SALT LAKE:CITY CORPORATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIREC1OR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 345 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PROPERTY (801) 535-7133 December 15, 1989 T0: Janice Jardine Planning FROM: Linda Cordova' Property Manager REF: ALLEY VACATION FEE WAIVER When Property Management receives requests to review petitions, we will always tour the site and research plat maps and County and/or City records before submitting our recommendation. If it does not require a great deal of research, our time and costs would run an average of 3-4 hours or $48.00 - $52.00 to process. If it requires extensive research it may take another two hours to process. It isn't economically feasible for departments to spend a great deal_ of time researching and processing the petitions if we re not going to require a fcc. Therefore, consideration should be given as to how to reduce the review process if the fcc is going to be waived. I hope this is helpful in making the decision. LC/mt Jardine.Waiver RECORDER'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS REGARDING ALLEY VACATIONS Notice of Hearing: $113.00 Ordinance: 21 . 00 Staff Time: Publishing 3 . 05 15 min. @ $12 . 18/hr. Council Meetings 7 . 27 average 30 min. @ $14 . 54/hr. Minutes 14. 54 average 60 min. @ $14 . 54/hr. Send Notice of Hearing 1 . 91 15 min. @ $7 . 63/hr. Prepare and Index File 3. 64 15 min. @ $14 . 54/hr. TOTAL $164. 41 Figures are based on averages. JOSEPH R. ANDERSON SALTS''/CITY CORPORATION. TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6630 December 15 , 1989 Janice Jardine Planning & Zoning City Hall RE: Petition No . 400-778 - Alley Vacation Fee Waiver Dear Janice: The Division of Transportation is not in favor of the petition for the waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential areas. There are costs involved to the city when an alley vacation is processed. For alley vacation, approval is required of abutting property owners . The fee could be minimal if all affected property owners would participate in the cost . The fee may prevent people without unanimous support of abutting property owners from filing. The procedure for an alley vacation review by the Division of Transportation is as follows : Receive vacation request and assign investigation. Perform field inspection and assess transportation impact . Coordinate and write division response. Follow up outcome and file field review if requested . The petition review requires approximately two hours administrative time and one hour field work at an appropri_al_- cost of $51. 00 . Sincerely, Scott R. Vaterlaus Traffic Engineer I SRV/lh cc : Tim Harpst ,A ,rt- Steve Meyer Barry Walsh 6 .:i19 PALMER DEPAULIS SALT,' _GUY CORPORATION' MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYORS CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City Engineering Division 444 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7871 TO: JANICE JARDINE, PLANNING FROM: CHERYL SLAYMAKER , ENGINEERING DATE: DECEMBER 21 , 1989 SUBJECT: WAIVING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS This department has reviewed Petition #400-778 requesting an ordinance providing for thr waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts . This department recommends approval adopting this ordinance as a public service and in the best interest of the City . Please find listed below estimated costs from this department for processing alley vacations . Research 2 hours = $40 . 00 Correspondence 1 hour = $20 . 00 Data Base Charges 1 hour = $20 . 00 If you have any questions , please call me at 535-6247 . CS : cp cc : Vault SALT LAKE CITY FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU TO: Janice Jardine Planning Commission FROM: Blaine Collins Plan Review/Inspector RE: Alley vacation petition costs DATE: December 15, 1989 The break down of costs involving fire department personal required to evaluate an alley vacation petition. 1 F.P.B. inspector 1 hour $50.00 1 Engine crew/with one captain and three firefighters 1/4 hour $62.50 Total $112.50 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR T WENDELL E_ EVENSEN, P.E. SALT+ ::Win i €101? ,7�ORpp ION SUPERINTENDENT c -•` l r „t•: a .. .. . WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPFRECLAMAN' Water Supply & Waterworks WATER RECLAMATION PALMER DEPAULIS Water Reclamation MAYOR JAMES M. LEWIS, C_P_A. CHIEF FINANCE& 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING & ZONING FROM: E . T . DOXEY WATER RECLAMATION SUPERINTENDENT DATE : DECEMBER 19 , 1989 SUBJECT: ALLEY VACATIONN FEE WAVIER The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the Petitioner ' s request . There are no water or sewer conflicts . If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Ray Eastman at 483-6787 . /kg FORMS cc: File MIKE ZUHL SALT'LAKE' L KE CITY CORPORATION- LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 T0: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 Re: Zoning Amendment - Airport Chapter Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss the Airport's request to amend Section 21.76.080 and 21.76.120 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to airport zoning and height restrictions. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Background and Discussion: This amendment will bring the height limitation slope ratios for two runway approach zones into compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. This change will allow a steeper approach slope which allows a higher height limit closer to the runway. Basically the modification would be: Section 21.76.080 - "Utility runway visual approach zone" slope ratio from a 40" horizontal to 20' horizontal while the l' vertical remaining the same. Section 21.76.120 - "precision instrument runway approach zone" slope ratio from a 100' horizontal to 50' horizontal while the 1' vertical remains the same. The Planning Commission has reviewed this amendment and recommends approval. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. S mitteed by: M L B. Z terim Director lf/ SAI.,T LAKE CITM CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - _ - - -- - - PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR EAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 March 16, 1990 TELEPHONE 535-7757 Mike Zuhl , Director Community and Economic Development City and County Building Salt Lake City , UT 84111 Re : Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Airport Chapter Dear Mike : Attached please find copies of an ordinance amending Sec . 21. 76. 080 and 21 . 76 . 120 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to airport zoning and height regulations . This amendment to the zoning ordinance will bring the height limitation slope ratios for two runway approach zones into compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 . Simply put, this change will allow a steeper approach slope which allows a higher height limit closer to the runway. Basically, the modification would change : A. Sec . 21 . 76 . 080 - "utility runway visual approach zone" slope ratio from a 40 ' horizontal to 20 ' horizontal while the 1 ' vertical remains the same . B. Sec . 21 . 76. 120 - "precision instrument runway approach zone" slope ratio from a 100 ' horizontal to 50 ' horizontal while the 1 ' vertical remains the same . The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment at their regular meeting , March 15 , 1990 . The Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text modification to Sec . 21 . 76 . 080 and Sec. 21. 76 . 120 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with airport zoning and height regulations . Sinc -e1y, Allen C. Johnson, ALCP Planning Director SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AIRPORT AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR ZONING TEXT MODIFICATION OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND Thin in a reqm-:ia frn H ' H ! al!- Cr : y / part Anfhe- ity to amend Sec. 21 . 7() . 000 H11,1 ;, ,:. -,,,. . ./ . 10 (,f tli- :-,Iii r_, I:e City Zoning OLdinanne which : flIoLen lo oirpo! I zening and height, regulations. ANALYSIS This amendment to thc ../f•oir . , ! ,1mr_Imcc, '.- Hi Lriny the height limitation slope ralinH fcr i - o tilly ppr (- - ,:h 7.(,11(s intn compliance rJilh rode! Rvio ! - en ft, nulottonfl [COO 71 . Simply put, this change will allow a '; iLopnr rippro.lch nape which allows a higher height Limit elc,nra- ; ,--, 111,7, 1 ,1nwFly. Basically, the nodificallnn ..,innld (-1-1,7ingn: A. sec. 21 . 760e "utility runway visual approach zone" slope ratio fro a 40 " heri7ental in 20 ' horizontal while the 1 " vertical remains the sai' e. B. Sec. .2 ] 7(), In '' T c ' ', •:`1"1 i r;- : 1 HT: ''Ilt 1.1111.571y approach zone" slope rcrl, ie ! re. i leo her i :;eala I to f0 " horizontal while the I " vecirical Homainn lH no •ci RECOMMENDATION SLaff iecomends fl -if P , !I aln r, ,=i 'l- inl-,. -' 00T.:(TIO t0 the City Council appFoval of In' if nr- --i t -xl medi ! ication to Sec. 21. 76. 080 and 77 -21 . 7(, . 176 -; ilw ../.,“Hly, c, (ilinorco which deal with airpoit zoninn ahri holohl Legulotions . Janice H. Mr(Jjr1(' March, 1990 EFFECT OF SLOPE RATIO CHANGE HEIGHT LIMITATION I • NEW RATIO EXISTING RATIO I- • - • I' DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY vAKF BOARD Elaine B.Weis, Chair PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor D r Curtis E.Ackerlind,Jr. • J.Alan Blodgett • Don A.Mackey 1-, LOUIS E. MILLER Eddie P. Mayne • Joseph Rosenblatt Director of Airports Patrick A. Shea • Thomas K.Welch OAT A U-S�O January 29, 1990 Alan Hardman, Chairperson and Salt Lake City Council City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Chairperson Hardman and Council Members: Subject: An ordinance amending Section 21 . 76.080 and 21 . 176. 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations. Fiscal Impact: None Discussion: Salt Lake City Code currently defines visual approach zone slopes in a forty foot horizontal for each one foot vertical ratio. This height limitation slope is not consistent with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, which provides for a twenty to one slope ratio. Although runway visual approaches are currently consistent with FAR 77, the requested ordinance change is to have City Code conform with federal requirements. Recommendation: It is respectfully requested that the Council approve the Ordinance amending Section 21 . 76.080, Salt Lake City Code, and thereby authorizing Mayor signature. Respect illy submitted, 7 ouis E. Miller Enclosure Salt Lake City Airport Authority • AMF Box 22084. Salt Lake City. Utah 84122 • (801)575-2400 0 Telefax: ,301) 575-2679 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.76 .080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 76 .080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations, be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: 21.76.080 Utility runway visual approach zone-Height limitation. The height limitation in a utility runway visual approach zone slopes upward [forty] twenty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of fig thousand feet along the extended runway centerline. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:ap *, 1,§ C Airg ill -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 76 . 080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 76 . 080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations, be, and the same is hereby amended as follows : 21 . 76. 080 Utility runway visual approach zone-Height limitation. The height limitation in a utility runway visual approach zone slopes upward twenty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of fie thousand feet along the extended runway centerline. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action : Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:ap -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .76 . 120 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 .76 . 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations, be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: 21.76.120 Precision instrument runway approach zone- Height limitation. The height limitation in a precision runway approach zone slopes upward [one hundred] fifty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of ten thousand feet along the extended runway centerline; and thence slopes upward forty feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional distance of forty thousand feet along the extended runway centerline. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:ap -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 76 . 120 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah : SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 76 . 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations , be, and the same is hereby amended as follows : 21 . 76 . 120 Precision instrument runway approach zone- Height limitation. The height limitation in a precision runway approach zone slopes upward fifty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of ten thousand feet along the extended runway centerline; and thence slopes upward forty feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional distance of forty thousand feet along the extended runway centerline . SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action : Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:ap -2- • LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR may. WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. V` ` ' 2 A QJ„i��ujffY�WWIo,e V! SUPERINTENDENT ►:l � �I 1 WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS WATER RECLAMATION JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. Water Reclamation MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER March 14, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: An agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State University (Fourth Laboratory Services Contract) Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and for- ward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Budget - Not to exceed $25, 000.00 Discussion: The University will perform certain sludge, soil and plant tissue sampling and analyses and provide technical assistance to the City's Department of Public Utilities Water/Wastewater Laboratory. The 1989 plan of work involves the monitoring of heavy metals on the sludge disposal farm. 1 . Please return two copies of the agreement to this office for further processing. Submitted by: LEROY W HOOTON, JR. Director Department of Public Utilities :laf Attachments L-1, 88 File RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : A contract for the University' s laboratory services in testing certain sludge, soil and plant tissues for the City' s Department of Public Utilities . 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc FOURTH LABORATORY SERVICES CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1989 , by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" , and UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY (Soil, Plant and Water Analysis Laboratory) , hereinafter "University" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City to have University perform certain services hereinafter stated and referred to as the "Project" ; and WHEREAS, University desires to provide said services for City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows : ARTICLE I . GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK AND SERVICES: A. Nature and Location of the Project . The Project shall be designated City Project No. 49-Q-5-40 , which shall consist of having University perform certain sludge, soil and plant tissue sampling and analyses and provide technical assistance to City' s Department of Public Utilities Water/Wastewater Laboratory. B. Employment of Engineer. City hereby agrees to retain University, and University agrees to provide sludge, soil and plant tissue analyses pursuant to the provisions hereof and of Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and by this reference made part hereof . 1 . University accepts complete professional engineering responsibiility for the Project and agrees that upon becoming aware of any fault, defect or deficiency in the work, prompt written notice thereof will be given to the City' s Director of Public Utilities . 2 . University agrees that the scope of the work for the Project as designated will provide a finished product adequate to meet the needs of the City. 3 . University' s services hereunder shall conform in all details and designs, with all applicable Federal, State and City laws, regulations and ordinances . C . Defects . University will endeavor to guard against defects or deficiency in the Project work. D . Reviews . City requires that University meet with the City periodically during the Project to discuss the status of the Project and for review and comment on the final report . E. Basic Services versus Additional or Special Services . "Basic Services" shall mean all services of University included in Article I , A through D, which shall be paid for as specified in Article III . "Additional or Special Services" shall mean any services not provided for under Basic Services, and shall be provided and paid for only pursuant to prior written authorization by the City and/or as provided in Article V hereof . Any work done or expense incurred by University without such written authorization shall be performed at University' s sole expense. ARTICLE II . CITY' S RESPONSIBILITY: -2- A. Authorization to Proceed . The City will notify the University in writing when to commence the work, such notification being hereinafter referred to as "authorization to proceed. " B. Examination of Documents and Rendering Decisions . The City shall examine documents submitted by University, if any, and render decisions pertaining thereto promptly so as to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the University' s services . C . Extension of Time. Should University advise the City, 1 in writing, of the existence of causes over which University has no control and which may delay the work, the City, in the event it finds such causes to be sufficient, shall extend the time specified for completion of the work. D. Notification of Fault, Defect or Deficiency. If the ` City becomes aware of any fault, defect or deficiency in the Project, it shall give prompt written notice thereof to the University. ARTICLE III . COMPENSATION: A. Fees . University' s total fees for rendering all basic services rendered and/or obtained hereunder shall be not more than the sum of $25, 000 . 00. A breakdown of said fee by Task is attached as Exhibit "B" . Payment for "additional or special services" shall be made only pursuant to the provisions of Article III (B) ( 2 ) , or as otherwise prior agreed to in writing by the parties . B. Payment . -3- 1 . Basic Services . Partial payment may be made monthly, conditioned upon receipt and approval by the City of an invoice covering the work completed to date. 2 . Additional or Special Services . Payment for "additional or special services" of University, prior authorized in writing by City, shall be made and based only upon a cost multiplier not to exceed 2 . 5 times the base salary. Base salary is defined as the salary paid to each employee, used for said services and authorized by City. C . Inspection/Audit. 1 . Obligation to Maintain Accounts and Records . For all services hereunder, University shall maintain for three ( 3 ) years all books , documents, papers , accounts , time sheets and other records pertaining to University' s costs incurred. Such records shall be prepared and maintained on generally recognized accounting principles . 2 . City' s Right to Inspect Work and Records . University shall make such records available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under this contract, for the inspection of the City and its duly authorized agents and employees . Such inspection, review or audit may be made by the City at any time during normal working hours and without notice . University agrees to furnish copies of any such documents to the City if requested to do so. -4- 3 . City shall have the right at all reasonable times during the contract period to inspect any and all of the work product of University. ARTICLE IV. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: A. Commencement. University agrees to commence work on the first working day following the date the City' s authorization to proceed is received by University. Said date shall be the date from which all time count shall be based. B. Work Schedule. Except as may be changed in writing by the City, the University shall complete the work and services described herein on or before December 31 , 1990 . C . Termination, Suspension or Abandonment. The right is reserved by the City to terminate this Agreement at any time upon seven ( 7 ) calendar days prior written notice: ( 1 ) in the event the Project is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed; ( 2 ) the services of University, in the judgment of the City, are unsatisfactory; or ( 3 ) because of University' s failure to prosecute the work with diligence or within the time limit specified. In any such case the City shall pay University for the work performed up to the time of such termination. All work accomplished by the University prior to the date of such termination shall be recorded, and tangible work documents shall be transferred to and become the sole property of the City prior to payment for such services . If the project is resumed after being suspended for more than three ( 3 ) months , University' s compensation shall be subject to renegotiation . -5- ARTICLE V. DIRECTION OF WORK: A. Written Communiques . University shall not make any alterations or variations in or additions to or omissions from the Project or terms of this contract without the prior written consent of the City. All submittals , acceptances , rejections, or recommendations must be in writing and University shall not rely on any verbal communication regarding these items . B. Review. The City shall have the right to review all work product of University and hereby retains the right to request University to make reasonable modifications, which modifications shall be made without any additional cost to City. C . Changes or Amendments . Any changes other than as provided for above in the scope, character or complexity of the work shall be modified only by supplemental agreement. All such changes shall have complete approval by the City prior to the initiation of any such change. Any change made without such prior agreement, if acceptable to City, shall be deemed covered by the compensation and time provided for Basic Services in this Agreement and be paid for only as provided hereof in Article V. D. Disputes . 1 . Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the City. The decision of the City shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 days from the date of receipt of such decision, University shall mail or otherwise -6- furnish the City a written appeal addressed to the City Engineer. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, University will be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal . Pending final decision Of a dispute hereunder, University will proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the City' s decision. The decision of the Director of Public Utilities shall be final and conclusive. 2 . This dispute clause does not preclude considerations of questions of law in connection with decisions provided for in Paragraph 1 above . However, nothing in this contract shall be construed as making final a decision of any administrative official , representative or board on a question of law. ARTICLE VI . OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All such items which become the property of the City may at any time be used by the City for any purpose it desires . The City shall assume responsibility for any other use of this material . ARTICLE VII . ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL: None of the services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted or assigned without the prior written approval of City. ARTICLE VIII . INDEMNIFICATION: University agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend City, its officers and employees , from and against all losses, claims, demands, actions , damages , costs , charges and causes of action of every kind or -7- character, including attorney' s fees, based upon or arising out of University' s negligent performance or failure of performance hereunder. In the event that the City' s tender of its defense based upon the foregoing is rejected by University and University is later found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been negligent as aforesaid, University agrees to pay City' s reasonable costs , expenses and attorney' s fees incurred in proving such negligence, defending itself , and enforcing this indemnity provision . ARTICLE IX . COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and cannot be altered or assigned or sublet except in writing signed by both parties . This Agreement shall be enforced under and governed by the laws of the State of Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR -8- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY (Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory) BY - A.. M.A1L7-0c., ite r�ki�z`�� By 471 , / Title Directpr Co tr cV/Grant Office M. K. `Je esen ATTEST: (;— ;) e Douglas P. Rin e Staff Assista t -9- STATE OF UTAH County of Salt Lake) On the day of , 1988, personally appeared before me PALMER DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same . NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : -10- STATE OF UTAH ss . County of Salt Lake) - (.1'1 Ci c On the I%=4_ day of N\a- , 1988 personally appeared before me J . i�. _.�-� �<< (�_ and I1 - K ,_c ta--C y- , who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the 1);07_ and ' of UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY (Soil , Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory) , and that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said University by authority of a resolution of its board of directors; and said persons acknowledged to me that said University executed the same . \''At/1:1A CI Cl i Lt =y NO ARY PUBLIC, residing in S I-L Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : (11 RLX:pF -11- EXHIBIT "A" Laboratory shall take sludge , soil and plant tissue samples and analyze and be paid for such work as follows: 1 . Soil and plant tissue samples shall be taken and analyzed in accordance with provisions of Karl Topper's letter of June 27 , 1989 , a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B" , and made part hereof by this reference. 2 . Laboratory's costs and fees shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Karl Topper's letter of June 27 , 1989. See above-referenced Exhibit "B" . 3 . In addition to the services outlined in Exhibit "B" , the Laboratory may analyze the City's sludge samples for heavy metals and nutrients , soil samples from City's planned wetlands enhancement area, and animal tissue. 4. The total charges for all servicco and costs rendered hereunder shall not exceed $25 ,000. EXHIBTT "B" Memorandum To : Bill Farmer From: Kari Topper , Lab Supervisor ( 1 Re : 1989-90 contract • Below is the budget outline for the 1989 plan of work regarding the monitoring of heavy metals on the sludoe disposal farm . As already discussed , the 1989 monitoring project of heavy metals ( Cd , Cu, Ni , Pb , s. 2n , Mo . As , & Se ) includes sampling and analyses of poi_ from fields C. 6 and either 7 or 10 : and composite oiant samples from fields 6 and 10 . Please expedite this contract as ouic:ly as possible . If there are any questions or concerns please contact me , otherwise we will proceed as outlined . 1989-90 Estimated Budoet 1 . Monitoring program , soil/plant sampling and analyses Soil Samples : Approximately y 150 soil samples tested for total Cd . Cu , Ni , Pb , Zn , Mo, As, & Se .:51 ' , E0 .00 Plant Samples : Approximately 12 plant samples -_es_ted for total Cd , Cu . Ni Pb . Zn Mo. As & Be 1 .508 .00 2. Preoaration of 1989 Progress Report and meetings_ : 1_2omouteristatistic _ analyse 1 .000 . Professional time Z . Du0 . . 0 Er no =otci ies:_ma :oc costs ci 1984 act_vitit?= i_ 8 . LEROY W. HOOTON,JR. DIRECTOR !1 WENDELL E. TENDENT , P.E. \ ( r��E �' ��Y���; 'i ` A\ w._ �T© SUPERINTENDENT 1, I 1 lS1 V • 1 WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS WATER RECLAMATION Water Reclamation MAYOR JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. CHIEF FINANCE& 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER February 26, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State University Foundation, Project No 29-R-3 Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City Availability of Funds: Budget Discussion: To have Foundation initiate a comprehensive program of monitoring the irrigation water quality of the Jordan River at princi- pal diversions from April 1990 to September 1990. The Foundation will be paid a fixed fee for rendering all basic services in the amount of $16, 646.00. 1. Please return two copies of the agreement to this office for further processing. Submitted by: hi IN (-0 0177._ LEROY w! HOOTON, JR. Director Department of Publi tilities :laf Attachments L-1, 81 File RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FOUNDATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement amendment has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement amend- ment generally described as follows: To add monitoring the irrigation water quality of the Jordan River from April through September 30, 1990. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement amendment on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LABORATORY SERVICES CONTRACT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the day of , 1990, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" , and UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, hereinafter "Foundation" , wherein the parties desire to, and do hereby, amend that certain laboratory services contract between them dated March 10 , 1987 , by amending the first subparagraph of Article I . , Subparagraph A. and Article III. , Subparagraph A. both of which are to read as follows: ARTICLE I . , A. "To have Foundation initiate a comprehensive program of monitoring the irrigation water quality of the Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah, at principal diversions during the time period of April 1987 to September 1987 , April 1988 to September 1988 , April 1989 to September 1989 and April 1990 to September 1990. " ARTICLE III. , A. "Fees. Foundation shall be paid a "fixed fee" of $11, 593 . 00 for the period of April 1987 to September 1987 ; $12 ,820. 00 for the period of April 1988 to September 1988 ; $14 ,720. 00 for the period of April 1989 to September 1989 ; and $16, 646. 00 for the period of April 1990 to September 1990, for rendering all basic services rendered and/or obtained hereunder. A breakdown of said fee by Task for each period is attached as Exhibit "B" . Payment for "additional or special services" shall be only pursuant to the provisions of Article III (B) (2) , or as otherwise prior agreed to in writing by the parties. " EXCEPT as modified hereby, said agreement between the parties of March 10, 1987 , shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement Amendment to be effective as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION M.K. Jeuesy SecretarY7TTreasurer ST: Title Ken W. Henderson ��JJ Division Director STATE OF UTAH ) ss. County of Salt Lake ) On , personally appeared before me, PALMER DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: STATE OF UTAH ) ss. County of Cache ) On the l( 7� day o , 1990, personally appeared before me, M.K. JEPPESEN an KENT W. ERSON, the signers of the foregoing instrument, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the SECRETARY/TREASURER and DIVISION DIRECTOR, respectively, of the UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that they executed said instrument for the UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION. OTARY P I , residing in Cache Co ty, Utah My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT "B" Amendment No. 3 April 1990 to September 1990 BUDGET LABOR Jerome J. Jurinak (145 hours @ $41. 54/hour) $ 6, 023 Jan Kotuby-Amacher (123 hours @ $13 . 00/hour) 1, 600 Secretary ( 40 hours @ $ 6. 50/hour) 260 TOTAL LABOR $ 7 , 883 BENEFITS Benefits are calculated at sixteen and one-half percent of salary, and represent only those benefits mandated by law (FICA, Workman' s Compensation, Unemployment, etc. ) ( . 165 X 7,883) 1, 301 TOTAL BENEFITS 1, 301 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ?5 Irrigation Water Quality 2 , 016 Trace Elements 350 TOTAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 2 , 366 TRAVEL Travel will be limited to ten round trips from Logan, Utah to Salt Lake City, Utah, and vicinity. (10 trips @ 250 miles/trip @ . 24/mile) 600 TOTAL TRAVEL 600 INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead) The indirect cost rate for the Utah State University Foundation is calculated at thirty-seven (37%) percent of total costs. ( . 37 X $12 , 150) 4 , 496 TOTAL PROPOSAL $16 , 646 1)9 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. ;n %ri my TRIVAII0 SUPERINTENDENT �r WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. Water Reclamation CHIEF FINANCE& 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER March 14, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and for- ward to Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Budget - $22, 237.24 Discussion: The proposed agreement is for the purpose of the City reimbursing the County for relocating approximately 444 feet of 16- inch ductile pipe on 2000 East at approximately 7800 South; County Project Nos. CJ88035, C1890134 and City Project No. 33-C-417-1 . 1. Please return seven ( 7) agreements to this office to be forwarded to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: ain 'AA W. I 1 :mar. LEROY W.IHOOTON, (41111 Director Department of Public T ilities :laf Attachments L-1, 87 File RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the form and substance of the attached agreement as follows: Under a pipe line agreement with the County City was required to move its water main at City expense to accommodate county road improvements. The County' s road improvement contractor agreed to move the main for S22, 237.24. This agreement allows reimbursement to the County of that sum. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc County Project No. CJ88035 and CI890134 City Project No. 33C-417-1 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE CITY FOR ROAD PROJECT 2000 EAST 7800 SOUTH THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of , 1990 , by and between SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter "County" , and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County is engaged in a road project on a County road located at approximately 2000 East and 7800 South; and WHEREAS, the City has an existing 16 inch ductile iron pipe located in said roadway under an easement for pipelines agreement between the City and County dated October 2, 1963; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for approximately 444 of said 16 inch ductile iron water supply pipe to be moved; and WHEREAS, said easement for pipelines of October 3, 1963 provides under paragraph 8 that if the highway is to be reconstructed, that the City is responsible to assume and pay all costs incident to the relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections; and WHEREAS, the County' s contractor has submitted to the County a cost of $22,737 . 24, (unit price per lineal foot of $51 . 21 ) to do this work. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties agree as follows: 1 . The County has with its regular engineering forces prepared plan specifications and estimates in conjunction with the above noted County project and has advertised for bids and awarded a contract to the low bidder who is to administer construction of the work. 2 . The County has requested and obtained from the County' s contractor a cost of $22,737 . 24 (unit price per lineal foot of $51 . 21 ) to move approximately 444 feet of the City' s ductile iron water supply pipeline to a location which is acceptable to the County and the City. 3 . The City shall perform the necessary operation of valves to accommodate said work and, should it desire to do so, perform inspection of the work on City' s facilities which will be performed by County's contractor. The City' s engineer and/or inspector shall work with and through the County' s project engineer and shall give no orders directly to the County' s contractor unless authorized in writing to do so. -2- 4 . The County, through its Project Engineer, will notify the City at least 24 hours in advance of performing any work covered by this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. 5 . All materials from the City' s existing facilities which are recovered by the County' s contractor while performing the work as herein described and not reused in this Project shall become the property of said County contractor. 6 . In the event there are changes in the scope of the work, extra work or changes in the planned work covered by this cooperative agreement, reimbursement therefor shall be limited to costs covered by a modification to this cooperative agreement approved in writing by both parties hereto prior to the start of such work on the changes or additions . 7 . The City agrees upon completion of the construction contemplated herein, to accept said water facilities as part of the City' s culinary water system and to maintain said water system at no cost to County. County agrees that City shall be the sole owner of said water facilities, except for any fire hydrants and related facilities connected thereto, upon completion of the project. 8 . The City shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts pertaining to the foregoing movement of removal and replacement of the City' s said pipeline. -3- 9 . It is understood that access for maintenance and servicing and replacement of the City' s said pipeline shall be provided by the County in a new easement for pipelines containing the same terms and conditions as the said Agreement of October 3, 1963, if said pipeline is moved outside of said existing easement . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE By CHAIRMAN ATTEST: COUNTY CLERK SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR ATTEST: -4- STATE OF UTAH . ss . County of Salt Lake) On the day of , 19 personally appeared before me and , who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and County Clerk, respectively, of Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said Salt Lake County executed and approved the above agreement . NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: STATE OF UTAH . ss . County of Salt Lake) On the day of , 1990, personally appeared before me PALMER DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : RLM:cc -5- r. , LINDA HAMILTON ma Q V Tl�ry,1vV 111 �a tTQ f PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE y� lJ �l 1 V1 l!1 11llVVd, MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6426 March 20, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: INTERNAL AGREEMENT BEIWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE STATE OF UI'AH, DEPARIV Nr' OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF PARK AND RECREATION FOR USE OF CITY PARKS PROPERTY TO ACOOMMCCATE THE JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY TRAIL. Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward it to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion: The State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, is developing the recreational Jordan River Parkway Trail, which will run parallel with the Jordan River. The Trail will begin at the Salt Lake/Davis County line and end at 3300 South. Portions of the Trail route will run along the borders of Rose Park Golf Course, Glendale Golf Course and Jordan Park, as shown on Exhibit "A" of the enclosed Interlocal Agreement. Salt Lake City Parks Department has agreed to allow use of these properties for the Trail route based on the conditions as stipulated in the Interlocal Agreement. State Parks would like to begin installation of improvements sometime in April, 1990. Submitted by: Linda Hami ton Director of Finance SLCCouncil.Trail RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An Agreement allowing certain City property along the Jordan River Parkway to be used for jogging, walking and bicycling. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESCURCFS, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL ALONG THE JORDAN RIVER THIS INTE LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made pursuant to Section 11-13-1 et seq. , Utah Code Ann. , and entered into as of the day of , 1990, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City", and THE STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE , DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, hereinafter "State". WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, State is desirous of developing a recreational Jordan River Parkway Trail, hereinafter "Trail", for joggers, walkers and bicycle use only along the Jordan River; and WHEREAS, the City owns several pieces of property which abut upon the Jordan River, parts of which the State desires to use for the development and maintenance of the Trail; and WHEREAS, the City will allow said use of subject to the following conditions, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, parties agree as follows: 1. The City hereby allows State to use the following described parcels of property for a period of ten (10) years from the date hereof for establishment and maintenance of the Trail along the bank of the Jordan River: A. Beginning at a point east of Redwood Road at approx- imately 1897 North and thence running in a southeast erly direction along the west bank of the Jordan River to Sunset Drive (1335 North) . B. Beginning at Nbntague Avenue (930 South) continuing in a southerly direction along the east bank of the Jordan River, through the International Peace Gardens in Jordan Park and ending at the south border of said park (Fremont Avenue 1707 South) . C. Beginning at a point approximately 1365 South con- tinuing south along the east bank of the Jordan River to approximately 1460 South. D. Beginning at a point where the Western Railroad spur line crosses the Jordan River, south of 1700 South and continuing in a southerly direction along the east bank of said river, then crossing the river and continuing along the west bank and ending at 2100 South. As shown in Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof. Said trail is not to exceed 12 feet in width from the banks of the Jordan River as it pertains to the above described locations. 2. State will construct and maintain the Trail on the foregoing described property. Said Trail will begin at the Salt Lake/Davis County border and run south beyond 3300 South. That portion of said Trail between 1800 North 2100 South may be paved and maintained with a hard asphalt surface during the term hereof. 3. State shall restrict the use of said portions for use only by joggers, walkers and pedal powered bicycles. No other vehicle, except State patrol vehicles, whether motorized or not, or horses, will be allowed on said Trail and State shall be responsible for policing said Trail between 1800 North and 2100 South to assure compliance with these requirements. Lack of enforcement by State to correct continuous violations of said requirements will be cause for termination of this Agreement. 4. State will provide security patrols for said Trail during the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. each day during the period of May 1 through October 31. The State will provide security patrols for said Trail during the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day during the period of November 1 through April 30. State shall be responsible for posting warning and/or cautionary signs necessary for compliance and safety of those using said Trail. 5. State agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend City, its agents and employees from all claims, damages, demands, actions, costs and charges, including attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason use of the premi:c described herein by State employees or third parties. 6. Upon the breach of any of the terns of or conditions of this Agreement by State, this Agreement shall immediately terminate if, after thirty (30) days prior written notice from the City, the default is not correct. 7. Neither this Agreement nor the benefits nor obligations afforded hereby may be assigned nor otherwise transferred without the prior written consent of the other party. 8. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and it cannot be altered except through a written instrument which is signed by both parties. f IN ia.S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written. AritSr: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By CITY RECORDER MAYOR APPROVED APPROVED STATE OF UTAH, DIVISION AS '10 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS OF PARKS AND RECREATION By By Budget Officer Director APPROVED RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT By By Director of Finance Manager, Northern Region APPROVED RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By By Director of Purchasing Contracts Manager Date Code STATE OF UTAH ss. County of Salt Lake On , personally appeared before me, PALMER A. DIPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said person acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. • NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: „. . . /----- -..,,.„ „ - .__. , . ,_,L__4__. 1,..41111:iLitIZILWI• ! • , • . _-. ' 4r- : ... 14, ,. 1 / I 1 / . i ! 1 _ 1 ! a ;csoit •, . .: _ . . _. i'7:4-014.41\---PH '...' I- 1 . . t i • . •-----,- 1 t I . . ' ,„_,;..„-. =.--••••_ -- , t \Mb I i I • • 1 . 1 'ql:.1 • ii._. I I i! 111 leztrta:- - -- - — 1 '\\9...;- ,-•;.k . . . 1 12-:-' v- -:. , 1 . - ---. t.. - -------- ----- - F-- ra fq : l '-\ ,4\4,. ‘'\ ot 1 :! Ling till 44, \X \ ! / 1 1 10rigiRtilln :'' -. '''''\ Zk.•6 ..s . ' . . ' zy _. j ,41_________'___1‘i 1101;11300 liht11004,z . .-•‘...N‘. \\\ t•') -ii--;-_- _----. \ ! 1.: TIEL--- -( 3H .. L\ • . t' - . Lft .- /. sk... ., • 7'1 -1U4:1 -ID'1 ‘ ,:--jau "4\7 ::...\ 4---"fli , '` -/ 1 ‘••0) - ( .. ..'•-• .1‘. ! 61 a316 1 (g—ci] A ' \- ' i ---_ L-TL---,-- r-,gu_ 111'-1,). :. II"-d.” '' 14-.L.I. ',.*\, [1-fi) Lk i ' 6 h•_.•-e-or. -1B- -ill.. ir -:E- I OP 1 r-- - ,:-- • , .,. f-. Eu a L . 9i • /6- *-Itil, ... .11LE - .. -.:: _ 0 - - ,,..:_..7.._ . . 7 ; t_izt,,, I-11 1 -..:• 1-LA [1.ii.°:, F'-`1,-J zun cow LT a DI EVP - r:: LiCa EV,..1-,, g„iiii2 • 1-"LIG6EEEE-1 1 s\= •,..Z.1:31:-q.'2111LfELf1.11 1 --.. Ilrtu ice .1-__77n-n-j113._ uu a , It• ElkiEESElfaIlf1 1 1-'e-- a..„---- --m IQ . i. ..., --, ,-,Q'W l L;EJEEIDIELIELl Li -1 - n CM I -II,L, 1 ir.,-I: 7„.9 .,,,,, ,: E EWE 6 El SEE! *- 77.,,t•I - kviji 'C.•'[iJUIEEIELmIllEi q !., ......_ Hp . M.0 Li&r: -,--c-. Ltik:EJE'EEEEIELI. ) : q 1 I 4 ••• Eljr4:79iitIti ,. _,... ..,...... Er Ecit w.:2. - -•,. Eg g, 2 trSL-H. 2 EE-2 g,I.Vi ......•_. 1 )A 1F-7 --\''.141: ;L•4.!.1-' 1_.S_CCI 1 ''• r.z .F.r ::_t_,...-4 E i....._yi 'd---L3L' Q,c), EIE.EE.L=1,2.: il \ tr-•;',..%''.'" ., -_-_a____H il ..,// N„. ...(7-a--.., . ....---11. 1:3.-. IE-ifild 1---,,„.--- - -!--'1-, --,---,-- .:- . 7_ iki- LL..• 1 -;. ,Ir..,._1--.1ViuMbligillri L;..] 1, 1-,.1 ii' M Elia LTA W t.:A VA- 1' LH L,P%-7' NIL" 4 - •tV- I' .. ..!___rt_J ------=1==i• U `,3 . .:1-1-g • ' 4 Li DWOESEEE-. Lei I.:. .- 4.4. t ,ti Loyis3E990111111}E E [ill 51 MN Ilii -n; K E El ff: ....s. t ---1-7[26111E1DM MU,agl M ' ' I ".i V VI gil E. Hi 1 : GO LA PO E Pti ------- -L-' t=3Z;31OCJ= ..• /---' .• -L . - , . .,.., LALES9E7.1 CFP-1Plau E ..1‘ 1 al 1 IA RA- 1 EC 11 -. 16- Di M V ti - ' --- EINDOit.T.t===iumi --10UOGGE1001;10 tt= 2 -.1 a El all ao ao au au 11 ,4 Gil 5E1 k _i t 1 • , CrII- ,- 'IP4•-7,GZO 1\71;y=. .. Ika 7, SUBJECT - \-' 1 + ,- - - m i . ---.. • ..] ! ,•----- if:i7 ,. . ***--q9p-I-LI LI EL",ftEM.L.ru7":Pid L..,... v.1 njiL 1,4-pUsTR/4 1 ' ,--, L. &t. 1-tunuti' •L.J....1_....ki 1 . =.1= - DO uii. L_,J6-.11=a=a ..: Lk 1 1 1401 _C3-C-11 IV -1 ,....1 _ nrari 10 1,a ' 1 ______ .,,,,,t_-,-- •••••.- , 1 SUBJECT . 1510 Ju tem"' tut ALI uar-H- -E-. 7,--1 1 i '11‘ _ _jupplit 4"" ---401-'! - ii ii 7%-:. •, '.. .....j ,-..-ii..._:.JET-u L--• >1 i ' - - F.:-.1 00 1 I, : , . .2 ,, HIM ,t la J [.... ""A -•1Q.M ' .,i lu ..i., , A AWE ._.. II_Jc-._-;i alu Mb° L , EiDuilu.-.7,. .7 _ .) ..__ •',Oil% : A.-4.0 c= I • LE E u1-1'111----l'Otlia OL ppg . . du- ,[j i • I, , . .. ,c:,... : . : ..... r-r-'- r.-N-'1" 1. , 1 -I -- S UBJ E CT gm+ /., li ' . i -EL p -/ 2 I ,,...._.1 i L------1 ullir-k- ...1.u.91...iLL,....16---J Lit I ,..__JJ I IL_Ill et I . it .1 ' 6.=-;iL...;JU t•Q --• , DU -rif..;-omri 1 m .riruuswil,--1=idu2_4 : --r-- ‘ ifilirk..1 671.721. 18 il g1,0 F.,-; -.7-i,-- -- • , ! r-1----1 nu-, - • ti 1 i / ' it. Li .: GJ 4 •‘,,, ''N.4 1! .( 31.• I l=i " 4 2 - 22. 1 EXHIBIT "A" . e_...,-44_:A=.-.1f--• --"---- ; ! , j, IL-I • t....L.,_-__Lj - k'j Di .,_. il �.0 tom/ FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 235 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 March 27, 1990 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Mr. Alan G. Hardman Chairperson Building, Roan 306 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A BITTEN INTERICCAL AGREE= WITH UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR LEASE OF RCATO MILL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR SERVICES. Dear Mr. Hardman: Attached, please find the originals and seventeen (17) copies of the above referenced interlocal agreement, which has been approved by the City Attorney and signed by the Assistant Attorney General. The agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation for the rental of City equipment and equipment operator services for the purpose of planing road asphalt for road and street improvements. The agreement provides that Utah Department of Transportation shall reimburse Salt Lake City for any costs in providing a Farber Green Roto Mill, with operators. Because of the potential revenue for Salt Lake City Corporation, it is recommended that this agreement be approved by the Council. If you have any questions in this regard, please feel free to call Mr. Tan Jewkes, Contract Specialist, telephone 535-7661. Respectfully, Hamilton Director of Finance LH/GLF/il Attachments cc: Contract Work File 12H G. L. Failner • F. RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11 , Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann., 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally describes as follows: An agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for the rental of City equipment and equipment operator services for the purpose of planing road asphalt for road and street improvements. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRMAN ATTEST CITY RECORDER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1990, by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, herein referred to as the "Department", and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as the "Lessor". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Lessor has specialty equipment which Lessee desires to use; and WHEREAS, lessor has a period of time in which the specialty equipment will not be needed for City jobs; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1 . Lessor agrees to lease a Barber Green Roto Mill, with operator, to Lessee. 2. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor the sum of $1.59 per square yard cut to a depth of one (1) inch. Cuts of less than one (1) inch will be billed at the minimum rate of $1 .59 per square yard. Cuts resulting in depths of fractions of an inch will be billed on a prorated basis once the minimum depth of one (1) inch has been met at the adjusted rate of $0.60 per additional inch. The sum will be paid the month following the month during which the equipment is used. 3. The total amount of the Agreement is $40,000.00. The total value of this Agreement is $50,000.00, which includes a twenty-five percent (25%) increase if deemed necessary by the Lessor. 4. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue through June 30, 1990. 2 - 5. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the other party a thirty (30) day written notice. 6. Lessor agrees to buy all gas, oil and other fluids necessary to perform the functions the equipment is designed to accomplish. 7. Lessor agrees to perform all regular maintenance scheduled for the equipment. 8. The operator will be an employee of Lessor and Lessor shall pay all wages and benefits for said employee. 9. The operator will follow Lessee's instructions, as long as it is safe and prudent to do so, to accomplish the work Lessee desires accomplished. 10. Lessee is solely responsible for project control, maintenance of safe work area, traffic control and avoiding and /or repair of underground and overhead utilities, cables, etc. 11 . Lessee agrees to provide storage for the equipment at a Lessee designated site upon request of Lessor. 12. Lessor will transport the equipment as needed. 13. Lessee agrees to defend and hold harmless Lessor, its employees and agents from all accidents and claims of loss arising out of its acts or failure to act. Lessor agrees to defend and hold harmless Lessee, its employees and agents, from all accidents and claims of loss arising out of its acts or failure to act. 14. Lessee agrees to return the equipment to Lessor immediately upon immediate City emergency need for the equipment. Lessee agrees Lessor will not be responsible for any losses, increased costs or any other item should the City need the immediate return of the equipment. 0 3 - 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Lease Agreement as of the day an year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Title: PAWN!) _ UTAH D TMENT OFT NSPORTATION By: Title: Di5r ,c r 1 DJ/2Ec7vr2 STATE FINANCE: By: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: R. Paul Van Dam Attorney General By: Assi tant A orney General Slig PALMER DEPAULIS ,e4mL _.i 1� tt Mail _\�...,9 + MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7704 March 22, 1990 Alan Hardman, Chairperson and Members of the Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Dear Alan: I am transmitting herewith a recommendation for a board appointment which I would appreciate the Council to advise and consent upon: MAGNA MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Mr. Jim Webb to be appointed to a term extending through December 31, 1991 . The Magna Mosquito Abatement District has requested Salt Lake City appoint a member to their board. State statue (Utah Code 26-27-6) states that one member be appointed from each municipality located within a designated Mosquito Abatement District. The boundaries of the Magna district include a portion of Salt Lake City . Mr. Webb currently serves on Salt Lake City's Mosquito Abatement District. I believe having a representative from Salt Lake City's board serve on the Magna board is prudent. I would appreciate your consideration of this appointment and ask that it be placed on the Council 's agenda at the earliest opportunity. If I can provide you with any further information, please don't hesitate to call . Sin) in erely, etetivAA6 /LI: Mayor PD/RBC:jf Enc. cc: Sammie Dickson Evan R. Lusty LEE KING S A 'lit ITr G RP�ORATrI.Nf DIRECTOR COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Capital Planning and Programming CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7902 March 21, 1990 TO: Alan G. Hardman, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR A SPECIAL PROJECTS GRANT TO COMBAT DRUG USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE RESIDING IN PUBLIC HOUSING. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council execute the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a Special Projects Grant to combat drug use among young people residing in public housing. FUNDING: HUD has awarded Salt Lake City a Special Projects Grant in the amount of $25, 000 for the above stated purpose and Salt Lake City is matching this amount with an additional $25, 000 from CDBG funding. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Drug abuse is a significant problem among young people living in public housing units in Salt Lake City; the Salt Lake Boys and Girls Clubs have an excellent record of providing exemplary programs and working with youth from low-income families in our community; and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City is very supportive of this program. We believe it will provide a positive stimulus to combat drug use among many young people in Salt Lake City. LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT: Attached resolution. CONTACT PERSON: Bob Gore, 535-7122 . Sincerely, Lee King Director • RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR A SPECIAL PROJECTS GRANT TO COMBAT DRUG USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE RESIDING IN PUBLIC HOUSING WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreements have been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a Special Projects Grant to combat drug use among young people residing in public housing. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER , St ' . Funding Approval a d'u Department Developn ing �S Under Title I of the Housing and Commu,lfty - o Develo ment Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383) as Amended Community Development -1 r pBlock Grant Program HI-00515R 1. Name at Grantee 2. Grant NO. Salt Lake City, Utah B-90-SP-49-0001 J. Grantee a Address rin[ruaa Street.C,ry.Counry.Slate ana Zm Coae t S. Date of Submission Salt Lake City October 10. 1989 451 So, State, Room 404 5.Date of HUD R.ptotofSubmission SAlt Lake City, UT 84111 Dale Grantee Notified Start of Program Year January 1, 1990 6.X Original Funding Approval Ei Aam.ndmenL Adm.ndm.nt No. All section references below are to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended.unless otherwise indicated. 7. Category of Community Development Block Grant for This Funding Action rC.hec',only ones a. ❑ Entitlement(Sec. 106(b)) b. ❑ HUD Administered Small Cities (Sec. 106) (d) (2) IB) • c. Secretary's Discretionary (Sec. 107) 8.Amount of Community Development Block Grant FY FY FY 1990 a. Amount of CDBG Funds Currently Reserved for this Grantee S S S 25,000 b. Amount of CDBG Funds Now Being Approved for tuts Grantee S S S 25,000 c. Amount of Reservation to be Cancelled (Line 8a minus 8bi S S S —0— HUD ACCOUNTING USE ONLY BATCH] TAC QROGRAMI -Y A PEG :.:.EA DOCUMENT NO PROJECT NUMBER — S 115131 1 1j7161 I _ _ 7 0 8 2 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 30 35 CATEGORY I AMOUNT! EFFECTIVE DATE F 1 AMOUNT 2 SCHEDULE NO. 38 41 45 50 54 60 61 65 70 74 79 9. Distribution of community Development Block Grant FY FY FY 1 990 a. Grant amount withheld for payment of principal and interest —0— on loans guaranteed pursuant to Sec. 108 S S S b. Grant amount deducted by HUD to settle outstanding Urban —0— Renewal Loans(Sec.112(a)(1)) S $ S c. Sum of lines 9a.and 9b S S S —0 d. Amount of CDBG Funds available for disbursement S 5 S 25,000 (Line 85 minus 9c) 10. Amount of Surplus Urban Renewal Funda approved and balance available(Set.112(b)) a. Amount of surplus U.R. Funds reserved for this grantee S N/A b. Amount of surplus U.R. Funds now being approved 5 N/A c. Balance or surplus U.R. Funds available for future use (Line 10a minus 1Cbl 5 N/A pre.ious Editions are Oosoiete HUD-7082 112-83) 24 CFR. 570 "tea HUD ACCOUNTING USE ONLY© • BATCH— TAC DROGAA Y ,1' REG AREA DOCUMENT NO. PROJECT NUMBER — $ 11513 1 J , 11716 1 1 7082 I . 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 30 35 CATEGORY AMOUNT 1 EFFECTIVE DATE F AMOUNT 2 SCHEDULE NO. 1 HI I IHI h I 38 41 45 50 54 60 61 65 70 74 79 • 11. Maximum amount of ban guarantee commitment available and amount now being approved. a. Grantee's latest entitlement amount—S x 3 S N/A b. Principal amount of outstanding loans pursuant to Section 108 • S N/A c. Amount of outstanding loan guarantee commitments approved pursuant to Section 108 S N/A d. Maximum amount of loan guarantee commitment available(Line 11a minus 11b,and 11c) S N/A e. Amount of loan guarantee commitment now being approved S N/A 12 Recipient of loan guarantee(Check apoucabie ban) _ a. 0 Grantee identified in block No. 1 b. ❑ Public Agency designated to receive loan guarantee(Name and address) N/A 13. Special conditlone(Check appucaole box) . a. ❑ Not applicable b)(® Attached 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Grant Agreement, requirements of a submission of annual performance reports and a final performance report upon project completion and implementation of Grant closeout procedures shall govern the use of assistance provided. U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Deveiopment ''‘,_44. —<-1,4/'\___P."/ ?---e-lr-44...-"By Director, Office of CPD Title January 9, 1990 Date , HUD-7082(12-83) „ -Grant Agreement and Loan U.S.Department of Housing /\ and Urban Development • - Guarantee Acceptance Provisions Community Development ,r BIocK Grant Program 1nt Agreement • This Grant Agreement is made by and between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Salt Lake City, Utah (the Grantee) pursuant to the authority of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Devel- opment Act of 1974(Public Law 93-3831.as amended.The Grantee's submissions for Title I assistance and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 570(as now in effect and as may be amended from time to time),which are incorporated by reference.together with the HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 and any special conditions, which are hereto attached, constitute part of the Agreement. In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual representations and obligations hereunder,HUD and the Grantee agree as follows: Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement,HUD will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19 q0 specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 available to the Grantee upon execution of the Agreement by the parties.The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance provided is subject to the requirements of the regulations and any special conditions set forth in the HUD Funding Approval Form 7082. including the requirement for a release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring such release. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970(42 U.S.C.4601) as specified in regulations issued by the Secretary and published in 24 CFR Part 42. The Grantee further agrees to assume all of the responsibilities for environmental review,decision making and actions,as specified and required in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act and published in 24 CFR Part 58. The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities to which it makes funding assistance hereunder available. U.S. De nment of Housing and Urban De pment • FINANCE APPROVAL By Director, Office of CPD Funds Net Needed Funds Available Title Contrail January 9, 1990 .are ATTORNEY APPR•161L APPRO D ASTO FORhA�/1 The Grantee ,3 , By Mayor Title Date • Loan Guarantee Acceptance Provisions (Use only for Section 108 Loan Guarantee Assistance to designated public agency) N/A • The public agency hereby accepts the Grant Agreement executed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on with respect to grant number ,as Grantee designated to receive loan guarantee assistance,and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement,applicable regulations,and other requirements of HUD now or hereafter in effect pertaining to the assistance provided it Name of Public Agency/Grantee gnature of Authorized Official • Title • Title HUD•7082.1 (12-831 24 CFR 570 •\-172. \‘ OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 March 30, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEN BERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSDN6 Ai SUBJECT: CLARK FINANCIAL The attached documents from the Administration outline the proposed agreement with Clark Financial for the revolving loan fund. I have spoken with the Council Chair to indicate that the Council staff will not be providing a staff recommendation, since this item has been an ongoing issue and Councilmembers have all been briefed individually on the topic. I do want to point out that Attachment A outlines the terms and conditions of the revolving loan agreement. Please note that a fourth condition has been added, which indicates that no loan funds will be provided until and unless all delinquent property taxes due on the Parkview Plaza have been paid in full. This issue was raised at your Committee of the Whole briefing, but at that time the Administration's final recommendation on this aspect had not been put in written form. If you have questions regarding any aspect of the loan request, please let me know and we will arrange to get your questions answered or to hold an additional individual briefing for you prior to Tuesday's meeting. LEE KING SALT LT I A\ GITYr OGRPM rI.OI J DIRECTOR COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Capital Planning and Programming CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7902 DATE: March 27 , 1990 TO: Alan Hardman, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council SUBJECT: Clark Financial Corporation application for participation in the Salt Lake City Revolving Loan Fund RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council execute the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Clark Financial Corporation in which the City shall participate financially in the development of the Sugar House Center project by providing a secure loan of $900,000 to Clark Financial Corporation. FUNDING: The Revolving Loan Fund was created from the repayment of Urban Development Action Grant loans and the fund balance is approximately $679 , 000 . The City Council passed a resolution of intent on August 1 , 1989 which favored awarding Clark Financial Corporation a low interest loan of $900, 000 from the fund. The full $900, 000 will be available by midsummer which is prior to its anticipated need for the Sugar House Center project. BACKGROUND: The Sugar House Center project includes a 94, 000 square foot Shopko store, remodel of 150,000 square feet of existing retail space, 85, 000 square feet of new construction retail shops , and three restaurants, along with surface parking for all uses . Clark Financial Corporation is the developer and the owner will be Sugar House Center Associates, a partnership now being formed. The Shopko store and the three restaurants will be constructed with funds other than those provided by Sugar House Center Associates . First Security Bank will provide $11,000,000 for construction financing and to retire existing developer related debt. The $900 , 000 loan from the City revolving fund will be used to supplement construction costs and an additional $600,000 has been pledged by the Redevelopment Agency for land acquisition costs . The City will also close several streets and alleys in the Alan Hardman, Chairperson March 27, 1990 -page 2 project area and transfer approximately 5 .3 acres to the developer in exchange for excess off-site improvements . The attached cash based pro-forma indicates sources and uses of all project funds . Federal statutes regulate the use of funds returned to the City under repayment of UDAG loans . These regulations include the provisions that such monies can be used to assist private for- profit entities for economic development projects when that assistance is "necessary or appropriate" . Necessary or appropriate is generally defined as assistance which is not excessive, taking into account both the actual need for the assistance, and the extent of public benefit derived. Public benefit is tested against at least one of the following "national objectives" : a. Assistance to create or retain jobs, a majority of which are for persons of low and moderate income, or assistance to a commercial enterprise which serves a residential area qualifying as low and moderate income. b. Assistance to a business in an area which qualifies as a slum or blighted area, or a site with conditions of substantial physical decay. c. Assistance to address a condition of urgent need such as in response to a natural disaster. It is the opinion of the Capital Planning and Programming staff that the Sugar House Center project qualifies for assistance under the necessary or appropriate stipulation because the project is within an area, and will serve a population, which is eligible under low/moderate income guidelines . Also, in 1982 the project site was included within an Area of Chronic Economic Distress, the City criteria for slum blight determination. (This criteria is currently under review. ) LEGISLATION DOCUMENT: A resolution committing $900,000 to Clark Financial Corporation, with certain stipulations, is attached. Loan agreement documents will be prepared for approval by the Mayor prior to release of project funds . CONTACT PERSON: Bob Buchanan Capital Planning and Programming Respectfully, Lee Kin Director SUGAR HOUSE CENTER SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Sources of funds construction loan - First Security Bank $11,000,000 SLC revolving loan 900,000 RDA tax increment financing 600,000 sale of land to Shopko 3,415,000 Shopko contribution to site costs 1,000 ,000 Total funds 16,915,000 Costs land - to be acquired from Clark control $ 8, 635, 068 land - to be acquired from others 575,000 land - exchange with SLC for improvements 0 construction costs 7,011,313 soft costs 3,365, 687 retire exist land owner/developer debt 6,232, 157 property taxes on development site 450 , 000 Total project costs 26,268,912 Project cost shortfall (9 ,353,912) Developer equity investment existing land 8,635,068 additional cash 718,844 9 ,353,912 Notes : 1 . First Security Bank (FSB) values the completed project (without Shopko) at $15,300,000 based on projected income stream. 2 . For construction financing purposes, FSB defines two funding phases: ( 1 ) $1 , 200,000 for site development and other costs associated with the three restaurant pads facing 1300 East, and contingent upon the three pads being leased and the sale of 9 acres to Shopko, and (2) $9 ,800,000 for site development, new construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings identified as Buildings C,D,E,F, and G on the site plan, contingent upon those buildings being preleased to at least 50% . 3 . Revolving Loan Funds will be injected into the project only after all other funding sources have been expended. R RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 COMMITTING URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT REPAYMENT FUNDS TO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City has accumulated certain funds from the repayment of Urban Development Action Grants and wherein such funds received after completion of UDAG-funded Recipient Activies are considered miscellaneous revenue and not governed under the provision of 24 C.F.R. 570; and WHEREAS, such funds can be used only for activities eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, which includes alleviation of physical and economic distress through the stimulation of private investment and community reinvestment in areas with population out-migration or a stagnating or declining tax base; and WHEREAS, such funds can specifically be used for provisions of assistance to private, for-profit entities, when the assistance is necessary or appropriate to carry out an economic development project; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that; 1 . It does hereby commit certain monies described as Urban Development Action Grant repayment funds as follows: THE CITY SHALL PARTICIPATE FINANCIALLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUGAR HOUSE CENTER PROJECT BY PROVIDING A SECURED LOAN OF $900,000 TO CLARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2. Said Loan shall be governed by conditions and terms as summarized in Attachment "A" affixed hereto, and as further defined by the City Attorney and ratified by contractual agreement with the City. 3 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER Attachment A TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF REVOLVING LOAN FUND PARTICIPATION IN THE SUGAR HOUSE CENTER Loan Amount: $900, 000 . Security: Second Deed of Trust against property. Term: No repayment of principal required for years 1 through 5 . Beginning year 6 , repayment of $900, 000 plus accrued interest, if any, amortized over 20 years from initial disbursement of loan funds, with balloon payment of all outstanding principal and interest at the end of year 10 . Interest Rate: 3% simple and accrued, years 1 through 5. 6% simple beginning year 6 through term of loan. Repayment : Monthly - For years 1 through 5 , repayment of interest, and any accrued interest, from excess cash flow if available after first mortgage debt and actual operating expenses, not including depreciation (as per proforma, Attachment "B" ) . For years 6 through 10, even payments of principal and interest, including accrued interest, if any. Balloon - Upon sale to third party or 10 years, whichever occurs first. Sale - Repayment of principle, interest and accrued interest on sale or restructure of primary financing. Conditions : 1 . Subject to firm commitment of all other financing. 2. Subordinate only to first mortgage of $11, 000, 000 . 3 . No loan funds will be disbursed until all proceeds of the $11,000, 000 First Security Bank construction loan have been expended, except for any sums, not to exceed $1,000 , 000, which may have been held, retained, or otherwise not paid by First Security Bank for the purpose of ensuring completion of any punch list items , guarantee work, or other similar items or reasons . 4 . No loan funds will be provided until and unless all delinquent property taxes due on the Parkview Plaza have been paid in full. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' c2? Amendment to City Board Ordinance March 28, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Ed Snow ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Adopt a proposed ordinance amending Section 2.04.055A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to board appointments and terms of office. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1988, the Council passed an ordinance limiting tenure on City boards and commissions to two terms or eight years, whichever was greater. The Mayor voiced his concerns about the constitutionality of the ordinance and refused to sign it. The Mayor then asked the City Attorney to advise him about the constitutionality of the ordinance. The City Attorney voiced serious concerns that the ordinance was unduly restrictive and impermissibly invaded executive appointing power. The Council consulted its own legal counsel which opined that it was impossible to predict if a legal challenge to the ordinance would succeed. In a series of memoranda and discussions between the City Attorney and Councilmembers and discussion between Councilmembers, it has been tentatively decided to amend to board ordinance to create for the Council the ability to make exceptions to the time and term limitations embodied in the current board ordinance. You have received and reviewed a letter from Roger Cutler regarding the amendment which addresses the Mayor's and Council's concerns on this matter. STAFF ANALYSIS: The City Attorney's proposed amendment appears to meet the Mayor's concerns about the limitations on his power and the constitutionality of the ordinance. Meanwhile, the amendment affords the Council the ability to limit terms and time on boards and commissions, but gives it the flexbility to make exceptions in special instances. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt amendment SUGGESTED MOTION: I move we adopt an ordinance amending Section 2.04.055A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to board appointments--terms of office. • Cl� • OFFICE OF THE CITY.COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 March 14, 1990 MEMORANDUM • TO: COUNCIL" tS FROM: COUNCIL CHAIR, ALAN MRDMAN Ak RE: ROGER CUTLER'S RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSAL TO AMID THE CITY'S BOARD ORDIITh E I've attached a copy of Roger Cutler's response to my letter which outlined the Council's proposal to amend the City's board ordinance. Roger has indicated that he would like to measure the Council's reaction before we schedule a meeting with him. Roger has changed the language of the amendment that we originally sent him, but I believe the thrust of the amendment remains the same. I've attached Roger's revised amendment and a copy of the Mayor's Executive Order regarding board and commission appointment policy. If you have any comments regarding the revised amendment or the Mayor's Executive Order, please contact me or Ed Snow. _ d }: ' ; . A wag/ .F .... Fan s�: 1 j MAR a 1990 d�1 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL SamI t) Q, air i 1 V V. 1 D•e Of ASSISTANT ATTORNEYSROGER F. CUTLER �•••�+ ��� " �`••�� r"`••`�"`~" RAY L. MONTGOMERY �`"n0fHe/ ,' . LAW DEPARTMENT . '.•- -`. GREG R.HAWKINS STEVEN W.ALLRED .;i ., • • • - •' - LARRY V.SPENDLOVE QEPU}YCrtYATTORMEr CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING •. BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D.LUKE 451.SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT.LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS - TELEPHONE (801)535-7788 - CECEUA M. ESPENOZA GLEN A. COOK FAX (801)535-7640 JANICE L.FROST • March 6 , 1990 Alan G. Hardman • Salt Lake City Council Chair 304 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Term limit on City committees or boards Dear Alan: Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1990 and :your request to find common ground with the Executive Branch concerning term limits for service on boards, commissions and committees . Enclosed please find a draft which I • believe would solve the issues extant in the current City • ordinance, which the Mayor declined to sign because it was unduly restrictive and impermissibly invaded executive appointing power. Please note that, in addition to some structural • changes made for clarification purposes, this draft shifts the prohibition from the Mayor' s power of appointment to the Council' s power of confirmation. I believe this modification is advisable to avoid the existing ordinance' s infirmity of having the Council limit the universe from which the Mayor may select appointees, otherwise qualified to serve on the board. The reasons for this change are set forth in my opinion on this subject, which was confirmed by the Council' s private attorney' s opinion. This draft and. the Mayor' s order No. 2 . 02 . 101, a copy of which I have attached for your convenient reference, . ' reach the same conclusion. Thus, it would appear the • Alan G. Hardman March 6, 1990 Page -2- = -_ • t e 'i ordinance amendment, when coupled with the Mayor's Executive Order, should amicably resolve this issue. Both of these approaches reach the issue from the executive and legislative perspective and impose a two term limit, except in extraordinary circumstances where a nominee's unique skills or talents may be required for a longer period of time. Before placing this matter. in legislative format, I am submitting it to you for review and comment. In doing so, i -have reviewed the County ordinance and would note that the County ordinance is inapposite because of the County' s different form of government, which does not separate executive and legislative functions . - Please advise me of your comments regarding the enclosed suggested ordinance. Sincere. y, • RNER� . CUTLER City Attorney RFC:cc Enclosure tl.+ •r-:`� •ir1• _ :i ..Y, t _ .. }iYy:.»��_. �.. t• .t7. _� .V1..•' ''1�•'.•.` •..t'.,: •w• ��M�..ti. .y• .fir - 4•• .*.T vI' • .'}w•i'�•'r•:l`...:r.y r:�.. }.,,� :7••�..SZT' '.LT�,7•i Nr{' . ! !f'a �'. it �'tii ":7�;• 3x:; mY•. F=:fw'n1a Via•,• •4.s:F:rti;����::a..:/.A.C� d ?y •�M• - • -.r:. !,.•V...s::a"e 3 z :.C:•:r,.,,�•�+�, i w ! .Ts.: eft- ��,�✓ i^L MS' -;,` �'n-.�v�.•.�:h.r Via-'_ :.a •+�'v.'�•h.ti^. ettrz :i::L•x".+;•+3,•tm �. ;':.i T .e:- � + ... _ ..r -t-- :fr•.a.=%'=•: Ya:�[y,... `'k. — ♦ �7P•ta .rt 3.t;:. :'.'." :•.:� - -ts .�'` ...i° J•,r.=.;.+,•r...M ...{n-,='tF;�,i'•�. .e:$.'. y.a.u,. ..r.s'. -��� • • • - •• .SALT"LAKE CITY.ORDIN �,,�;;: 7 ORDINANCE _x _ =Fw` =_� _ '�No:'•• of 1990 •. : • (Board Appointments--Terms of Office) . • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION--2.04..055A OF ..THE 'SALT LAKE • • • • • .•CITY:CODE,'- RELATING TO .BOARD APPOINTMENTS--TERMS :OF :OFFICE; "•' .• •_ • :in:Be it 'ordained•-by'•the -city`-Council'`of'3Salt Lake =City•,'-Utah:: . SECTION =1 :"` That .Section ;2.04:055.'•:. o , . ::_::� _ =,•. . :. - - - - 55A :of zthe�'Salt.,hake•�Cit~.•R--: -= - - Code, relating' to'Board 'appointments--terms-of'Office;'•be, =and _ • - the same hereby is, amended•,as follows: -•-7.. :•_-' :`•-.:. ::: •: ,:. °• • . - I - • consccuti ie , • mayor has - - r of • L _, SL .... 3 y l A. No person shall be confirmed by the Council to any body, for which the Mayor has the power of appointment,- if that • - appointment would result in service by the appointee of more -than two consecutive terms or ei ht ears whichever is reater unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that a longer period of service of an appointee is necessary to prevent a significant disruption of or prejudice to the body for • which the appointment .is sought. . - SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect the date of its first publication. C Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _-ram day of , 1990 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RFC:cc -2- SALT •LA9E CITY . POLICY AN •r: Effective Date Number - . PROCEDURAL ORDER • January 15, 1990 • 2.02.101 Subject - • _ BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - APPOINTMENT PROCESS Reference . Rescinds . • • Amends .• • 2.02.101 dated 12/20/87 Re-evaluation Date Distribution . - . - . ALL DEPARTMENTS - January 15, 1992 -• - Authority: PALMER A. DEP IS, MAYOR • . . • No. Pages Signature - ' • • 2 I. PURPOSE .- It is the intent of the Mayor to: • A. Ensure that Boards and Commissions have representation based on the demographic composition of the City's : - population. B. Ensure that members of Boards and Commissions geographically .represent all areas of the City. - C. •Ensure that members of Boards and Commissions have the skills, knowledge,- or are from professions appropriate to the individual Board or Commission. • D. Ensure that members of Boards and Commissions are City residents whenever practical. E. Ensure that members of Boards •and Commissions have no conflict of interest between their civic responsibilities or personal or private business. ' F. Ensure that every qualified resident in Salt Lake City . who desires to serve on a Board or Commission is • • : afforded the. opportunity to seek appointment. - G. Ensure that equal opportunity standards are followed • - in selecting members of Boards and Commissions. - • . • II. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTION • -• . Responsibility_ . - . Action • Department • -. 1. When a vacancy on a Board or . . . - Commission occurs through resignation, term expiration, or `= a member has completed serving 2 - consecutive terms, notify the Office of the Mayor. .. -. • • PROCEDURAL ORDER 20" 1.01 • - . PAGE 2 • :.. • - Responsibility - Action Department " 2. "Meet with the current Board Chairperson to discuss possible - names to submit to the Mayor. 3. Submit three names for potential replacements for each vacancy to the Office of the Mayor. • Office of the Mayor 4. Notify the City Council of vacancy. . " 5. Solicit Council.recommendations for replacement. • 6. Solicit recommendations for replacement from: .. - a. the affected department • b. the Office of Community Affairs • c. professionals in the field community leaders • 7. Seek -general public involvement through City Council and • - • Community Affairs newsletters, general news releases announcing vacancies and/or other means where appropriate. . . 8._ Compile a list of names of • potential replacements and submit to the Mayor. • . 9 . Notify department, chairperson of the Board or Commission in question, and the City Council of the names being reviewed by the Mayor. 10. Obtain Financial Disclosure Statements and _resumes from the candidates. • Mayor :. - 11. Review the list submitted by . - 12. Select the top three candidates. 13 . .Choose a finalist and submit that ;: person' s name, resume and _ • • • Financial Disclosure Statement to - the City Council for advice and consent. 14. If consent of the City Council is obtained, notify finalist and - department. • 15. If .finalist is not approved by the City Council, notify finalist. 16. Repeat .procedure from 3 above. 5g 1 _ 2• • • =-F L <l.+ ., • OFFICE:OF .THE CIT1(. COUt CIL A'�' CITY'AND COUNTY BUILDING. 45i.SOUTH STATE STREET.•SU1TE'304 --SAL-TYLAKE CITYrUTAH.84f'I1' • February 20, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: ED SNOW RE: REVIEW OF POSSIBLE CHANGES TO CITY BOARD APPOINTMENT ORDINANCE In light of recent Council discussions and the possibility that City board ordinance 2.04.055 may not withstand a legal challenge from the Executive Branch, I have outlined possible courses of action. 1. The Council could simply repeal Section 2.04.055 "Board appointments-- Terms of office. " In the ordinance's place, the Council could pass a resolution setting Council policy on board appointments. A possible resolution could read: "It is the Council's policy that no person shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms, or eight years, whichever is greater, to any board, committee, panel or similar body over which the Mayor has the power of appointment and the Council has the power of confirmation unless, for good cause shown and to prevent significant disruption of current board activities, the Council by a majority vote supports exceeding the two consecutive term or eight year policy limitation. " 2. The Council could retain Section 2.04.055, but provide a means of making • exceptions to a hard and fast rule of two terms or eight years. In order to make an exception, the Council could stipulate that it would have to be shown that, for good cause and to prevent the significant disruption of current board activities, the limitations in the ordinance could be exceeded. F PAGE TWO Esc = A possible amendment to Section 2. 04. 055 could read: "Notwithstanding any other provision of the code to the contrary, no person shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms, or eight years, whichever is greater, to any board, committee, panel or similar body over which the Mayor has the power of appointment and the council has the power of confirmation, (amendment in bold) unless, for good cause shown and to prevent significant disruption of current board activities, the council approves such reappointment. " The rest of the ordinance would remain the same. I have enclosed a copy of the ordinance. This amendment is modeled after language in Salt Lake County's ordinance which limits terms and time on boards and commissions. NOTE: At one time,. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of including in the resolution and amendment •to the ordinance a stipulation that all appointees who exceed the two term or eight year limit must garner a • supermajority (5-2) vote to be reappointed to a third term or to time longer than eight years. After a cursory review of the suggestion to utilize a supermajority in the resolution and ordinance, City Attorney Roger Cutler said that a supermajority clause may violate State law regarding actions of municipal councils. Roger said he would need 'time to research the issue and to determine if there is any case law on the subject. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the City's and County's board ordinances, Roger Cutler's legal opinion and the legal opinion of the City • Council's own legal counsel. • • J ' • KIPP AND CHRISTIAN, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW p• CARMAN E.KIPP CITY CENTRE I � )` ��f. p-D.GARY CHRISTIAN ej4G„6 �1 �.r 1• N � L "'}- J.ANTHONY EYRE *330 r. - ;+r !.`r� :�•� — WILLIAM W.BARRETT r, , GREGORY J.SANDERS 175 EAST 400 SOUTH 1 ��� - •=•- HEINZ J.MAHLER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111-2314 }r�� •"- ROBERT H.REES 198Q tJ� br JAMES B.HANKS (801) 521-3773 =4, GREGORY M.HOLBROOK FAX(801)359-9004 t MICHAEL J.COOPER SALT LA(1r1 E Y_ MICHAEL F.SKOLNICK `�'�fJ SHAWN MCGARRY � G �lel� REBECCA A.BROAOBENT �J(�l December 26, 1989 HAND-DELIVERED Cindy Gust-Jenson Executive Director . Salt Lake City Council . City and County Building 451 South State Street Suite 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Opinion Request Dear Ms. Gust-Jensen : This letter responds to your request ' for a review of a Salt Lake City Attorney ' s opinion letter dated March 27, 1989. The issue addressed by the City Attorney's opinion is whether the City Council 's adoption of Section 2.04.055, Salt Lake City Code is an impermissible intrusion into the executive powers of the Mayor because it limits the Mayor's authority to appoint individuals to commissions, boards, and committees, if the prospective appointee has previously served two terms. The City Attorney concluded that Section 2.04. 055 violates the separation of powers principals engrafted in the Salt Lake City Code and the Utah Code by impermissably intruding into the Mayor' s statutory appointment powers. RELEVANT STATUTES AND ORDINANCES Section 2 .04.055 , entitled "Board Appointments -- Terms of Office" , provides : "Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, no person shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms , or eight years, whichever is greater, to any board, committee, panel or similar body over which the mayor has the power of appointment and the counsel has the power of confirmation. Any portion of a term that exceeds one half of the term outlined in ordinance shall be considered a full term. " The Mayor ' s powers of appointment are delineated in Utah Code Section 10-3-1219 and Salt Lake City Code Section Cindy Gust-Jensen December 26, 1989 Page Two 2.04.010(k) . U.C .A. 10-3-1219 provides, inter alia: "[the Mayor] shall have the power and duty to: . . . [3] appoint and remove administrative assistants , including a chief administrative officer, and with the advice and consent of the council, appoint department heads , all statutory officers, commissions, boards, and committees of the municipality, except as may otherwise be specifically limited by law; " Section 2. 04.010 provides , inter alia: the Mayor ' s powers and duties include but are not limited to the following: . . K. Making all appointments to all city committees, boards , commissions and other advisory bodies in the city, after having received the advice and consent of the council on each separate prospective appointment , as provided or required in state law, and removing the same . " UTAH PRECEDENTS The City Attorney concludes that the issue of whether Section • 2 . 04.055 impermissibly usurps the Mayor ' s statutory appointment powers by restricting the universe of applicants from whom selections can be made by the mayor is one of first impression in Utah.: However, as the opinion notes , the Utah Supreme Court closely scrutinized the general framework of municipal separation of powers in Martindale •v. Anderson , 581 P.2d 1022 (Utah 1978) . In Martindale , the court held that under the council-mayor form of government , management of city property is an executive function reserved to the mayor, and approval of subdivision plats by the mayor is an appropriate exercise of executive power . The opinion states that : "legislative powers are policy making powers , while executive powers are policy execution powers. Legislative power , as distinguished from executive power, is the authority to make laws , but not enforce them or appoint the agents charged with the duty to make such enforcement . The latter are executive functions . " Id. at 1027 , citing Rampton v. Barlow, 23 U.2d 383, 464 P. 2d 378 (1970) . In Rampton, the Utah Supreme Court specifically considered the parameters of the executive 's appointment power. The Rampton court reviewed a statute which conferred on the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the power to appoint three members each to a newly created State Board of Higher Education. The Supreme Court held that the statute was contrary to Article V, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution which provides for the separation of the powers of government into three distinct departments . Citing Black ' s Constitutional Law, the court held "the legislature cannot I , +. (11 Cindy Gust-Jensen '4= December 26, 1989 _ Page Three lawfully assert any of the functions confided by the Constitution to the executive department, such as the power to make appointment to office." Id. at 380. Matheson v. Ferry, 641 P.2d 674 (Utah 1982) is another Utah Supreme Court case touching on the principals of separation of powers as they relate to the executive appointment power. In Matheson, the Supreme Court reviewed a statute providing for two legislative appointees- on a seven member judicial nominating commission. The court held that "there - is nothing in the Constitution -or inherent in the separation of powers doctrine which prohibits the legislative department of government from involving itself in the judicial appointment process to the extent it is done under the nominating commission statute in question. " Id. at 676 (Emphasis added) . The court went on to say that "we think the executive power of appointment is best construed as a shared power and it is recognized as such in the majority of states. " Id'. However, the Utah Supreme Court found that the statutory scheme in question violated the separation of powers doctrine because it allowed the Legislature ..y,. to exercise effective control over the function of selection and appointment of judges by coupling the power to appoint with the ability to confirm or reject the governor's appointments to the commission. The Matheson opinion is somewhat inapposite to the Salt Lake City ordinance in question because it involves judicial nominations . Section 2.04.055 involves the historically powerful prerogative of the executive to appoint whomever he chooses to executive offices, subject only to the advice and . consent of the legislative branch. However, the Matheson opinion does demonstrate the Utah Supreme Court 's strong adherence to well-established principals of separation of powers and the court 's sensitivity to maintaining a balance of power among the three branches of government . All three of the above-cited Utah cases also demonstrate the Utah Supreme Court 's tendency to utilize federal constitutional precedents in analysing separation of powers questions. For example; the Matheson opinion cites James Madison' s statement in No. 48 of the Federalist that: "unless these three departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the separation of powers requires, as essential to a free government , can never in practice be duly maintained. " Id. at 676 . In the three Utah cases discussed above, the court outlines the general parameters of separation of powers in the contexts Cindy Gust-Jensen December 26 , 1989 Page Four of municipal and state government . In the Rampton and Matheson cases the court also discusses the importance of preserving the power of appointment solely in the executive branch. The unique question presented by the Salt Lake City Council 's passage of 2.04.055 is whether the Council may forbid the Mayor from reappointing individuals who have served the greater of two terms or eight years . The ordinance falls in a gray area between actual usurpation of executive appointment power and the legitimate formulation of guidelines and.. qualifications for executive appointees . The ordinance does not empower the council to appoint individuals to executive offices , however, it does • restrict the field of possible candidates from whom the mayor can choose. FEDERAL PRECEDENTS The Utah Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of whether the legislative branch may . impose such limitations on executive appointments . However, federal courts have discussed the power of appointment at length. If Section '2.04.055 is legally challenged, the Utah Supreme Court would be likely to consult federal precedents . In Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice , 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 , (1989) the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the President ' s exclusive power to nominate appointees to executive office . The concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy , joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, emphasizes that "no role whatsoever is given either to the Senate or to Congress as a whole in the process of choosing the person who will be nominated for appointment. " Id. 109 S.Ct . at 2581 . The court cites the following passage from the Federalist No. 76 : "In the act of nomination, (the President ' s) judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate , should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment . " The Federalist No. 76, 456-457 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) The court 'also cites Hamilton ' s statement that : "it will be the office of the President to nominate , and, with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint . There will, of course , be no assertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive , and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose -- they can only ratify or reject the choice he may have made. " Id . No. 66 , at 405 (A. Hamilton) . The emphasis placed on the executive ' s exclusive power to appoint by the concurring opinion in Public Citizen indicates • • Cindy Gust-Jensen December 26 , .1989 Page Five that intrusion into that power by the legislative branch, however slight, may be offensive to the constitutional principle of separation of powers. However, two recent opinions from the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal hold that Congress may alter the terms of an executive office. In re Bennv, 812 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir. 1987) and In re Koerner, 800 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. •1986) plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the 1984 Bankruptcy Act which extended bankruptcy judges terms of office from two to four years. Both courts held that Congress did not violate Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (the appointments clause) by extending the term of the judges 'office. Id. at 1367 citing Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282, 13 S. Ct . 361 (1893) where the court held that it was permissible for Congress to add to the duties of an executive office and Crenshaw v. United States,' 134 U.S. 99, 10 S.Ct . 431 (1890) where . the Supreme Court upheld a congressional act which shortened the term of a naval midshipman's service. • CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The state and federal precedents reviewed above indicate that the constitutionality of Salt Lake City • ordinance 2.04.055 presents a close question. The ordinance could be viewed by the Utah Supreme Court either as a valid expression of legislative policy (i .e . that executive appointees should only serve two terms) or an invalid attempt to execute political appointments by constraining the Mayor 's power to appoint whomever he desires. A good faith argument can be made .that Section 2.04.055 merely expresses legislative policy. However, it is impossible to predict how the Utah Supreme Court would rule on the issue , and it is entirely possible that • the Supreme Court would hold that Salt Lake City ordinance 2 .04.055 , as presently constituted, is an impermissible violation of the separation of. powers principals which underpin .Salt Lake City 's mayor-council form of government . It appears the Council could accomplish the same outcome as intended by the current ordinance by simply declining to approve the appointments of individuals who are reappointed by the mayor after serving two consecutive terms or eight years. A council resolution which indicated the Council' s intention to decline consent for third term appointees, except under exceptional circumstances , would be more likely to withstand -Cindy Gust-Jensen December 26 , 1989 Page Six constitutional scrutiny and largely accomplish the same goals as those sought to be accomplished by the present ordinance. Very truly yours, KIPP AND CHRISTIAN, William W. Barret Michael F. Skolnick WWB/MFS:nt • r CRAIG E. PETERSON • _+� '`r_�' _T((O� O LONE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 .To: Salt Lake City Council February 5, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-582 submitted by John A. Schaar ReccrrTnendation: That the City Council accept the attached resolution for review of Petition No. 400-582 submitted by John A. Schaar and L. Mark Neff. The petitioner is requesting the annexation of 3.42 acres of property into Salt Lake City in order to develop a six-lot single-family residential subdivision. It is further recommended that the City Council set a public hearing on March 20, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. for said petition. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Department have reviewed this request and have recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed sixth lot be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of City owned property nccded for the development of Lot 4. This trade provides improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, and meets the needs identified in the East Bench Community Master Plan for a neighborhood park site and also provides an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. 2. The buildable area on proposed Lot 1 be limited to the nature pregraded topography of the property. 3. A holding lot be established on portions of Lots 1 and 5 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar and to insure access to the water line easement by the City. 4. Off-site infrastructure improvements be installed which may be identified by City Departments before final approval of the subdivision, as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development upon existing City infrastructure. • 5. The developer complete follow-up geotechnical field work to the City ram; k.?" staff's satisfaction, necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 6. The developer dedicate to Salt Lake City an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent as a part of the final subdivision approval. 7. The developer enter into an agreement for a special service rate contract with the City Public Utilities Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, if necessary, due to sewer service costing more to provide than normal, as a result of the use of a sewer force, main pumping system. • 8. Fire hydrant locations are to be within 150 feet maximum of any building lot in the subdivision and be acceptable to the City Fire Department. • 9. A11 roofing materials for any building in the subdivision be limited to Class A or Class B materials in order to limit fire hazards from brush fires. 10. The portion of Lakeline Drive, constructed in the subdivision, be restricted to no parking at anytime. 11. The petitioners install, at their cost, the standardized watershed protection area signage and gate structure at the stubbed end of the cul- de-sac where the future street would connect, and also on the access road to the reservoir site itself, as a part of the subdivision improvements. 12. The petitioner agrees to dedicate to the City a 20' wide pedestrian easement located above the city water line. The staff has been working with the petitioner during the past year and all items identified have either been addressed as part of the final subdivision plat or are contained within the Annexation Agreement which has been signed by the Developer. The Planning Commission has recommended that the property be zoned "R-1" with a "F-1" Overlay District. Legislative Dotuilents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary resolution and the ordinance for the public hearing date and is ready for your action. Submitted by: 4 MI B. Z ri Di ector Community and Economic Development lf/ • ALLEN C. JOHNSON.AICP \''� 'll1 ! •N ,'CITY GORPOR �I.O[ ..��� �..So.�.l r+>�9. `✓ PALMER DEPAULIS PUNNING DIRECTOR IAAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 • December 28, 1989 • Mr. Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State, Utah 84111 RE: Petition 400-582 by John A. Schaar and L. Mark Neff requesting annexation and zoning of a 3.42 acre parcel of property they own, which wilt comprise the future Phase 1, Carrigan View Subdivision, located at the present North end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline - J Drive. Dear Mike: • Attached please find Petition 400-582 requesting annexation of 3.42 acres of property owned by the petitioners who desire to develop it as a six-lot single-family residential subdivision. The property abuts on the South and the East, property presently in Salt Lake City's Corporate Boundary in the area of the Carrigan Cove Subdivision, located North and West from the present intersection of Lakeline Drive and Carrigan Cove Drive in the Southeast Bench Area of the City. Included in the area requested for annexation, is a 0.574 acre parcel of City Water Department Property which is part of the Carrigan Canyon twin reservoirs site. Under the proposed subdivision plan, only five of the six lots would be for building purposes with the sixth lot being set . aside for City Public Utility Department ownership and use as the access to the reservoir Site and possible public pedestrian access to the foothills. This petition has been reviewed by the appropriate City Department's and all recommend annexation subject to conditions. The Fire Department has recommended requirements necessary to mitigate the expected slow response time for emergency fire service. All conditions recommended by the reviewing departments have been incorporated into the Planning COIIuIIissions recommended Annexation Agreement. The Planning Couunission reviewed the matter and the amendment to the Annexation Policy Declaration, prepared for this area, at its meeting held January 28, 1988 and recommended annexation and zoning "R-1" with the "F-1" Overlay District, subject to the petitioners entering into a Annexation Agreement with the City addressing the following matters: - Mr. Mike Zuhl ` ' December 28, 1989 Page 2 1. The proposed sixth lot be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of City Owned property needed for the development of Lot 4. This trade provides improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, and meets the needs identified in the East Bench Community Master Plan for a neighborhood park site and also provides an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. 2. The buildable area on proposed Lot 1 be limited to the natural pregraded topography of the property. 3. A holding lot be established on portions of Lots 1 and 5 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar and to insure access to the water line easement by the City. 4. Off-site infrastructure improvements be installed which may be identified by City Departments before final approval of the subdivision, as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development upon existing City infrastructure. 5. The developer complete follow-up geotechnical field work to the City staff's satisfaction, necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 6. The developer dedicate to Salt Lake City an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent as a - part of the final subdivision approval. • 7. The developer enter into an agreement for a special service rate contract with the City Public Utilities Department to allow sewer service rates- to be higher than the general rates, if necessary, due to sewer service costing more to provide than normal, as a result of the use of a sewer force main pumping system. 8. Fire hydrant locations are to be within 3.50 feet maximum of any building lot in the subdivision and be acceptable to the City Fire Department. 9. A11 roofing materials for any building in the subdivision be limited to Class A or Class B materials in order to limit fire hazards from brush fires. 10. The portion of Lakeline Drive, constructed in the subdivision, be restricted to no parking at anytime. ._J Mr. Mike Zuhl December 28, 1989 • Page 3 11. The petitioners install, at their cost, the standardized watershed protection area signage and gate structure at the stubbed end of the cul- de-sac where the future street would connect, and also on the access road to the reservoir site itself, as a part of the subdivision improvements. 12. The petitioners agree to dedicate to the City a 20' wide pedestrian easement located above the City water line. During the past year since preliminary approval of the annexation by the Planning Commission, the staff and developer have been working through the terms cf the Annexation Agreement and final Subdivision Plat. As a result, all items identified by the Planning Commission have either been addressed as part of the final Subdivision Plat or are contained within the attached Annexation Agreement which has been signed by the developers. The way is now clear for the Petition and Annexation Agreement to be forwarded to the City Council for the scheduling of the necessary public hearing to consider the annexation and zoning. The following documents concerning this issue are attached to this letter: 1. A legal description for the proposed annexation. 2. The Master Annexation Policy Declaration amendment to area 14. 3. The Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes of the January 28, 1988 Planning Cou: ission meeting. 4. The Annexation Agreement. The Planning staff will provide the City Recorder a hearing mailing list and the annexation plat map as soon as possible. Thank you for your considerations. Respectfully submitted, • Allen C. Jo on, AICP Planning-Drector ACJ:DLW:GRH Attachments SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation and Zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-582-87 ) AN ORDINANCE. RECOGNIZING THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 14-B TO THE MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATIONS; EXTENDING THE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE THE CARRIGAN VIEW PHASE 1 ANNEXATION, ZONING THE SAME RESIDENTIAL "R-1" WITH FOOTHILL . DEVELOPMENT "F-1" OVERLAY ZONE, BY AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT MAP AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 21 . 14 .020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE; AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL PRECINCT BOUNDARY MAPS; AND SPECIFYING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, Petition No. 400-582-87 was filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, together with a plat showing the tract of land to be annexed hereafter to be known as the "Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation" , requesting that the contiguous, irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 3 . 42 acres of unincorporated territory lying at the present north end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline Drive of Salt Lake County be taken within the city limits of Salt Lake City Corporation to extend the City's limits; and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property, as shown by the last assessment • roles, situated in the tract hereinafter described; and Aim 5y WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the orderly expansion of the City' s boundaries, the City has previously adopted a Master annexation lies within Study Area No. 14 of said Declaration and is the specific subject of Amendment No. 14-B of aid Declaration which was approved after favorable Planning Commission review; and • WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, after examining the petition and having the petition favorably reviewed by the various departments of the City and the Planning Commission, and having accepted the petition by Resolution No. of 1990, and having considered the petition at a publicly advertised hearing held , 1990, and after finding the proposed annexation to be consistent and in keeping with the City' s Master Annexation Policy Declaration for Study Area No. 14 and Amendment No. 14-B, the Council voted by two-thirds or greater vote of its membership, in favor of the annexation, and WHEREAS, no objection or contest to such annexation or amendment has been filed as required by law or is presently pending; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Area. That the city limits of Salt Lake City be, and the same hereby are, enlarged and extended so as to include the following irregularly shaped approximately 3 . 42 acre parcel of land located at the present north end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline Drive in Salt Lake County, Utah: -2- Beginning at a point which is N 00° 07' 45" W 886 .12 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section 14, Township 1 f-11% South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence N 00° 07 ' 45" W 448 .93 feet; thence N 89° 1 51' 06" W 122.03 feet; thence S 30° 32' W 165 .47 feet; W thence Westerly on a 50 . 0 foot radius curve to the left, 5,40 chord bears S 46° 01' 30" W 77 .412 feet, a distance of 88.53 feet; thence N 64° 42' W 21 . 10 feet; thence Northwesterly on a 220 .885 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N 70° 39 ' 28" W 45.853 feet, a distance of 45 .94 feet; thence S 24° 30 ' W 142. 00 feet; thence Southeasterly on a 478 .34 foot radius curve to the right, chord bears S 52° 27 ' 25" E 162.333 feet, a distance of 163.12 feet; thence S 46° 45' 05" W 139 .22 feet; thence S 47° 54' E 32.50 feet' thence S 42° 06 ' W 16 .00 feet; thence S 69° 30 ' E 183 . 55 feet; thence N 06° 00' 00" W 39 .36 feet; thence N 84° 00 ' 00" E 51 . 00 feet; thence N 06° 00' 00" W 11. 95 feet; thence N 55° 06 ' 32" E 153 .70 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 3 .42 acres . SECTION 2 . Zoning. Be it further obtained and declared that the above Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation is hereby zoned Residential "R-1" and included in the Foothill Development "F-1" Overlay Zone and the Use District Map as adopted by Section 21 . 14 . 020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to the boundaries of use districts shall be, and the same hereby is amended by the addition of the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation zoned Residential "R-1" . • SECTION 3 . City Council and School District Maps. The Salt Lake City Council District and School Precinct Boundary Maps are hereby amended to include the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation in Council District 7 and School Precinct 6 as specified on such maps . SECTION 4 . General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the tract of land described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the corporate limits of Salt Lake 2 City Corporation. All ordinances , jurisdictions, rules and -3- _7y obligations of , or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over and made applicable and pertinent to this tract of land; and the streets , blocks , alleys and public ways of said tract shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City in that behalf. The monuments of the City Engineer shall henceforth be taken therein as the standards of location and distances of said land. SECTION 5 . Conditions Precedent. Prior to the acceptance of this annexation and the publication of this Ordinance, the petitioners shall enter into an Annexation Agreement with the City requiring such teLuis and conditions as have been recommended by the Planning Commission in a form approved by the City Attorney, which Annexation Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 6 . Filings and Notice. Upon the passage and publication of this Ordinance, the Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the County Recorder of Salt Lake County a copy of the approved annexation plan or map, duly certified and acknowledged, together with a certified copy of this Ordinance . The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to applicable state law. SECTION 7 . Publication and Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until an annexation plat prepared by a registered professional engineer or surveyor at the developer' s expense has been submitted to the -4- rE City meeting all City standards for such a document and has been ' signed by the Mayor. Further, this Ordinance and the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation may be repealed by the City if the petitioners or the petitioners ' heirs,' successors or assigns fail to comply with the provisions of the Annexation Agreement. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: 7 CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER . BRB:ap -5- c pyL. Cl SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COVMISSICN STAFF REPCRI' Q4 THE PROPCSED ANND<ATICN PETITION NO. 400-582 BY JCHN SCHAAR AND ERNIE FELCR, APPROXIMATELY 1900 SCUIli LAKELINE DRIVE, AND PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISICN APPROVAL FCR CARRIGAN VIEW SUBDIVISION AND RELAILO ACTIONS • CVERVIEW OF ISSUES This is a request for annexation, zoning and preliminary subdivision approval for 15 lots to be known as Carrigan View Subdivision, which is proposed to be developed in three phases, only the first of which is proposed for annexation at this time. The annexation and zoning actions are a recommendation to the City Council which must hold a public hearing prior to final approval . The subdivision approval is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Ccmnission and the Mayor. BACKGROUND This property is part of an approximate 40 acre parcel of unincorporated Salt Lake County jurisdiction which has existed as a peninsula, extending into the boundary of Salt Lake City for many years . The staff has been working with Mr . Schaar off and on for the past five years to get this parcel annexed and the peninsula eliminated. The proposed Carrigan View Subdivision consists of 6 lots in the city and 9 lots in unincorporated Salt_ Lake County. The lots in the city are to be zoned "R-1" and he developed on extensions of Lakeline Drive as a dedicated public street . Future subdivision and private street development of the remaining property to the South and West is anticipated by Mr. Schaar and would tie into the cul-de-sac on Lakeline drive and also to the stubbed street off of 2100 South street , east of Scenic Drive. The staff has been able to cane to an agreement with the petitioner . regarding annexation and subdivision development except for .one item, which the Planning Commission will need to decide. The developer desires to have the Salt Lake Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lot subdivision, thereby locking-in lot sizes for an 18 month period. This desire is designed to exempt the second and third phases of the subdivision fran changes in minimum lot sizes • which have been discussed in the past and are anticipated for consideration in the near future. Because of this , the staff cannot. recommend that the Planning Ccnrnission grant preliminary approval to the subdivision beyond Phase 1 which consists of six lots . The developer is asking the Planning Cammission to grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lots , even though only the first phase can be annexed at this time due to problems with developability and zoning of the remainder of the 40 acres of property composing the peninsula. Under the State Annexation Law, the City does have the extraterritorial authority to grant subdivision approval in areas located within one half mile of the City' s boundary in areas declared for annexation. • I. s •r • z Page 2 - Petition No. 400-582 (cont.) RECOMMEND/Mpg 1. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary subdivision approval for the first phase area only, with the question of lot sizes in the second and third phases being held to whatever sizes the ordinances in effect at the time of annexation would allow. • 2. The staff recommends approval of the basic configuration of the extension of Lakeline Drive, ending in a cul-de-sac and not connecting with any other public street, including Devonshire Drive consistent with the past policy of the Planning Commission. 3. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the annexation area contained in petition 400-582 be zoned Residential R-1 with a Foothill Development Overlay Zone F- 1. • 4. The staff recommends that a pre-annexation•agreernent between the • City and the developers be a requirement of annexation. This agreement should address the following points: a. Proposed Lot No. 15 be traded to Salt Lake' City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of city owned property needed for Lot No. 4. This trade would provide improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, as well as meet the need identified in the master plan update for a neighborhood park site and also provide an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. b. The buildable area on proposed Lot No. 1 be limited to the pre- grading topography of the property. c. Holding lots be required on portions of Lots No. 1, 5, and 6 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned' by others not associated with W. Schaar. d. Installation of any off-site infrastructure improvements which may be indentified by City Departments as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development . e. Performance of follow-up geotechnical field work as necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval . • f. Dedication to Salt Lake City of an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent . g. Agreement to enter into a special service rate contract with the City Public Utility Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, because the sewer service will cost more to provide due to the use of a sewer force main pumped system. January 20, 1988 DLW/mh '. -'I. �� I I vQiTINGHAM WAYJaA { eq9 - .. n t1 r. A a INOIAN HILLS n 1` „� 4 J Al n cc .-� �ti 4 SCHOOL A \\ "z A �,� - INOIAN MI!.S _ a n /� tl , CIR 7 \- 4P o n A - . _ 4. �'� n n 64 SSAOON n 1 . . - p'4 41. ■ A`.ROXBURYii n A - ,i,:f? .7e`M 45i 11 - CIR. n n we -. �R, R 1.4 y _ � "4, APACME n n A NIAwAT �-� CIRit • i ' ' AH • a. • P vie P i \Z'• P PaFn •-. „ + •K o � ` pC:P.I MIGT$ r \r. �• o n o� n n P— n o n oscMooL \ n� o n•. o nG - - - - - o In o n • cc n• a P P o , 1. _ _: i. o n \ • \.., .._ ,,. ., 1M , �1 o, __. . i ).i....n.,, n :øi., < ,�/ ' A •r u z 'rt``- • �J 'U O O O s E ep a — ( . `":•••€1," 0 0 0.....%. f I \:::,P e E•T'wCv 'j ; : \\.,JA r CIR ? 0` n ^ i,.: s n '' i+ • 'I .' r ,t \ a 1 t• 1 k zr� • � r. •i•..I. ' • Itill‘41.# P5- •%' Mb Oil • _--_/ ` ` mil \\\ 7://24- PC Minutes January 28, 1988 - Page 13 W ELN-I RST PARK STJBDIVISICN at 450 North 1550 West - for preliminary =x3. f approval . Mr. Wheelwright indicated Mr. Tan Perrero, the petitioner, is present. This_ subdivision was previously given preliminary approval in July, 19R4. It was approved as a 13 lot duplex subdivision with a cul-de-sac off of Walnut Drive. It is redesigned as a 14 lot single family subdivision. The street design and lot layout has remained the same. Mr. Schunann made a motion that the Planning Carmission give preliminary •approval to the subdivision with the understanding that there will he a restriction on the plat limiting the property to single family dwelling only and that the Planning Director have final plat approval . Mr. Stepan seconded the rrr)tion; all voted "Aye" except Mr. Neilson who opposed. CARRIGAN VIEW SUBDIVISION at approximately 1800 South Skyline Drive - for preliminary approval and Petition No. 582 by John Schaar for annexation of the plat . Mr. w neelwright indicated Mr . John Schaar and Mr. Ernie Fedor, the petitioners, are present . This is a request - for annexation, zoning and preliminary subdivision approval for 15 lots to be known as Carrigan View Subdivision, which is proposed to be developed in three phases , only the first phase is proposed for annexation at this time. The annexation and zoning actions are a recamtendation to the City Council which must hold a public hearing prior to final approval . The subdivision approval is under the • jurisdiction of the Planning. Commission and the Mayor. This property is part of an approximate 40. acre narcel of unincorporated property which has existed as a peninsula, extending into the eastern boundary of Salt Lake City for many years . 'Ine staff has been working with W. Schaar off and on for the past five years to get this parcel annexed and the peninsula eliminated. The proposed Carrigan View Subdivision consists of 6 lots in the City and 9 lots in the unincorporated county. The lots in the City are to be zoned "R •1" and be developed on an extension of Lakeline Drive as a dedicated public street . Future subdivision and private street development of the regaining property to the South and West is anticipated by Mr. Schaar and would tie into the cul-de-sac on Lakeline drive and also to the stubbed street off of 2100 South street , east of Scenic Drive. The staff has been able to cane to an agreement with the petitioner regarding annexation and subdivision development except for one item, - which the Planning Ccxnnission will need to decide. The developer desires to have the Planning Car-mission grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lot subdivision, thereby locking-in lot sizes for an 18 nurrth period. This will exempt the second and third phases of the subdivision fran changes in minimun lot sizes which have been discussed in the past and are anticipated for consideration in the very near future. Because of this , the staff cannot recuzmend that the Planning Carmission grant preliminary approval to the subdivision beyond Phase 1 which consists of the six lots . Under the State Annexation Law, the City does have the extraterritorial authority to grant subdivision approval in areas located within one half mile of the City's boundary in areas declared for annexation. • PC Minutes January 28, 1988 Page 14 J 7ii Mr. Ellison asked why phases two and three are not ready to plat. Mr. r) / Wheelwright stated that if anything is done on phases two or three it closes the neck on the peninsula to the point where the attorney's would not allow annexation because it would violate the state annexation law. . W. John Schaar stated there has been an exceptionally good relationship with Mr. Wheelwright and the Planning Staff on this piece of property. W. Schaar stated that he is in agreement with this, we were asking for the whole piece of property to be annexed but W. Wheelwright has asked us to withdraw that . We are willing to work with W. Wheelwright any way possible. However, we would like the Planning Commission to make this a project that will be worth while. Mrs. Wacker asked, concerning the nine additional lots, if the ordinance were to change to have bigger lots what would the Planning Commission he looking •at? W. Wheelwright stated that at least one-third of the nine • lots would be lost . Ms. Cramer stated that this is obviously an extremely complex issue that has been going on for quite sane time. This is a very fragile and vulnerable piece of hillside that will be creating a potential island of development on the hillside with the land below and around it not being developed. It seems the Planning Commission would be condoning putting houses on every possible piece of hillside. ` `: Mr. Ellison asked how this subdivision relates to the points of access and logical buildable areas . Where would other buildable lots be 0 located and where the access might came fran to reach them. . Mr. wheelwright stated that the only other developable land is located to the West and to the South and it is W. Schaar's intent to try to get zoning and density to allow him to do a private street development servicing this property. W. Neilson asked how many lots require sewage pumping? W. Wheelwright stated that there are two lots that require sewage purping. Mr. VanAlstyne made a motion that the Planning C.armission rectniiend that staff prepare for the public hearing of the annexation of the entire Schaar, Knowlton and Harrison properties. If there are any issues that __ . remain on the table with staff, that they be resolved so that the . borders can be.squared off . W. Schumann seconded the motion; all voted _ "Aye". W. Schumann made a motion that the Planning Omission approve Phase I of this subdivision and zoning with the understanding that there would be a 20 foot wide holding lot on Lots 1 and 5 and that the balance of the subdivision, Phases II and III , be held and not developed until a nmsterplan is brought back before the Planning Commission as to the development of sane of the adjacent properties subject to the following -,r` staff recommendations: . • P:3 Minutes • January 28, 1988 p • Page 15 _ 1. The staff recuinlends that the Planning Ctnunission grant preliminary _:`-' subdivision approval for the first phase area only, with the question of lot sizes in the second and third phases being held to whatever sizes the ordinances in effect at the time of annexation would allow. 2. The staff recuiu nds approval of the basic configuration of the extension of Lakeline Drive, ending in a cul-de -sac and not connecting with any other public street , including Devonshire Drive consistent with the past policy of the Planning Commission. 3. The staff recommends that the Planning Catnmission recommend to the City Council that the annexation area contained in petition 400-582 be zoned Residential "R-1" with a Foothill Development Overlay Zone „F-1". 4. -The staff recommends that a pre-annexation agreement between the City and the developers be a requirement of annexation. This agreement should address the following points: a. Proposed Lot No. 15 be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of city owned property needed for Lot No. 4 . This trade would provide improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, as well as meet the need identified in the master plan update for a neighborhood park site and also provide an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. ) b. The buildable area on proposed Lot No. 1 be limited to the pre- - grading topography of the property. c. Holding lots be required on portions of Lots No. 1, 5, and 6 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar. . d. Installation of any off-site infrastructure improvements which may be identified by City Departments as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development . e. Performance of follow-up geotechnical field work as necessary to - deter:nine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil Iavers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval . f. Dedication to Salt Lake City, of an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent . g. Agreement to enter into a special service rate contract with the City Public Utility Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, because the sewer service will cost more to provide due to the use of a sewer force main przmed system. . FC Minutes anuary 28, 1988 Page 16 VanAlstyne seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" except Nis. Cramer who was opposed. W. Neilson stated that he would like to go on record as being opposed to purged sewage, private streets (except in PUD's and condominium projects) and any increase in the density fran what has been seen here and would favor lower density for the remaining area. Mr. Schumann stated that he would like to compliment the staff on preparation of the various subdivisions. They were clean, precise, and they answered all the questions. PLA W1NG ISSUES Presentation by Doug Hatter/. Wasatch Front Regional Council of Goverments. concerning the proposed 20 Year Highway Imurovement Plan Mr. .Doug Hattery, fran the Wasatch Front Regional . Council of C-overrxreuts, stated that one of the Regional Council 's responsibilities is to prepare a long range transportation plan for the region. A plan was just approved last suuner and presentations are being made so that people are aware of it . Basically, the plan reccnmerids that bus services are expanded as the area grows and a major improvement to the I-I6 corridor by using a Light Rail System and freeway inurover:ents. Mr. flattery discussed the proposed high ay irnrovenents within Salt Lake City. Mr. Hattery explained that the top priority projects are I-is, north/south streets in Sandy and streets in the West Valley area. Ms . Craver asked what percent of the new road construction would require right-of-way acquisition? Mr. Hattery stated that much of the new construction will require property acquisition. Continue discussion concerning the Planning Ca-mission's strateav for the Downtown Plan Mr. Johnson stated that Planning Staff has put together a reccomended . work program and strategy showing how the Planning Carmission can input information from the R/UDAT, Chamber of amerces' Downtown Committee and the Mayor's Downtown Executive Committee. The following handout was discussed: The Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Staff reccxuuends a strategic program with benchmarks for caipletion, adoption, and implementation of the "Downtown Master Plan" . • .�.........v:.. '+J..•.....'e.0......:rp":r...pryi:.n..tnr.>vo^:-•�^..M FYFr.+np i.'a:4-. \:i'i.•f:G•. - .. ... .... ._.. . ..n.....a+.. -s e.,r-+,+..... x r..- f a. ....... - F ', , STAFF RECOMMENDATION 9 5 RESOLUTIONS REGARDING STEINER AQUATICS CENTER April 3, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Janne Nielson ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Convene as the Municipal Building Authority to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds, and related agreements and matters and reconvene as the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the said actions of the Municipal Building Authority. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a technical, legal requirement. The City Council is the Board of Trustees for the Municipal Building Authority. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Convene as Municipal Building Authority, approve, and adjourn. 2) Convene as City Council, and approve. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: For agenda item F-4 1. I move we recess as the City Council. 2. I move we convene as the Municipal Building Authority. 3. I move we adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds Series 1990A and approving related documents and matters. 4. I move we adjourn as the Municipal Building Authority. 5. I move we reconvene as the City Council. For agenda item F-5 6. I move we adopt the resolution approving the issuance by the Municipal Building Authority of lease revenue bonds Series 1990A and approving the terms of said bonds and related documents and matters. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. • AL "\Q kG11Y( re ,© j DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VERL "BUZZ" HUNT 's + + ' Treasurer PALMER DEPAULIS TREASURER CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING' MAYOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (801) 535-7946 March 29, 1990 Councilman Alan Hardman,nn, Chairman Salt Lake City Council City and County Building, Roan 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SUBJECT: Final Action on Steiner Aquatic Center Financing Dear Alan: This Tuesday, April 3, the City Council is scheduled to consider adopting the final two Council resolutions which will authorize the issuance of Municipal Building Authority Lease Revenue Bonds for the Steiner Aquatic Center Project. Final Actions The first resolution is to be considered for adoption as the Council sits as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority. This resolution authorizes the issuance of the bonds based upon the final terms established at sale (to be held Tuesday morning) , and authorizes the sale of the bonds to the underwriter (Shearson Lehman Hutton) . The resolution also authorizes and adopts all necessary related documents which serve to accomplish the issuance and sale of the bonds (supplemental indenture, amendment to the master lease agreement and official statement) . Alan Hardman - 2 - March 29, 1990 The second resolution is actually a "mirror image" of the first, but constitutes the final action of the City Council. The Utah Municipal Building Authority Act requires the City Council to officially approve the actions taken by the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority. Thus, the second resolution approves of the Municipal Building Authority authorization of bonds, the terms of the bond issue as determed at the sale, the sale of the bonds to Shearson Lehman Hutton, and the related documents necessary to accomplish the issuance and sale of the bonds. Bond Ratings Financial analysis performed by the underwriter and the City's Financial Advisor, Ehrlich Bober, indicated that it would be cost effective to seek and receive bond ratings from the credit rating agencies. I am happy to report. that both Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Corporation gave the bonds their highest rating for bond issues of this type (Al for Moodys and A+ for Standard & Poor's, both of which are comparable to a "triple A" rating on a "general obligation" basis) . In addition, Moody's confirmed their prestigious Aaa rating of the City outstanding general obligation bonds. Terms of the Bond Issue Final terms of the bond issue will be determined Tuesday morning. We are currently sizing the issue at $1,810,000. This represents $10,000 more than the figure included in the enclosed materials because the $1,800,000 figure does not include rating agency fees estimated at $10,000. The $1,810,000 consists of the following major components: o Construction Fund $1,570,000 • Debt Service Reserve Fund 181,000 o Cost of Issuance 59,000 TOTAL $1,810,000 The Construction Fund component of $1,570,000 is derived from the following levels of participation (which includes the Council's recent approval of $270,000 in additional items for the project) : Total Cost Cash Debt 1. Salt Lake City Corp. $1,153,000 $ 883,000 $ 270,000 2. S.L. Recreation Center Inc 932,000 232,000 700,000 3. S.L.C. School District 700,000 100,000 600,000 TOTALS $2,785,000 $1,215,000 $1,570,000 The Debt Service Reserve Fund component of $181,000 is set by federal tax law which limits such funds to 10% of par (hence, $181,000 = 10% of $1,810,000) . Please keep in mind these funds remain with the Trustee (West One Trust) collecting interest, and are used to make the 10th year (and final) debt service payment. Alan Hardni n - 4 - March 29, 1990 As a practical matter, the City could ill-afford default on any of its obligations. Cross-collateralization was necessary in this instance because of marketing consideration and because the Steiner Project itself does not provide sufficient collateral due to restrictions on the federal land given to the City. I sincerely hope the foregoing is helpful in summarizing the bond issue and in explaining the final actions to be taken on April 3. The entire financing team will be available to answer questions at both the Executive Briefing session at 5:00 PM and subsequently at the Council meeting. In the meantime, if I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, /5"-cC Buzz Hunt BH/kh cc: Linda Hamilton Cindy Gust-Jenson Cheryl Cook Buzz Tarsen attachments Law Offices of CHAPMAN AND CUTLER a partnership including professional corporations leodore S.Chapman 50 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84144 2 North Central Avenue _677-1943 FAX(801)533-959- Phoenix,Arizona 85004 Henry E.Cutler Telephone(801)533-0066 (602)256-4060 1879-1959 P 100 Peachtree Street,N.W. Atlanta,Georgia 30303 (404)420-1420 March 27, 1990 111 West Monroe Street Chicago,Illinois 60603 (312)845-3000 VIA HAND DELIVERY Verl F. "Buzz" Hunt City Treasurer Salt Lake City Corporation Room 228 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: $1,800,000 Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A Dear Buzz: In connection with the sale of the above-referenced Bonds on April 3, 1990, would you please arrange to have the following item included on the agenda for the April 3, 1990 meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS (STEINER AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT), SERIES 1990A, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $1,800,000, TO BE DATED AS OF APRIL 1, 1990; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST, A SECOND AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT, A STEINER AQUATIC CENTER GROUND LEASE, A CONSTRUCTION AGENCY AGREEMENT, A COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, A TAX CERTIFICATE AND OTHER AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; RATIFYING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SUCH RESOLUTION. Law Offices of CHAPMAN AND CUTLER Verl F. Hunt March 27, 1990 Page Two In the same connection, would you please arrange to have the following item included on the agenda for the April 3, 1990 meeting of the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS (STEINER AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT), SERIES 1990A, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $1,800,000, TO BE DATED AS OF APRIL 1, 1990, AND APPROVING THE TERMS OF SAID BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT, A STEINER AQUATIC CENTER GROUND LEASE, A CONSTRUCTION AGENCY AGREEMENT, A COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, A TAX CERTIFICATE, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; APPROVING THE FORM, TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST; AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SUCH RESOLUTION. In connection with the foregoing agenda items, enclosed herewith please find a copy of the proceedings, including the resolutions, referred to in such agenda items for the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees and of the Municipal Council. Please do not hesitate to call me at any time should you have any questions concerning the foregoing agenda items, the enclosed proceedings or any other matters in connection with this transaction. Best personal regards. Very truly yours, CHAPMAN AND CUTLER By _2)- xi >3 Darrell R. Larsen DRL:cha Enclosures cc: Cheryl D. Cook, w/encs. Salt Lake City, Utah April 3, 1990 The Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Municipal Council") pursuant to due notice met in regular public session on April 3, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 P.M., at its regular meeting place at Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The meeting was duly called to order by the Chair of the Municipal Council with the following members of the Municipal Council being present, constituting a quorum of the Municipal Council: Alan G. Hardman Chair Nancy K. Pace Vice Chair Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Roselyn Kirk Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead Councilmember Absent: None. There were also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Roger F. Cutler City Attorney After the minutes of the preceding meeting had been read and approved, the City Recorder presented to the Municipal Council an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the April 3, 1990, meeting of the Municipal Council in compliance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, by (1) posting written notice of the meeting at the principal office of the Municipal Council, and (2) providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, or to a local media correspondent. The affidavit was ordered recorded in the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: -2- STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the regular public meeting held by the Municipal Council of the City (the "Municipal Council") on April 3, 1990, by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted at the principal office of the Municipal Council at Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; said Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Municipal Council until the convening of the meeting; and (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station which has requested notification of meetings of the Municipal Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 3rd day of April, 1990. [SEAL] Kathryn Marshall City Recorder, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah -3- EXHIBIT A [Attach Notice of Public Meeting] -4- Thereupon, after the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, the following resolution was introduced by the Chair in written form and, pursuant to motion duly made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the resolution was adopted and approved by the following vote: Aye: Nay: The resolution was thereupon presented to and approved and signed by the Mayor in open meeting, was approved as to form and signed by the City Attorney, was signed by the Chair of the Municipal Council and was attested and recorded by the City Recorder in the official records of the City. The resolution is as follows: -5- RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 A RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS (STEINER AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT), SERIES 1990A, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $ , TO BE DATED AS OF APRIL 1, 1990, AND APPROVING THE TERMS OF SAID BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT, A STEINER AQUATIC CENTER GROUND LEASE, A CONSTRUCTION AGENCY AGREEMENT, A COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, A TAX CERTIFICATE, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; APPROVING THE FORM, TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST; AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer") has been duly organized as a Utah nonprofit corporation by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Municipal Council") solely for the purpose of (a) accomplishing the public purposes for which Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") exists by acquiring, improving or extending any improvements, facilities or properties (whether real or personal) and appurtenances to them which the City is authorized or permitted by law to acquire, including, but not limited to, public buildings or other structures of every nature or any joint or partial interest in the same, and (b) financing the costs of such projects on behalf of the City in accordance with the procedures and subject to the limitations of the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act, Sections 11-29-1 et seq. of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the Issuer may issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending a project (as such term is defined in the Act), and such bonds must be secured by a pledge and assignment of the revenues received by the Issuer under the leasing contract (as such term is defined in the Act) with respect to the project financed with the proceeds of the sale of such bonds and may be secured by (a) a mortgage (as such term is defined in the Act) covering all or any part of such project, (b) a pledge and assignment of the leasing contract for that project, (c) amounts held in reserve funds or (d) such other security devices with respect to the project as may be deemed most advantageous by the Issuer; and WHEREAS, to finance the cost of certain projects pursuant to the Act on behalf of the City, the Issuer has heretofore issued pursuant to the Act its (a) "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1988" (the "Series 1988 Bonds") and (b) "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Municipal Golf Courses Project), Series November 1, 1988" (the "Series November 1, 1988 Bonds") under an Indenture of Trust, Assignment of Master Lease Agreement and Security Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by that certain First Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 1, 1988, (collectively, the "Original Indenture") between the -6- Issuer and Moore Trust Company (now West One Trust Company), as Trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, Section 213 of the Original Indenture provides that Additional Bonds (as such term is defined in the Original Indenture) may be issued under the Original Indenture, subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions for such issuance as provided in the Original Indenture and in Section 5.07 of the Master Lease Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by that certain First Amendment, dated as of November 1, 1988, (collectively, the "Original Lease") between the Issuer and the City, and such Additional Bonds shall be secured by the lien of the Indenture (as hereinafter defined), the Mortgage (as defined in the Original Indenture) and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement (as defined in the Original Indenture) and rank pari passu with the Series 1988 Bonds and the Series November 1, 1988 Bonds (collectively, the "Prior Parity Bonds"); and WHEREAS, Section 5.07(b) of the Original Lease and Section 213 of the Original Indenture authorize the issuance of such Additional Bonds for the purpose, among other things, of providing funds to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing, improving or extending any additional sites, buildings and equipment, or any combination thereof, for the use and benefit of the City, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions as set forth in Section 5.07(b)(iii) of the Original Lease, all of which the City and the Issuer shall have satisfied prior to the issuance of the Bonds hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the City desires the Issuer to undertake the acquisition, improvement and extension of another project pursuant to the Act consisting of the acquisition, construction and improvement of (a) certain structures, facilities and other improvements for a recreation facility including but not limited to an indoor swimming pool with associated facilities (such as locker rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, administration spaces, entry lobby and storage), an outdoor swimming pool with decks and all related facilities, which is to be located on a parcel of land in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, at approximately 675 South Guardsman Way and on land contiguous thereto (the "Steiner Aquatic Center Site"), as more particularly described in Exhibit A to that certain Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Second Supplement") to the Original Indenture (the Second Supplement and the Original Indenture are herein collectively referred to as the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and the Trustee, (b) equipment related to the operations to be conducted with respect to such recreation facility and (c) related improvements, facilities, properties and appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to certain road improvements, parking lot improvements and landscaping (all of the foregoing properties described in (a), (b) and (c) being herein collectively referred to as the "Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities"), all for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City and members of the general public for recreation purposes and for other purposes that the City has determined are desirable in connection with the development of the area adjoining the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 11-29-8(1) of the Act, the City, in its capacity as ground lessor, and the Issuer, in its capacity as ground lessee, will enter into that certain Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) pursuant to which the City will lease to the Issuer, and the Issuer will lease from the City, the Steiner Aquatic Center Site for the purpose of the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension thereon of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities, all as provided therein; and -7- WHEREAS, the Issuer and the City will enter into that certain Second Amendment, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Second Amendment", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the Original Lease (the Second Amendment and the Original Lease are herein collectively referred to as the "Lease"), pursuant to which the Issuer will agree to acquire, construct, improve and extend or to cause the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site (the foregoing actions to be taken are herein collectively referred to as the "Steiner Aquatic Center Project") and to lease the Steiner Aquatic Facilities and the Steiner Aquatic Center Site to the City on the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease; and WHEREAS, the City will agree, as agent of the Issuer pursuant to that certain Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project), dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Construction Agency Agreement", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D) to acquire, construct, improve and extend or to cause the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site as provided therein and in the Second Amendment; and WHEREAS, to assure the availability of parking for patrons of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities, the City and the Issuer will enter into that certain Assignment of Right of Entry, dated as of April 1, 1990 (the "Assignment Agreement", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E), relating to Right of Entry No. 3463, dated October 20, 1989, (the "Right of Entry") granted to the City by the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry (the "Division"); and WHEREAS, in addition to the other security granted by the Issuer for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds and the Prior Parity Bonds, the Issuer will grant and assign a security interest in and to the Right of Entry to the Trustee for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and any Additional Bonds hereafter issued under the terms of the Indenture, to which collateral assignment the City consents in the Assignment Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Municipal Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer and the City (a) for the Issuer to issue its $ aggregate principal amount of Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds, (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Indenture, which shall be secured under the Original Indenture pari passu with the Prior Parity Bonds as provided in the Original Indenture for a series of Additional Bonds thereunder, to provide funds for the purpose of (i) paying a portion of the costs of the Steiner Aquatic Center Project for the use, operation and occupancy of the Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property (as hereinafter defined) by the City and any permitted sublessees as provided in the Lease, (ii) providing for a deposit to the Reserve Fund under the Indenture for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds (as such term is defined in the Second Supplement), and (iii) paying costs of issuance relating to the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds, (b) for the City to lease the Steiner Aquatic Center Site to the Issuer as provided in the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease and (c) for the City to lease the Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property, together with the Projects and the Leased Golf Course Property (as defined in the Original Lease) which have heretofore been leased pursuant to the Original Lease, from the Issuer and to pay certain base rentals and additional rentals (subject to annual appropriation) as provided in the Lease, which will be sufficient, so long as the City elects to extend the term of the Lease for each succeeding one-year renewal term as provided therein, to pay the principal of, and -8- premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds and certain other costs and expenses as provided in the Lease; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide for continuous compliance with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes by entering into such tax certificates and other agreements and certificates for such purposes as directed by bond counsel for the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has negotiated for the sale of the Bonds to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., as underwriter (the "Underwriter"), pursuant to that certain Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, (the "Bond Purchase Agreement", which is attached hereto as Exhibit F) among the Issuer, the City and the Underwriter, and in the opinion of the City it is to the best interests of the City to approve the acceptance by the Issuer of the offer of the Underwriter to purchase the Bonds as provided in the Bond Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Recorder of the City has presented to the Municipal Council at this meeting the Bond Purchase Agreement and the proposed form of each of the following agreements: (a) the Second Amendment; (b) the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease; (c) the Construction Agency Agreement; (d) the Assignment Agreement; and (e) the Resolution heretofore adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Issuer on the date hereof (the "Bond Resolution") authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds, all in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Steiner Aquatic Center Project; and WHEREAS, Section 11-29-9 of the Act provides that "[no] bonds may be issued by a building authority unless the issuance of the bonds and the terms of the bonds have been approved by the governing body of the public body," and the Municipal Council, as the "governing body" of the "public body" within the meaning of the Act, desires to comply with such requirement of the Act in order to enable the Issuer to issue the Bonds on the terms set forth in the Bond Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. Definitions. All words and phrases defined in Article I of the Indenture shall have the same meaning when used in this Resolution. In addition, the following words and phrases as used in this Resolution shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates another or different meaning or intent: "Act" shall mean the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act, Title 11, Chapter 29, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. "Assignment Agreement" shall mean that certain Assignment of Right of Entry, dated as of April 1, 1990, from the City to the Issuer relating to the Right of Entry, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, as authorized by this Resolution. "Bond Purchase Agreement" shall mean that certain Bond Purchase Agreement, dated the date hereof, between the Issuer and the Underwriter and approved by the City, relating to the purchase of the Bonds by the Underwriter. -9- "Bond Resolution" shall mean that certain resolution heretofore adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Issuer on the date hereof, authorizing (among other things) the issuance and sale of the Bonds. "Bonds" shall mean the $ aggregate principal amount of the Issuer's Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A, authorized to be issued pursuant to the Bond Resolution, Article II of the Second Supplement and the Indenture in accordance with the Act. "City" shall mean Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah, and any public body or public corporation succeeding to its rights and obligations under any of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. "Code" shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. "Collateral Assignment" shall mean that certain Collateral Assignment Agreement (For Right of Entry), dated as of April 1, 1990, from the Issuer to the Trustee, with the consent of the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry, relating to the Additional Land, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit G to the Bond Resolution, as approved by this Resolution. "Construction Agency Agreement" shall mean that certain Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project), dated as of April 1, 1990, between the City and the Issuer, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, as authorized by this Resolution. "Indenture" shall mean the Original Indenture as supplemented and amended by the Second Supplement, as the same may be supplemented and amended from time to time in accordance with its terms. "Issuer" shall mean the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a Utah nonprofit corporation, and any body which succeeds to its powers, duties or functions. "Lease" shall mean the Original Lease as amended and supplemented by the Second Amendment, including the Exhibits and Schedules attached thereto and incorporated therein, and any further amendments and supplements to the Original Lease as therein and in the Indenture provided. "Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property" shall mean the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities and the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, collectively, leased and to be leased to the City by the Issuer pursuant to the Lease. "Mortgage" shall mean that certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Assignment of Rents, executed and recorded as provided in the Indenture, between the Issuer (as mortgagor) and the Trustee (as mortgagee). "Municipal Council" shall mean the governing body of the City. -10- "Original Indenture" shall mean the Indenture of Trust, Assignment of Master Lease Agreement and Security Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by the First Supplement, between the Issuer and the Trustee, authorizing, among other things, the issuance of the Prior Parity Bonds. "Original Lease" shall mean the Master Lease Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by the First Amendment, between the Lessee and the Issuer. "Resolution" shall mean this resolution of the Municipal Council. "Right of Entry" shall mean that certain Right of Entry No. 3463, dated October 20, 1989, granted by the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry, to the Lessee with respect to the Additional Land. "Second Amendment" shall mean the Second Amendment, dated as of April 1, 1990, to the Original Lease, between the City and the Issuer, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, as authorized by this Resolution. "Second Supplement" shall mean the Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1990, to the Original Indenture, between the Issuer and the Trustee, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Bond Resolution, as approved by this Resolution. "Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities" shall mean, collectively, (a) the structures, facilities and other improvements for a recreation facility, including but not limited to an indoor swimming pool with associated facilities (such as locker rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, administration spaces, entry lobby and storage), an outdoor swimming pool with decks and all related facilities, to be located on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, (b) the equipment related to the operations to be conducted with respect to such recreation facility and (c) related improvements, facilities, properties and appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to certain road improvements, parking lot improvements and landscaping, all as described generally in Exhibit A attached to the Second Amendment. "Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease" shall mean that certain Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, dated as of April 1, 1990, between the City (as ground lessor) and the Issuer (as ground lessee), substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, as authorized by this Resolution and as the same may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms. "Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements" shall mean, collectively, the Second Amendment, the Second Supplement, the Right of Entry, the Collateral Assignment, the Assignment Agreement, the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease and the Construction Agency Agreement. "Steiner Aquatic Center Project" shall mean the acquisition, construction and improvement of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, as contemplated by the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. -11- "Steiner Aquatic Center Site" shall mean that certain land situated in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached to the Second Amendment. "Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement" shall mean that certain Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement, executed and recorded as provided in the Indenture, between the Issuer (as debtor) and the Trustee (as secured party). "Tax Certificate" shall mean any agreement or certificate of the Issuer and the City which the Issuer and the City may execute in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. "Trustee" shall mean West One Trust Company (formerly Moore Trust Company), a Utah corporation, as trustee under the Indenture, its successors in trust and their assigns. "Underwriter" shall mean Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., as purchaser of the Bonds in accordance with the Bond Purchase Agreement. SECTION 2. Approval of Issuance of Bonds. For the purpose of financing the Steiner Aquatic Center Project, providing for a deposit to the Reserve Fund under the Indenture and paying the costs and expenses incidental thereto and to the issuance of the Bonds hereinafter described, the Municipal Council hereby approves pursuant to Section 11-29-9 of the Act the issuance of a series of lease revenue bonds of the Issuer on behalf of the City designated as "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A" and to be issued pursuant to the Act and the Bond Resolution and in accordance with and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established in the Indenture. SECTION 3. Terms of the Bonds. (a) The Bonds hereby approved shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $ pursuant to the Bond Resolution and the Indenture. The Bonds hereby approved shall be issuable only as fully registered bonds without coupons in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, shall be dated as of April 1, 1990, and shall bear interest from such date payable on October 15, 1990, and thereafter semiannually on October 15 and April 15 of each year until paid as provided in the Indenture. The Bonds hereby approved shall mature on October 15 of each of the years and in the amounts and bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) as follows: -12- Year of Principal Rate of Maturity Amount Interest 1990 $ 96 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (b) The Bonds hereby approved shall have such further terms and provisions as are provided in the Bond Resolution, which are hereby incorporated herein by this reference and are approved for all purposes of Section 11-29-9 of the Act. Without Iimiting the generality of the foregoing, the Municipal Council hereby approves the terms for redemption of the Bonds as provided in Section 5 of the Bond Resolution and the rights and remedies provided in the Bond Resolution and the Indenture to the Trustee, subject to the limitations thereon as provided in the Bond Resolution and the Indenture. SECTION 4. Limited Obligations. The Bonds, together with the interest and premium, if any, thereon, are not general obligations of the Issuer, but are limited obligations and, except for the security provided by the Indenture, the Mortgage and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement, all pursuant to Section 11-29-11 of the Act, are payable solely out of Base Rentals received by the Trustee under the Lease and certain other amounts received under the Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Mortgage, the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement or the Bonds shall be construed as requiring the State of Utah or any political subdivision of the State of Utah to pay any of the Bonds or to pay any of the premium (if any) or interest thereon or to appropriate any money to pay the same. Pursuant to Section 11-29-11 of the Act and the Indenture, the Bonds shall be secured by the Trust Estate which is specifically pledged, hypothecated, assigned and otherwise secured in the Indenture, subject to Permitted Encumbrances, and by the Mortgage and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement, all for the equal and ratable payment of the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and any bonds hereafter issued on a parity with the Bonds and the Prior Parity Bonds under the Indenture and shall be used for no other purpose than to pay the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and such additional parity bonds, except as may be otherwise expressly authorized in the Indenture. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the State of Utah or any political subdivision of such State is pledged to the payment of the principal of, or premium, if any, or interest on, the Bonds or other costs appertaining thereto. The Bonds and the interest and premium, if any, thereon do not now and shall never constitute an indebtedness of the Issuer, the City, the State of Utah or any political subdivision of such State within the meaning of any State constitutional provision or limitation nor give rise to or be a general obligation or liability of nor a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the State of Utah or any political subdivision of the State of Utah. No breach of any covenant or agreement in the Bond Resolution, the Indenture, the Mortgage, the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement or the Lease shall impose any general obligation or liability upon, nor a charge against, the City or the general credit or taxing power of the State of Utah or any of its -13- political subdivisions. THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY TO PAY BASE RENTALS AND OTHER AMOUNTS UNDER THE LEASE IS ANNUALLY RENEWABLE AS PROVIDED THEREIN. THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT OF THE CITY, THE STATE OF UTAH OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF. NEITHER THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS NOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LEASE DIRECTLY OR CONTINGENTLY OBLIGATE THE CITY TO APPROPRIATE ANY MONEY TO PAY ANY RENTALS UNDER THE LEASE OR TO PAY ANY RENTALS BEYOND THOSE APPROPRIATED FOR THE CITY'S THEN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR OR OBLIGATE THE STATE OF UTAH OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF (OTHER THAN THE CITY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE LEASE) TO PAY ANY RENTALS DUE TO THE ISSUER UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE. NO PERSON EXECUTING THE BONDS OR THE LEASE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PERSONAL LIABILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY BY REASON OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS OR THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE. SECTION 5. Authorization to Execute and Deliver Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements; Approval of Other Agreements and Bond Purchase Agreement. (a) The forms, terms and provisions of the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, the Second Amendment, the Construction Agency Agreement and the Assignment Agreement are each hereby approved in substantially the forms presented at this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibits B, C, D and E, respectively, with such insertions, omissions and changes as shall be approved by the Mayor of the City, the execution of such documents being conclusive evidence of such approval; and the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the City Recorder of the City is hereby authorized and directed to attest and countersign, each of such Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements and any related exhibits attached thereto, and the City Recorder of the City is hereby authorized and directed to affix the seal of the City to each of such Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. (b) The forms, terms and provisions of the Second Supplement and the Collateral Assignment are hereby approved in substantially the forms presented at this meeting and attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit G, respectively, to the Bond Resolution, with such insertions, omissions and changes thereto as shall be made in accordance with the terms of the Bond Resolution. (c) The sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit F is hereby approved, and the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement evidencing such approval of the City. SECTION 6. Other Actions with Respect to the Bonds and the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. The officers and employees of the City shall take all action necessary in conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of each of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered in connection with the sale and delivery of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. If the Mayor or the City Recorder of the City shall be unavailable to execute or attest and countersign (as applicable) the Bonds, the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements and/or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to execute and attest and countersign (as applicable), the same may be executed and attested and countersigned (as applicable) by the Acting Mayor of the City, or by any Deputy City Recorder of the City, respectively. -14- SECTION 7. Arbitrage Covenant; Covenant to Maintain Tax Exemption. (a) The Mayor of the City, the City Treasurer of the City and the City Recorder of the City are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver from time to time such certificates and agreements as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated or proposed thereunder, including, without limitation, Sections 1.103-13, 1.103- 14 and 1.103-15 of the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) as the same presently exist, or may from time to time hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised. The City covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the City which may be deemed to be proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations (proposed or promulgated) which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the City obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. (b) The City further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that the City (i) will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code, (ii) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code and (iii) without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (A) will not take any action which would cause the Bonds, or any Bond, to be a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code and (B) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause the Bonds, or any Bond, to be a "private activity bond" or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code. The Mayor of the City, the City Treasurer of the City and the City Recorder of the City are each hereby authorized and directed to execute from time to time such Tax Certificates as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not and will not become "private activity bonds", that all applicable requirements of Section 149 of the Code are and will be met and that the covenants of the City contained in this Section 7(b) will be complied with. (c) The City covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that: (i) the City will at all times comply with the provisions of any Tax Certificates; (ii) the City will at all times comply with the provisions of Article IV of the Tax Certificate and the rebate requirements contained in Section 148(f) of the Code; and (iii) no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the City have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning 31 days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending 31 days following the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds pursuant to a common plan of financing with the plan for the issuance of the Bonds and payable out of substantially the same source of revenues. (d) The City hereby covenants to adopt, make, execute and enter into (and to take such actions, if any, as may be necessary to enable it to do so) any resolution or Tax Certificate necessary to comply with any changes in law or regulations in order to preserve the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes to the extent that it may lawfully do so. The City further -15- covenants to (I) impose such limitations on the investment or use of moneys or investments related to the Bonds, (II) make such payments to the United States Treasury, (III) maintain such records, (IV) perform such calculations and (V) perform such other acts as may be necessary to preserve the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes to the extent that it may lawfully do so. (e) Pursuant to these covenants, the City obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the issue of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. SECTION 8. Approval of Appointment of Trustee. The Municipal Council hereby approves the appointment of West One Trust Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, as Trustee under the Second Supplement, pursuant to Section 12 of the Bond Resolution. SECTION 9. Filing of Resolution. The City Recorder of the City is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Secretary of the Issuer promptly following the adoption hereof. SECTION 10. Resolution Irrepealable. After any of the Bonds are delivered by the Trustee to the purchaser thereof upon receipt of payment therefor, this Resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until the Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, canceled and discharged. SECTION 11. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution; provided, however, that nothing in this Section 11 shall be construed to amend or modify the limitations provided in Section 4 hereof. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. -16- ADOPTED and APPROVED this 3rd day of April, 1990. SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH ATTEST: By Alan G. Hardman Chair of the Municipal Council, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Kathryn Marshall City Recorder, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah APPROVED: By Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah [SEAL] APPROVED as to form: By Roger F. Cutler City Attorney, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah -17- (Other business not pertinent to the above appears in the minutes of the meeting.) Upon the conclusion of all business and upon motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned. [SEAL] Alan G. Hardman Chair of the Municipal Council, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah ATTEST: Kathryn Marshall City Recorder, • Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah -18- STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Kathryn Marshall, do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. I further certify that the above and foregoing constitutes a full, true and correct copy of the minutes of a regular public meeting of the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, held on April 3, 1990, and of a resolution adopted at said meeting, insofar as said minutes pertain to the matters above set forth, as said minutes and resolution are officially of record in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 3rd day of April, 1990. Kathryn Marshall City Recorder, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah [SEAL] -19- EXHIBIT B [Attach Form of Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease Here] -20- EXHIBIT C [Attach Form of Second Amendment Here] -21- EXHIBIT D [Attach Form of Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project) Here] -22- EXHIBIT E [Attach Form of Assignment Agreement Here] -23- EXHIBIT F [Attach Bond Purchase Agreement Here] DRL/cha/859447-br2 -24- Salt Lake City, Utah April 3, 1990 The Board of Trustees (the "Board") of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Authority") pursuant to due notice met in regular public session on April 3, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 P.M., at its regular meeting place at Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. On roll call, the following members of the Board were determined present: Alan G. Hardman President Nancy K. Pace Vice President Thomas M. Godfrey Trustee L. Wayne Horrocks Trustee Roselyn Kirk Trustee Don C. Hale Trustee Ronald J. Whitehead Trustee Absent: None. There were also present: Kathryn Marshall: Secretary Roger F. Cutler Attorney for the Authority After the meeting had been duly called to order, the Secretary presented to the Board an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the April 3, 1990, meeting of the Board in compliance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, by (1) posting written notice of the meeting at the principal office of the Board, and (2) providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Authority and of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, or to a local media correspondent. The affidavit was ordered recorded in the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE COUNTY ) I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Authority") do hereby certify, according to the records of the Board in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the April 3, 1990, public meeting held by the Board by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted at the principal office of the Board at Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on March , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; said Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Board until the convening of the meeting; and (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on March , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Authority and of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station which has requested notification of meetings of the Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 3rd day of April, 1990. Kathryn Marshall, Secretary Municipal Building Authority of [SEAL] Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah -2- EXHIBIT A [Attach Notice of Public Meeting] -3- After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, the President stated that one of the purposes of said public meeting was the consideration and adoption of a Resolution (a) authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of $ aggregate principal amount of Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A, (the "Bonds") of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Authority") pursuant to the provisions of the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act, Title 11, Chapter 29, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (the "Act") for the purpose of providing financing for the cost of acquiring, improving and extending a certain project pursuant to the Act consisting of the acquisition, construction and improvement on certain land located at approximately 675 South Guardsman Way (the "Steiner Aquatic Center Site") in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") of (i) certain structures, facilities and other improvements for a public recreation facility, (ii) equipment related to the operations to be conducted with respect to such recreation facility and (iii) related improvements, facilities, properties and appurtenances thereto, but does not have on hand moneys sufficient to pay the costs for such acquisition, construction and improvement; (b) authorizing the execution and delivery by the Authority of (i) a Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust to an Indenture of Trust, Assignment of Master Lease Agreement and Security Agreement, as heretofore amended and supplemented, (ii) a Second Amendment to a Master Lease Agreement, as heretofore amended and supplemented, and (iii) a Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease and other agreements relating to said financing; (c) ratifying the distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds and authorizing the preparation and distribution of a final Official Statement relating to the Bonds; (d) approving the sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter identified in the Resolution; and (e) taking related actions with respect to the Bonds. Thereupon, the following Resolution was introduced in written form by Trustee and, pursuant to motion duly made by -4- Trustee and seconded by Trustee , was adopted and approved by the following vote: Aye: Nay: The Resolution was thereupon signed by the President and was attested and recorded by the Secretary in the official records of the Authority. The Resolution is as follows: RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS (STEINER AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT), SERIES 1990A, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $ , TO BE DATED AS OF APRIL 1, 1990; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST, A SECOND AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT, A STEINER AQUATIC CENTER GROUND LEASE, A CONSTRUCTION AGENCY AGREEMENT, A COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, A TAX CERTIFICATE AND OTHER AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; RATIFYING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION. -5- WHEREAS, the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer") has been duly organized as a Utah nonprofit corporation by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Municipal Council") solely for the purpose of (a) accomplishing the public purposes for which Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") exists by acquiring, improving or extending any improvements, facilities or properties (whether real or personal) and appurtenances to them which the City is authorized or permitted by law to acquire, including, but not limited to, public buildings or other structures of every nature or any joint or partial interest in the same, and (b) financing the costs of such projects on behalf of the City in accordance with the procedures and subject to the limitations of the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act, Sections 11-29-1 et seq. of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the Issuer may issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending a project (as such term is defined in the Act), and such bonds must be secured by a pledge and assignment of the revenues received by the Issuer under the leasing contract (as such term is defined in the Act) with respect to the project financed with the proceeds of the sale of such bonds and may be secured by (a) a mortgage (as such term is defined in the Act) covering all or any part of such project, (b) a pledge and assignment of the leasing contract for that project, (c) amounts held in reserve funds or (d) such other security devices with respect to the project as may be deemed most advantageous by the Issuer; and WHEREAS, to finance the cost of certain projects pursuant to the Act on behalf of the City, the Issuer has heretofore issued pursuant to the Act its (a) "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1988" (the "Series 1988 Bonds") and (b) "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Municipal Golf Courses Project), Series November 1, 1988" (the "Series November 1, 1988 Bonds") under an Indenture of Trust, Assignment of Master Lease Agreement and Security Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by that certain First Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 1, 1988, (collectively, the "Original Indenture") between the Issuer and Moore Trust Company (now West One Trust Company), as Trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, Section 213 of the Original Indenture provides that Additional Bonds (as such term is defined in the Original Indenture) may be issued under the Original Indenture, subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions for such issuance as provided in the Original Indenture and in Section 5.07 of the Master Lease Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by that certain First Amendment, dated as of November 1, 1988, (collectively, the "Original Lease") between the Issuer and the City, and such Additional Bonds shall be secured by the lien of the Indenture (as hereinafter defined), the Mortgage (as defined in the Original Indenture) and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement (as defined in the Original Indenture) and rank pari passu with the Series 1988 Bonds and the Series November 1, 1988 Bonds (collectively, the "Prior Parity Bonds"); and • WHEREAS, Section 5.07(b) of the Original Lease and Section 213 of the Original Indenture authorize the issuance of such Additional Bonds for the purpose, among other things, of providing funds to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing, improving or extending any additional sites, buildings and equipment, or any combination thereof, for the use and benefit of the City, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions as set forth in Section 5.07(b)(iii) of the Original Lease, all of which the City and the Issuer shall have satisfied prior to the issuance of the Bonds hereinafter described; and -6- WHEREAS, the City desires the Issuer to undertake the acquisition, improvement and extension of another project pursuant to the Act consisting of the acquisition, construction and improvement of (a) certain structures, facilities and other improvements for a recreation facility, including but not limited to an indoor swimming pool with associated facilities (such as locker rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, administration spaces, entry lobby and storage), an outdoor swimming pool with decks and all related facilities, which is to be located on a parcel of land in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, at approximately 675 South Guardsman Way and on land contiguous thereto (the "Steiner Aquatic Center Site"), as more particularly described in Exhibit A to that certain Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Second Supplement", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) to the Original Indenture (the Second Supplement and the Original Indenture are herein collectively referred to as the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and the Trustee, (b) equipment related to the operations to be conducted with respect to such recreation facility and (c) related improvements, facilities, properties and appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to certain road improvements, parking lot improvements and landscaping (all of the foregoing properties described in (a), (b) and (c) being herein collectively referred to as the "Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities"), all for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City and members of the general public for recreation purposes and for other purposes that the City has determined are desirable in connection with the development of the area adjoining the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 11-29-8(1) of the Act, the City, in its capacity as ground lessor, and the Issuer, in its capacity as ground lessee, will enter into that certain Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C) pursuant to which the City will lease to the Issuer, and the Issuer will lease from the City, the Steiner Aquatic Center Site for the purpose of the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension thereon of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities, all as provided therein; and WHEREAS, the Issuer and the City will enter into that certain Second Amendment, dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Second Amendment", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D) to the Original Lease (the Second Amendment and the Original Lease are herein collectively referred to as the "Lease"), pursuant to which the Issuer will agree to acquire, construct, improve and extend or to cause the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site (the foregoing actions to be taken are herein collectively referred to as the "Steiner Aquatic Center Project") and to lease the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities and the Steiner Aquatic Center Site to the City on the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease; and WHEREAS, the City will agree, as agent of the Issuer pursuant to that certain Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project), dated as of April 1, 1990, (the "Construction Agency Agreement", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E) to acquire, construct, improve and extend or to cause the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site as provided therein and in the Second Amendment; and WHEREAS, to assure the availability of parking for patrons of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities, the City and the Issuer will enter into that certain Assignment of Right of Entry, dated as of April 1, 1990 (the "Assignment Agreement", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F), relating to Right of Entry No. 3463, dated October 20, 1989, -7- (the "Right of Entry") granted to the City by the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry (the "Division"); and WHEREAS, in addition to the other security granted by the Issuer for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds and the Prior Parity Bonds, the Issuer will grant and assign a security interest in and to the Right of Entry to the Trustee for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and any Additional Bonds hereafter issued under the terms of the Indenture pursuant to that certain Collateral Assignment Agreement (For Right of Entry), dated as of April 1, 1990 (the "Collateral Assignment", a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Original Indenture, the Issuer has determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer and the City (a) to issue the Issuer's $ aggregate principal amount of Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A (the "Bonds") pursuant to this Resolution and the Indenture, which shall be secured under the Original Indenture pari passu with the Prior Parity Bonds as provided in the Original Indenture for a series of Additional Bonds thereunder, to provide funds for the purpose of (i) paying a portion of the costs of the Steiner Aquatic Center Project for the use, operation and occupancy of the Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property (as hereinafter defined) by the City and any permitted sublessees as provided in the Lease, (ii) providing for a deposit to the Reserve Fund under the Indenture for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds (as such term is defined in the Second Supplement) and (iii) paying costs of issuance relating to the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds, (b) to lease the Steiner Aquatic Center Site from the City as provided in the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease and (c) to lease the Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property, together with the Projects and the Leased Golf Course Property (as defined in the Original Lease) which have heretofore been leased pursuant to the Original Lease, to the City in consideration of certain base rentals and additional rentals to be paid (subject to annual appropriation) as provided in the Lease, which will be sufficient, so long as the City elects to extend the term of the Lease for each succeeding one-year renewal term as provided therein, to pay the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds and certain other costs and expenses as provided in the Lease; and WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to provide for continuous compliance with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes by entering into such tax certificates and other agreements and certificates for such purposes as directed by bond counsel for the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has negotiated for the sale of the Bonds to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., as underwriter (the "Underwriter"), pursuant to that certain Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, (the "Bond Purchase Agreement", which is attached hereto as Exhibit H) among the Issuer, the City and the Underwriter, and in the opinion of the Issuer it is to the best interests of the Issuer that the offer of the Underwriter to purchase the Bonds as provided in the Bond Purchase Agreement be accepted and sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter be ratified and confirmed; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Issuer has presented to the Board of Trustees of the Issuer at this meeting the Bond Purchase Agreement and the proposed form of each of the following agreements: (a) the Second Supplement; (b) the Steiner Aquatic Center -8- Ground Lease; (c) the Second Amendment; (d) the Construction Agency Agreement; (e) the Assignment Agreement; and (f) the Collateral Assignment, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the acquisition, construction, improvement and extension of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Council has reviewed the Preliminary Official Statement, dated March 27, 1990, (the "Preliminary Official Statement", which is attached hereto as Exhibit I) circulated in connection with the sale of the Bonds and considers it necessary and desirable to ratify the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and to authorize the distribution of a final Official Statement; and WHEREAS, the Bonds shall only be issued after the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah by resolution approves the issuance of the Bonds and the terms thereof for purposes of Section 11-29-9 of the Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. Definitions. All words and phrases defined in Article I of the Indenture shall have the same meaning when used in this Resolution. In addition, the following words and phrases as used in this Resolution shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates another or different meaning or intent: "Act" shall mean the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act, Title 11, Chapter 29, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. "Assignment Agreement" shall mean that certain Assignment of Right of Entry, dated as of April 1, 1990, from the City to the Issuer relating to the Right of Entry, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, as authorized by this Resolution. "Bond Purchase Agreement" shall mean that certain Bond Purchase Agreement, dated the date hereof, between the Issuer and the Underwriter and approved by the City, relating to the purchase of the Bonds by the Underwriter. "Bonds" shall mean the $ aggregate principal amount of the Issuer's Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A, authorized to be issued pursuant to this Resolution, Article II of the Second Supplement and the Indenture in accordance with the Act. "City" shall mean Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah, and any public body or public corporation succeeding to its rights and obligations under any of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. "Code" shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. "Collateral Assignment" shall mean that certain Collateral Assignment Agreement (For Right of Entry), dated as of April 1, 1990, from the Issuer to the Trustee, with the consent of the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry, relating to the Additional Land, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, as authorized by this Resolution. -9- "Construction Agency Agreement" shall mean that certain Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project), dated as of April 1, 1990, between the City and the Issuer, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, as authorized by this Resolution. "Indenture" shall mean the Original Indenture as supplemented and amended by the Second Supplement, as the same may be supplemented and amended from time to time in accordance with its terms. "Issuer" shall mean the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a Utah nonprofit corporation, and any body which succeeds to its powers, duties or functions. "Lease" shall mean the Original Lease as amended and supplemented by the Second Amendment, including the Exhibits and Schedules attached thereto and incorporated therein, and any further amendments and supplements to the Original Lease as therein and in the Indenture provided. "Leased Steiner Aquatic Center Property" shall mean the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities and the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, collectively, leased and to be leased to the City by the Issuer pursuant to the Lease. "Official Statement" shall mean the Official Statement of the Issuer describing the Bonds. "Original Indenture" shall mean the Indenture of Trust, Assignment of Master Lease Agreement and Security Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by the First Supplement, between the Issuer and the Trustee, authorizing, among other things, the issuance of the Prior Parity Bonds. "Original Lease" shall mean the Master Lease Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1988, as heretofore supplemented and amended by the First Amendment, between the Lessee and the Issuer. "Right of Entry" shall mean that certain Right of Entry No. 3463, dated October 20, 1989, granted by the State of Utah, acting through its Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands and Forestry, to the Lessee with respect to the Additional Land. "Second Amendment" shall mean the Second Amendment, dated as of April 1, 1990, to the Original Lease, between the City and the Issuer, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, as authorized by this Resolution. "Second Supplement" shall mean the Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1990, to the Original Indenture, between the Issuer and the Trustee, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, as authorized by this Resolution. "Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities" shall mean, collectively, (a) the structures, facilities and other improvements for a recreation facility, including but not limited to an indoor swimming pool with associated facilities (such as locker rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, administration spaces, entry lobby and storage), an outdoor swimming pool with decks and all related facilities, to be located on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, -10- (b) the equipment related to the operations to be conducted with respect to such recreation facility and (c) related improvements, facilities, properties and appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to certain road improvements, parking lot improvements and landscaping, all as described generally in Exhibit A attached to the Second Amendment. "Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease" shall mean that certain Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, dated as of April 1, 1990, between the City (as ground lessor) and the Issuer (as ground lessee), substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, as authorized by this Resolution and as the same may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms. "Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements" shall mean, collectively, the Second Amendment, the Second Supplement, the Right of Entry, the Collateral Assignment, the Assignment Agreement, the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease and the Construction Agency Agreement. "Steiner Aquatic Center Project" shall mean the acquisition, construction and improvement of the Steiner Aquatic Center Facilities on the Steiner Aquatic Center Site, as contemplated by the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. "Steiner Aquatic Center Site" shall mean that certain land situated in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached to the Second Amendment. "Tax Certificate" shall mean any agreement or certificate of the Issuer and the City which the Issuer and the City may execute in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. "Trustee" shall mean West One Trust Company (formerly Moore Trust Company), a Utah corporation, as trustee under the Indenture, its successors in trust and their assigns. "Underwriter" shall mean Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., as purchaser of the Bonds in accordance with the Bond Purchase Agreement. SECTION 2. Issuance of Bonds. For the purpose of financing the Steiner Aquatic Center Project, providing for a deposit to the Reserve Fund under the Indenture and paying the costs and expenses incidental thereto and to the issuance of the Bonds hereinafter described, a series of lease revenue bonds of the Issuer is hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Act and in accordance with and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established in the Indenture and herein. Such series of bonds shall be designated "Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Lease Revenue Bonds (Steiner Aquatic Center Project), Series 1990A." SECTION 3. Terms of the Bonds. (a) The Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $ pursuant hereto and to the Indenture; provided, however, that the Bonds shall only be issued after the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah has approved the issuance of the Bonds and the terms thereof as required by Section 11-29-9 of the Act. The Bonds shall be issuable only as fully registered bonds without coupons in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, shall be dated as of April 1, 1990, and shall bear interest from such date payable on -11- October 15, 1990, and thereafter semiannually on October 15 and April 15 of each year until paid as provided in the Indenture. The Bonds shall mature on October 15 of each of the years and in the amounts and bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) as follows: Year of Principal Rate of Maturity Amount Interest 1990 $ 96 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (b) The Bonds and the Trustee's certificate of authentication to be endorsed thereon shall be in substantially the forms set forth in the Second Supplement, which forms are hereby incorporated herein by this reference, and the provisions for the signatures, authentication, payment, places of payment, medium of payment, transfer, exchange, registration, number and other provisions thereof, to the extent not provided herein, shall be as set forth in the Indenture as finally executed and are hereby approved and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. The form of the Bonds, submitted to this meeting as part of the recitals to the Second Supplement, subject to appropriate insertion and revision in order to comply with the provisions of the Indenture be, and the same hereby is, approved, and when the same shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer in the manner contemplated by the Indenture and this Resolution in the aggregate principal amount herein provided, they shall represent the approved form of the Bonds of the Issuer. (c) Upon the occurrence of an Event of Nonappropriation (as such term is defined in the Lease) or an Event of Default under the Lease or the Indenture, the Trustee shall be entitled to exercise such rights and remedies (including but not limited to the appointment of a receiver) as are provided in the Indenture or as are otherwise provided to the Issuer under the Act or other applicable law; provided, however, that no deficiency judgment upon foreclosure of the lien of the Indenture may be entered against the Issuer, the City, the State of Utah or any political subdivision of the State of Utah, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Indenture and as permitted by the Act. SECTION 4. Execution of Bonds. The President of the Issuer (the "President") is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the Secretary of the Issuer (the "Secretary") is hereby authorized and directed to attest, the Bonds and each is hereby authorized and directed to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication pursuant to the Second Supplement. The corporate seal of the Issuer or the facsimile thereof is hereby authorized and directed to be affixed to all Bonds. The signatures of the President and the Secretary on the Bonds shall be by facsimile. The President and the Secretary hereby adopt any facsimile signatures used on•the Bonds as their own. -12- SECTION 5. Redemption Provisions. (a) The Bonds maturing on or before October 15, 1998, are not subject to redemption prior to maturity, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) or (c) below. The Bonds maturing on or after October 15, 1999, shall be subject to redemption (i) in whole on any Optional Redemption Date on or after October 15, 1998, in the event that the City exercises its option pursuant to Section 14.01 of the Lease to purchase the Leased Property (excluding the Golf Course Sites and the Steiner Aquatic Center Site) on the applicable Optional Payment Date, or (ii) in part in inverse order of maturity and within each maturity in such manner as provided in the Indenture on October 15, 1998, and on any Bond Interest Payment Date thereafter in the event that the City prepays additional Base Rentals (as such term is defined in the Lease) pursuant to Section 3.03 of the First Amendment, in either such case at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, but without premium. (b) The Bonds shall be subject to redemption in part in inverse order of maturity and within each maturity in such manner as provided in the Indenture, on such Bond Interest Payment Date as the Trustee shall determine as provided in the Second Supplement, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount to be redeemed, together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, but without premium, upon receipt by the Trustee of a written notice from the City that moneys transferred into the Redemption Fund under the Indenture following the Steiner Aquatic Center Completion Date (as such term is defined in the Lease) are to be applied to the redemption of Bonds in compliance with Section 403 of the Second Supplement. (c) The Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity in whole or in part from time to time, in inverse order of maturity and within each maturity in such manner as provided in the Indenture, on such Bond Payment Date as the Trustee shall determine as provided in the Second Supplement, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount to be redeemed, together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, but without premium, in the event that (i) the Leased Property is damaged, destroyed, lost or stolen, in whole or in part, or the Leased Property or any portion thereof is taken in a condemnation proceeding, or certain events occur with respect to the title to the Leased Property or construction defects in the Projects or the Leased Property as described in Section 10.01(a) of the Lease, (ii) the Net Proceeds (as such term is defined in the Lease) of any insurance policy, performance bond or condemnation award, or the Net Proceeds received as a consequence of defaults under any Project Contract (excluding liquidated damages), plus all amounts required to be paid as deductibles thereunder, made available by reason of one or more such occurrences shall be insufficient to pay in full the cost of rebuilding, replacing or repairing the Leased Property and the City makes the determination provided in Section 10.01(c)(ii) of the Lease and (iii) the City elects, pursuant to the Lease, to waive its obligation to rebuild, repair or replace the affected portion of the Leased Property by depositing such Net Proceeds into the Redemption Fund for application to the redemption of the then outstanding Bonds in accordance with Section 10.01(c) of the Lease and Section 415 of the Indenture. (d) The other terms and conditions for any redemption as provided in this Section 5, including notice of any such redemption, shall be the same as provided in Article V of the Second Supplement, which Article V is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Limited Obligations. The Bonds, together with the interest and premium, if any, thereon, are not general obligations of the Issuer, but are limited -13- obligations and, except for the security provided by the Indenture, the Mortgage and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement, all pursuant to Section 11-29-11 of the Act, are payable solely out of Base Rentals received by the Trustee under the Lease and certain other amounts received under the Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Indenture, the Mortgage, the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement or the Bonds shall be construed as requiring the State of Utah or any political subdivision of the State of Utah to pay any of the Bonds or to pay any of the premium (if any) or interest thereon or to appropriate any money to pay the same. Pursuant to Section 11-29-11 of the Act and the Indenture, the Bonds shall be secured by the Trust Estate which is specifically pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned and otherwise secured in the Indenture, subject to Permitted Encumbrances, and by the Mortgage and the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement, all for the equal and ratable payment of the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and any bonds hereafter issued on a parity with the Bonds and the Prior Parity Bonds under the Indenture and shall be used for no other purpose than to pay the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds, the Prior Parity Bonds and such additional parity bonds, except as may be otherwise expressly authorized in the Indenture. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the State of Utah or any political subdivision of such State is pledged to the payment of the principal of, or premium, if any, or interest on, the Bonds or other costs appertaining thereto. The Bonds and the interest and premium, if any, thereon do not now and shall never constitute an indebtedness of the Issuer, the City, the State of Utah or any political subdivision of such State within the meaning of any State constitutional provision or limitation nor give rise to or be a general obligation or liability of nor a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the State of Utah or any political subdivision of the State of Utah. No breach of any covenant or agreement in the Indenture, the Mortgage, the Street Lighting Facilities Security Agreement or the Lease shall impose any general obligation or liability upon, nor a charge against, the City or the general credit or taxing power of the State of Utah or any of its political subdivisions. THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY TO PAY BASE RENTALS AND OTHER AMOUNTS UNDER THE LEASE IS ANNUALLY RENEWABLE AS PROVIDED THEREIN. THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT OF THE CITY, THE STATE OF UTAH OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF. NEITHER THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS NOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LEASE DIRECTLY OR CONTINGENTLY OBLIGATE THE CITY TO APPROPRIATE ANY MONEY TO PAY ANY RENTALS UNDER THE LEASE OR TO PAY ANY RENTALS BEYOND THOSE APPROPRIATED FOR THE CITY'S THEN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR OR OBLIGATE THE STATE OF UTAH OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF (OTHER THAN THE CITY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE LEASE) TO PAY ANY RENTALS DUE TO THE ISSUER UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE. NO PERSON EXECUTING THE BONDS OR THE LEASE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PERSONAL LIABILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY BY REASON OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS OR THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE. SECTION 7. Sale of the Bonds. The sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit H at the price of $ , plus accrued interest (if any) on the Bonds from April 1, 1990 to the date of initial issuance of the Bonds, and bearing interest as set forth in Section 3 of this Resolution and as provided in the Second Supplement, is hereby authorized and approved, and the President is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Issuer and to sell the Bonds to the Underwriter as aforesaid and to execute and deliver the Official Statement on behalf of the Issuer, all of which are hereby authorized and approved, all with such changes therein as are not inconsistent with this Resolution and as are approved by the President, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. -14- SECTION 8. Distribution of the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; Ratification of Certain Actions with Respect to the Preliminary Official Statement. (a) Distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit I is hereby ratified and approved, and the President is hereby authorized and directed to execute a final Official Statement, to be circulated in connection with the sale and delivery of the Bonds, containing such changes, omissions, insertions, deletions and variations from the Preliminary Official Statement as the President shall deem advisable, provided that this authorization does not apply to the information with respect to the City contained in the Preliminary Official Statement or the final Official Statement, but nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion of such information pursuant to authorization from the City. (b) The Issuer hereby ratifies and confirms any and all actions heretofore taken by its President, Secretary or any other officer of the Issuer with respect to deeming the Preliminary Official Statement final as of its date for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, except for the omission of certain information as permitted by such Rule. SECTION 9. Approval of Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. The forms, terms and provisions of the Second Supplement, the Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease, the Second Amendment, the Construction Agency Agreement, the Assignment Agreement and the Collateral Assignment are each hereby approved in substantially the forms presented at this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibits B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively, with such insertions, omissions and changes as shall be approved by the President or other members of the Board of Trustees executing the same, the execution of such documents being conclusive evidence of such approval; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to attest, each of such Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements and any related exhibits attached thereto, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal of the Issuer to each of such Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. SECTION 10. Other Actions with Respect to the Bonds and the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. The officers and employees of the Issuer shall take all action necessary in conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of each of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered in connection with the sale and delivery of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements. If the President or the Secretary shall be unavailable to execute or attest (as applicable) the Bonds, the Steiner Aquatic Center Operative Agreements and/or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to execute and attest, the same may be executed and attested (as applicable) by any other member of the Board of Trustees of the Issuer or by any Assistant Secretary, respectively. SECTION 11. Arbitrage Covenant; Covenant to Maintain Tax Exemption. (a) The President, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Issuer are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver from time to time such certificates and agreements as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated or proposed thereunder, including, without limitation, Sections 1.103-13, 1.103-14 and 1.103-15 of the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) as the same `presently exist, or may from time to time hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised. The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the -15- benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the Issuer which may be deemed to be proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations (proposed or promulgated) which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. (b) The Issuer further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that the Issuer (i) will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code, (ii) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code and (iii) without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (A) will not take any action which would cause the Bonds, or any Bond, to be a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code and (B) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause the Bonds, or any Bond, to be a "private activity bond" or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code. The President, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Issuer are each hereby authorized and directed to execute from time to time such Tax Certificates as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not and will not become "private activity bonds", that all applicable requirements of Section 149 of the Code are and will be met and that the covenants of the Issuer contained in this Section 11(b) will be complied with. (c) The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the purchasers and owners from time to time of the Bonds that: (i) the Issuer will at all times comply with the provisions of any Tax Certificates; (ii) the Issuer will at all times comply with the provisions of Article IV of the Tax Certificate and the rebate requirements contained in Section 148(f) of the Code; and (iii) no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Issuer have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning 31 days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending 31 days following the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds pursuant to a common plan of financing with the plan for the issuance of the Bonds and payable out of substantially the same source of revenues. (d) The Issuer hereby covenants to adopt, make, execute and enter into (and to take such actions, if any, as may be necessary to enable it to do so) any resolution or Tax Certificate necessary to comply with any changes in law or regulations in order to preserve the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes to the extent that it may lawfully do so. The Issuer further covenants to (I) impose such limitations on the investment or use of moneys or investments related to the Bonds, (II) make such payments to the United States Treasury, (III) maintain such records, (IV) perform such calculations and (V) perform such other acts as may be necessary to preserve the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes to the extent that it may lawfully do so. -16- (e) Pursuant to these covenants, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the issue of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. (f) The President is hereby authorized and directed to execute and cause the timely filing with the Internal Revenue Service of an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues (Form 8038-G) as required under Section 149(e) of the Code. SECTION 12. Appointment of Trustee. West One Trust Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby appointed as Trustee under the Second Supplement, thereby also serving as trustee, paying agent and registrar under the terms of the Indenture. SECTION 13. Request and Authorization to Trustee. The President is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Trustee the request and authorization of the Issuer for the authentication and delivery of the Bonds by the Trustee in accordance with Section 204(a)(vii) of the Second Supplement. SECTION 14. Resolution Irrepealable. After any of the Bonds are delivered by the Trustee to the Underwriter upon receipt of payment therefor, this Resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until the Bonds and interest thereon shall have been fully paid, canceled and discharged. SECTION 15. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution; provided, however, that nothing in this Section 15 shall be construed to amend or modify the limitations provided in Section 6 hereof. SECTION 16. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 3rd day of April, 1990. MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH By Alan G. Hardman President [SEAL] ATTEST: Kathryn Marshall Secretary -17- (Other business not pertinent to the above appears in the minutes of the meeting.) Upon the conclusion of all business and upon motion duly made and carried, the meeting of the Board of Trustees was adjourned. ATTEST: Alan G. Hardman President Kathryn Marshall Secretary [SEAL] -18- EXHIBIT B [Attach Form of Second Supplement Here] -19- EXHIBIT C [Attach Form of Steiner Aquatic Center Ground Lease Here] -20- EXHIBIT D [Attach Form of Second Amendment Here] -21- EXHIBIT E [Attach Form of Construction Agency Agreement (For Steiner Aquatic Center Project) Here] -22- EXHIBIT F [Attach Form of Assignment Agreement Here] -23- EXHIBIT G [Attach Form of Collateral Assignment Here] -24- EXHIBIT H [Attach Bond Purchase Agreement Here] -25- EXHIBIT I [Attach Preliminary Official Statement Here] -26- STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE COUNTY ) I, Kathryn Marshall, the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of said Board in my official possession, that the above and foregoing constitutes a true and correct copy of excerpts from the minutes of a regular public meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, held on April 3, 1990, including a resolution adopted at said meeting, as said minutes and resolution are officially of record in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the corporate seal of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 3rd day of April, 1990. Kathryn Marshall, Secretary Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah [SEAL] DRL/cha/859447-br -27- 1 _ RONALD J. WHITEHEAD COUNCILMEMBER, DISTRICT 1 HOME•355-4722 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 March 30, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER RON WHITEHEAD SUBJECT: NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN As I have indicated to you verbally, I will be out of town on business and will not be able to attend the April 3 City Council Meeting. Since the Northwest Community Master Plan update is scheduled for a public hearing on April 3, I wanted to reaffirm to you my support of the plan update . I have had an opportunity to review it in detail , and I don't expect it to generate controversy. Thank you for your consideration of my support. t CRAIGNE E. PETERSON "..m+A...F�i1 s.�`a� y/c(D 1 , it�Ij DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council January 19, 1990 Re: Northwest Community Master Plan Update Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 13, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss adopting the Northwest Community Master Plan. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The Master Plan Update expands and updates the 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan but does not replace it. Both documents will serve as a guide to further development of this area. The updated plan adds four elements not included the 1980 plan - assisted housing, energy conservation, capital improvements and commercial redevelopment. The plan also outlines the land use conflicts created by the evolution of development and rezoning refinements in the Coilullunity by recommending solutions to eliminate or alleviate any adverse impacts. The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommend approval of the Plan. The Plan had also been reviewed by the Northwest, North Redwood and Rose Park Community Councils. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. S mitted by: /4/4 CHAEL B. Z Acting Direct Community and Economic Development lf/ t' is 1 i . 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adopting Northwest Community Master Plan Update) AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-9-21, UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, 1953 ADOPTING THE NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN UPDATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission and received input from the Northwest, North Redwood and Rose Park Community Councils and others and believes it appropriate to update the 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Northwest Community Master Plan Update recommended for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on June 22, 1989 is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 10-9-21, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended. The City Recorder is hereby directed to retain a certified copy of the Avenues Community Master Plan Update which is hereby incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. e . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: o CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -2- I. ALLEN C.JOHNSON, AICP SAT r `rQ.J .� ".J jR�;l J+` rI PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 November 29, 1989 Mike Zuhl Acting Director of Community and Economic Development Room 218, City and County Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Northwest Master Plan Update Dear Mike: Attached please find copies of the Northwest Master Plan Update and Executive Summary. The Northwest, North Redwood and Rose Park Community Councils have been very involved in the preparation of this document and support this draft. The Planning Commission has extensively reviewed this document and at their regular meeting on June 22, 1989 voted to recommend approval to the City Council. Since that time the planning staff has made final revisions and prepared graphics. The Update is now ready for review and public hearing by the City Council. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council schedule a formal public hearing on the Northwest Community Master Plan Update to receive public torment and adopt the plan guiding future development opportunities for the community. If you have any questions concerning the Northwest Master Plan Update, please contact either myself or Janice Jardine. Sincere , 4,09 Allen . Jo -on, AICP Plann' ‘• Di - tor attachments • `B'�+,i ,.. 'd'`nil�'n;.:tit':,'•} �.-,�:a:R �v�r"'I ... ... .. .. ... .. .f,C ... .....,.. .. ..._ . -::r a .: a;-r-amY.:�-. . F:..::a. .•v,-.._.v.:._ '.<', ram,.. a ic. .....v.G.CN L.• �...0 e:`�' �LLY..<.K. ._u..._.Ctj4.uiv..3a=.v':tf.Sr,....._.-.u...a�:w.L_+�L.a.r..a..ar .c lY:ilSwi-. ._.f.._. r <c` Northwest Community Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF PLAN The Northwest Community Master Plan Update expands and updates the 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan; it does not replace it. Both documents will represent the city' s comprehensive program to guide future development of the Northwest Community. GOAL OF EXISTING PLAN Most existing land use patterns are not expected to change. Established policies and programs are designed to eliminate land use conflicts in developed areas and direct new growth in areas of anticipated development. The goal of the Northwest Plan is to improve the living and working environment in the community. LAND USE CONFLICTS Certain land use "conflicts" resulting from the evolution of development and zoning refinements exist in the community. This section of the plan addresses these land use conflicts and recommends solutions to eliminate or alleviate any adverse impacts . STATE FAIRGROUNDS AND OFFICE COMPLEX The city with the amendment of the Northwest Master Plan has committed to the development of the State Administration Campus Plan concept. Development of the office complex is the recommended alternative to alleviate existing undesirable conditions of vacant and underutilized properties. To ensure appropriate development of this area the following policies and recommended actions should be used as a development guideline. o Encourage the campus style office development. o Office development should maintain a public aspect. o Support commercial services should be concentrated along the frontage of North Temple Street. o Office development should follow the site design criteria recommendations stated in the Administration Campus Master Plan Study for the State of Utah, 1985 . The following mechanisms are recommended to implement the above development policies . o Rezone underutilized and vacant areas in the interior parcels to a "R-7" zoning classification only when and if the State presents plans for development and petitions for rezoning. 4 + o Existing residential areas that are fully developed must remain in a residential zoning classification. Rezoning should only occur when and if the State is ready to relocate these uses and develop this portion of the office campus plan. Rezoning petitions must be accompanied with a relocation plan. o Fairgrounds expansion areas should not require rezoning for development. o The "C-1" commercial strip as it exists along North Temple Street should remain. o Criteria for approval of conditional uses in this area should include the following guidelines. - Maintain campus element with large amounts of landscaped open space. The percent of landscaped areas established by the development plan should apply to all office development in this area. - Building height limit should follow the three story height as established by the existing Agricultural and Health Building. - Private development must be responsive to the State Administration Campus Development Plan. - Off-street parking should be centralized with major access from secondary streets . Parking areas should be screened from buildings and streets with berms and landscaping. Large parking lots should be divided with intermittent landscaped areas. Parking structures should be limited to a maximum of two levels above ground. RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS LAND USE CONFLICT The update identifies two areas of residential and business land use conflicts. These areas are located on the west side of 12th West and on 5th North west of 12th West between Oakley and Colorado. In area A residential- properties zoned Commercial "B-3" should be rezoned to a low density residential zone. In area B properties zoned "B-3" that contain residential uses should be rezoned to an appropriate residential classification. CONFLICTS IN AREA NORTH OF ROSE PARK GOLF COURSE The updated Northwest Plan supports industrial, recreational/open space and limited residential as appropriate land uses. Factors contributing to this decision are the proximity of the sewage treatment plant, oil refineries, I-15 and environmental concerns, such as, flooding and soils suitability for development. More study is needed to guide future development in this area . Creation of a detailed land use and circulation plan is recommended to update the existing land use policy plan. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS PUD DESIGN GUIDELINES The 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan recommended R-2A zoning to provide design flexibility in the development of planned unit developments. To accomplish this performance standards should be applied to PUDs . It is recommended that certain design guidelines as policy of this master plan be used in the approval process of PUDs in the R-2A zone. The development of more intensified "landscaped buffers" and better site design with regard to surrounding single-family uses is necessary. The minimum twelve foot "sideyard setback" is inappropriate for the low density character of the community unless the use of heavily landscaped buffers are applied. Within the community areas zoned R-2A a "height restriction" for multi-family structures should be limited to two stories when adjacent to single family uses , unless the building is situated in the interior of the development . NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES Five sites for potential neighborhood commercial revitalization or redevelopment are listed . Area Activity 500 N.- 1300 W. No expansion, improve buffers, and long range convert to low density residential use. Rezoning and redevelopment should be supported. 600 N.- 1200 W. Provide buffers and landscaping along rear property lines , plant street trees in the parking strip, screen garbage receptacles , and support renovation and redevelopment. 1000 N. - 1400 W. Extend landscaping in setback areas to include signs and utility poles, remove illegal signage and support facade and design theme renovation. . 4 • 47) 1000 N. - 900 W. Allow expansion to accommodate revitalization, provide appropriate landscaping, improve parking and in-out traffic movement. Clean up scattered signs, improve signage, extend landscaped area in setbacks to include signage and utility poles, and general clean up of properties. 700 N.- Redwood Provide adequate landscaped buffers along rear property line, provide additional landscaping in the required setbacks, support facade renovation and a signage program. Improve parking lot and support intensification of uses on this site. NORTH TEMPLE - COMMERCIAL STRIP The dual function of North Temple as a gateway and commercial strip creates conflicts in the urban design elements of this corridor . These two distinct functions need to be united into a single urban design characteristic that serves both the city and the adjacent communities. The Northwest Community Master Plan Update stipulates certain objectives designed to guide the development of the this area . The update recommends a specific plan be prepared to establish definitive design and development criteria and standards. The plan should identify issues including sign control, building setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, landscape standards , parking and land uses and establish policies, standards and regulations which provide controls or incentives for the systematic implementation of the plan. Because of the unique characteristics of the North Temple strip input from citizens, property owners and businesses is necessary and development of a specific plan will allow an opportunity to involve those most affected. NORTH AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL/AG AREA The property to the northeast of the airport has conflict with the airport and encroaching industrial/ commercial uses . The property owners and residents of this area have expressed a strong desire to maintain the agricultural/residential integrity of this area. Issues concerning this area are agricultural preservation, industrial development, urban limit line, wetlands preservation, airport related noise, transportation circulation improvements, provision of water and sewer services, and the level of the Great Salt Lake. A detailed land use plan is called for in the update. - e t'- TRANSPORTATION The majority of streets are local streets basically in a grid pattern providing access to individual properties . Collector and minor arterial streets provide for circulation within the community. Traffic travels through the community with minimal impact on the local street circulation system. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS o Completion of I-215 o West Davis (Great Salt Lake) Highway o Connection of 2100 North to 2300 North between I-215 and Redwood Road Construction of these streets will provide improved circulation and new access to undeveloped areas in the community. The two state roadway improvement projects, relocation of North Temple connection with I-80 and widening of Redwood Road from North Temple to 1000 North, will improve the circulation system and have a positive impact on the community. However , Redwood Road north of 1000 North still requires improvement to service the new housing developments . A decision as to the status of the deadend frontage road along I-15 north of 1000 North should be included in the detailed land use plan called for this area in the update. Expansion of the bikeway system will be necessary to link with the proposed routes of surrounding communities . The City ' s major street plan has designated the anticipated major arterial , minor arterial and collector roadways for future development . The major street plan map does not identify future local streets since they will be established at the time of land subdivision. ENERGY CONSERVATION Strategies for energy conservation involve both conservation within individual buildings through structure and site design and the effect of land use patterns on energy efficiency. .New energy saving techniques should be encouraged for use in existing and new structures and site developments . Land use patterns through the use of locating employment opportunities and commercial facilities next to higher density residential areas should be examined. Locating facilities that attract non-work journeys at important transportation nodes and concentrating high density residential uses adjacent to growth centers are policies which would encourage land uses that reduce non-work trips . o • The following energy saving development policies would benefit residents of the Northwest Community. o Use landscaping to shade buildings, parking lots, streets and other paved areas.- - o Use windbreaks (trees, hedges , fences and berms) to ' protect buildings from winter winds. o Provide convenience shopping and service facilities in residential neighborhoods at appropriate locations. o Develop facilities to encourage bicycling and walking. o Provide amenities to encourage use of mass transit. - o Increase densities near activity centers. o Use clustering even at low residential densities . o Encourage infill development. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The capital improvements element of this update depicts the capital needs necessary to achieve the goals and objectives set for the Northwest Community. Proposed capital improvement projects include parks, storm drainage, public buildings, water and sewer facilities, and streets. Because the Northwest Community is mostly developed, many of these facilities are in place, but need to be upgraded due to age or condition. N r� °'( Capital improvement planning and programming is an ongoing process . Projects and schedules identified in the plan update are subject to modification. C � NCRTHWEST a T PLAN U .. _ May 1989 Draft The printing of this plan was made possible by a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to Salt Lake City under the provisions of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. DRAFT - Page 1 4 ACENCWLEDGMENTS MAYOR Palmer A. DePaulis CITY COUNCIL Florence Bittner Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Tom Godfrey Allan G. Hardman L. Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CCUNCTT5 Northwest Community Council Rose Park Community Council North Redwood Community Council • CONSULTANT Smith and Clarkson Design, Graphics Illustration Services PLANNING COMMISSION Ralph Becker Dan Bethel Cindy Cromer Thomas A. Ellison LaVone Liddle-Gamonal Richard J. Howa Ralph P. Neilson George Nicolatus John M. Schumann Peter VanAlstyne PARTICIPATING PLANNING STAFF Allen C. Johnson, AICP, Planning Director Everett L. Joyce, AICP, Project Director, Planner II Randolph P. Taylor, Editor, Planner III DRAFT - Page 2 a...:��.W..�cS:.:..:w�,: ;u:�..�,.,...:xr._'.'_ewn..s�s7::.z+i.�<�.:�.iu.�,�'a..:.:z•=..✓sx. ra5�"=':r.:.::v�^+fr�.:�SS.YiiLliieLii3.`fi.sa.{.�" iPY.oe..:L=x':_a�w6' r::a,e'..,.i€�.:.'_•... ���.�.�Y. NCRTURE5T l.U'1" .. rr PLAN IJP1 ATE — EPAC l INTRODUCTION Purpose Study Area Existing Plan Goal LAND USE Acreage Conflicts Planned Unit Developments Unincorporated Land Airport Noise Impacts HOUSING Structural Additions Jackson Target Area Assisted Housing TRANSPORTATION Circulation Improvements • Official Street Plan PARKS Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses Jordan River Parkway Wetlands Park CMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Services Commercial Strip URBAN DESIGN EDGY CONSERVATION Structure and Site Design Land Use Patterns City-Wide Energy Conservation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Proposed Capital Improvement Projects • I LEMFI\TTATION STRATEGTFS DRAFT - Page 3 INICN Purpose of Plan • The Northwest Community Master Plan Update expands and updates the 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan; it does not replace it. Both documents will represent the city's comprehensive program to guide future development of the Northwest Community. The plan update serves as a tool or refined mechanism to assist implementation of the 1980 Community Master Plan. The plan update reviews current policies and identifies necessary changes or actions to further implement the plan. Amendments of the 1980 plan occur basically through the elimination of existing land use conflicts. The update plan adds four elements not in the 1980 plan. The new elements are: assisted housing, energy conservation, capital improvements, and commercial redevelopment. Area of Study The boundary between the Northwest and Capitol Hill communities has changed since the 1980 Master Plan (see area map) . It was formerly along the Jordan River, but is now Interstate 15. Territory previously in the Capitol Hill Community is now in the Northwest Community. The area includes 1030.6 acres of mostly undeveloped land north of the Rose Park Golf course located in traffic zones 1131 and 1140 of Census Tract 1. Reasons for the boundary change are geographic isolation from Capitol Hill and the fact that development would mainly impact the Northwest Community. Annexation of large areas to the west of Salt Lake City has also affected the boundary of the Northwest Community. Since 1980, the city has annexed 10,000 acres of vacant land west of the airport. Because of the size of this area and its unique environmental conditions it will become an independent planning community. A separate plan for this area is being prepared. Goal of the Existing Plan Most existing land use patterns are not expected to change. Established policies and programs are designed to eliminate land use conflicts in developed areas and direct new growth in areas of anticipated development. The goal of the Northwest Plan is to improve the living and working environment in the community. DRAFT - Page 4 -.:,...1.- . • . . I , • . . . . I 1 I . . 1 ..._ .... . , iryi-14.'/4,' i',./. mon., AREA OF STUDY ,. • UNINCORPORATED LAND I fI/ I . r-------1 I / , 139 01 1 ---e* 2 9 I 1 Li I/2 1' !t ! z a !! I f: I. I \ 3 03 3 04 .1' ,,,,c•I. .1' .1 . 139 01 i - . . 5 .. ., '.. i i 1 6 1 1 ••••••,.. ..! 1, 10 2 II,. 13' ...• -•... 1-1114 ILL. 1 al F 1 : i 22...-72-1"—T-9 17 15jj e I. r , ,k OP ION/Pi 24.4E4.. 23 20 18 16 a i ----,1 28 29 30 ......" 35 i 41,211 g: i 11 — 1 I 31 ".."'" 34; 37: 40 1 1 di :I 32 33 38 39 43 It.. gJr L •,,., ,., , f _. ,_____,__I ! ____ P.II Lial•I'—r—i-;- .... 46 45 i 44 , .,..;.,. roe • roes .14 I I AI 1 ,A•.r•Po.At' r,Il.i••:A•.A, 15-r SALT LAKE CITY . 1113 102 :;• 1980 -VcIti.tor is.. , CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARIES tie "WWI.. 'REVISED r , .. PAL I L A..CIIV•L./.1140 C0.1•41A.10,11 . 4 — ...1 I ..— •- 1-.. . , - 1 • , •17. {RI, ki • LAND USE The updated land use map identifies designated future land use for all - --- -areas of the Northwest Community Plan Update. Minor changes have occurred from the original 1980 land use plan. These adjustments to the map reflect existing development patterns, land uses, and conditions. Other changes in the land use plan are the result of providing the selected solutions to land use conflicts discussed later in this plan. Acreage The Northwest Community update study area consists of two predominant land uses, residential neighborhoods and the Salt Lake City International Airport with its related commercial uses. The airport is 6,014 acres in size and amounts to over 50 percent of the study area. Excluding the airport, the balance of the community land use (5,775 acres) is 25 percent vacant land, 18 percent residential land, and 15 percent commercial/industrial land. The following table depicts land use by category and acreage for the Northwest Community. Table 1 Northwest Community Land Use by Acreage Percent Percent Total Land Use Acreage Total Excluding Airport* Residential 1,015.0 8.6 17.6 Commercial 286.7 2.4 5.0 Industrial 568.7 4.8 10.0 Agricultural 561.5 4.8 9.7 Institutional 392.3 3.3 6.8 Parks/Recreation 289.2 2.5 5.0 Utilities 44.9 0.4 0.8 Streets 1,188.1 10.1 20.6 Transportation 6,014.0 51.0 n/a Vacant 1,418.3 12.0 24.6 'IULAL 11,788.7 100.0 100.0 *The fourth column provides the percent of land use by category excluding the 6,014 acres in the transportation category related to the International Airport. Land Use Conflicts Certain land use "conflicts" resulting from the evolution of development and zoning refinements exist in the community. This section of the plan • addresses these land use conflicts and recommends solutions to eliminate or alleviate any adverse impacts. DRAFT - Page 5 • 1. State Fairgrounds and Office Complex. State Fairgrounds expansion and the development of a State administration office complex between the Jordan River and Redwood Road, north of North Temple Street conflict with the land use policies of the 1980 master plan. The 1980 master plan called for residential and commercial land uses in this area. In response to a rezoning petition by the State, the City Council amended the master plan in September 1984 to allow for the development of the first phase of the proposed State office complex. The city with the amendment of the Northwest Master Plan has committed to the development of the State administration campus plan concept. Development of the office complex is the recommended alternative to alleviate existing undesirable conditions of vacant and underutilized properties. To ensure appropriate development of this area the following policies and recommended actions should be used as a development guideline. o Encourage the campus style office development. o The majority of office development should maintain a public aspect. o Support commercial services should be concentrated along the frontage of North Temple Street. o Office development should follow the site design criteria recommendations stated in the Administration Campus Master Plan Study for the State of Utah, 1985. The following mechanisms are recommended to implement the above development policies. o Development plans by the State should be reviewed and meet Salt Lake City zoning and building code requirements as per the intergovernmental agreements between Salt Lake City and the State of Utah in 1984. o Rezone underutilized and vacant areas in the interior parcels to a "R-7" zoning classification only when and if the State presents plans for development and petitions for rezoning. o Furthermore, conditions for approval of conditional uses in this area should moot the following development guidelines: - Maintain campus element with large amounts of landscaped open space. The percent of landscaped areas established by the development plan should apply to all office development in this area. - Building height limit should follow the height established by the existing Agricultural and Health Buildings. - Any private development must be responsive in their design plans • to requirements outlined in the State Administration Campus Development Plan. DRAFT - Page 6 • - titgi'll:g,T,Ill'n"gg:Infi:C11,1144 \ II. . N I--, .i• '. • -• r • • • - • t3 9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, i, t-- •:• '5" •‘. ,„.'1 ---- , • • - • . . , ,.. .--• • piiiirTimi! IIIIir • ..,..p,.?,:eici. .1 . _.1fi.Lprti i:: • , 11 u ,Iii Iiiiiiiiiiill LI • -• .., ent- . :•.- tolinoluilmula ,.. . i-,42;•••...1 .10 `1 ',..:, -... • •• [ .:. t'ggirighli i.-1 iV' 041 Or .. . , ... --...„..„--..:. , ••t• •,- u ... •->4.:;*/ ' -4-..-.,-.. . . :„. • `:, 1111111111111111111111 .----V i • - inumitutymiltut ty .>7 ll• • .:-......1,....:: e"I. 4F -',1;:!•.-..35s4 • ; X •1, - --n. 2,, 1 act . . i .p.?•,, 9)gl:8S,,Q5-;. 1:-.. ( __,/ ',(35' - ....,•,7.e.41,11;,:hil, .,...').....i...•J....4,,, , i_ . . . ,,.,,...±I 0 j•.-...-,-.,-,:- n?t•FIttr4 - -' n . b.....ii:Dt..=. 77.31 . .,fic. ,..",- •,,, . _11 .,..._;,7_,=:,. • . .• •. • .• ' • IL. __. 1,,,,,,i.s ,-,..,,11. ...,; 411..• 1A1), .i,. , 0 L k ''' • x' • " '6-"., ' . • • - . . . ••4, vl.,..%;>.1/. , - t - . ; \.. • , • i.t i'.•:;...;,/ '‘,/ 7. ' • • :,. . . .. • 111 • . .. <(• /..!% .'3\ S:!V!'•;:e" (A:- :' .6." :"..,.411:7J I- • . . .,‘,.,), ..C9' ,. .4/41.44-j•7?:.;,...•flir+."`1,. 4:1Y• • : ',,,•,,X. ...,,,.. •,.. % '. \1.,'X''.".".0)4 1:ftrdil' -CZ.•4 icefe1:4'.;?••:...=••••7•:•;"•••:•(qP•4 z / I- ... • ••- • •- .0 • " 4,e,,' ti,.7-) '''''•-,0 ::,,/".grt ••4,4•:" F`t.,;•,.':,:::,T4,\\/* . 0 !; / ' oie,V(/).;',P,?:,-f:$7'.,-;•_\;.-:•.;-.ii:11` Ni,'Iti . . . . • - • . i) . . - A.:•!:!.;,(' .!..;)?;;;!.. :.ec':::...:•:::fi.:.!..:1-.•:.'71...,:,..r.:.;,..:.1.;4.',:'';iYiti.).-:• ••. ,,,,-:' i • - i- . , • A, ......r f'it.l'Alia'" irtl.;,174, :•;,.z::•e::-:....,-::,..r.f.-6-1/#.1- --. .. : • 4`,..,,,,,,!;:./.-ly .„ ig cq...F.t.i, :-...-;,•,.:,:.;-•,:i,i-,e ..t,.7-). , CC • • • • - . • ilo) .q. •ri•f•i.-44,• ..1 - . I,^- • J/ - •N.. i /4: f",• v>,./.?, QA4 ...^.'s .1 ) ;e:. .. ,.4-::.-1Y;trilirt•P,6.L...'% :.. 1 0 . . II, LL. . - - •.• . 0 ,'" .,,,•;•//•, t a'''.'••"M./;..7 N1.1-41 RI it•'-'"*."*. t.,'IN4, ' . • • • ' k3 ../ 4 -.•ps-, 0 '..i.i..-•••t•4-••:•-•', •`&6111'gi"-\-c;t:,.& .. 6 z =_I___ ‘ -',rn•€i;.9-` -...-.. ...)'.,•:'*).U., )'' ,-,-5*-A•Ailit.if,...'••••••••41.- -.1,;k:.it - .t% • al eri , ;::,* ,.Irreti.. . ..., . • . , c(%•) *. P.-, ; .!.;/:;,4L.v.. '''. 1'.. Z'':&.' )11:21:. - t111;15ilig IQ iirfeCfP2 5.21.4,1. -51 IL / •. is. ••;•...,,,..- J je- ., kkl • •- • • . . • kct' •iy ,,,,,,_vu 4... 4,,e X„;.:c:•,...,* i.,•* • . ,,,a, .. .,-, .i.,. Rr.'•:.. 5'• / 4s ,1 f:;, ,CO:fil[iridt!lii,S1 - • - 1=1 C:i 51 ui.r.i...,• :V '':', .i. : "*.* :11' acCirkiiiitii7 II:i:,;el Y ' . . i . i&I/ - ' 'AtO „ •;1.' :•••••• $,., .$4 • i-**Ilri gi Fi;10 . - . . • -, • . cn. '. i 1 •• '.1/ :::.;:,' j;Is, •......4.gi,.,41,)4.p-erf..•••,f till're,, ,.....:7.. 4 .'''''- •l'rea., .si I r„.,..s.°F ni, ct . . , . . . .... t. , , ,... 1 1. '-.1.'if 1 ).:.rC I:::L.e. 1-..;C. .."' • ..*.,r.. 4,, ,,.., r.r,f 2 •- IP . ,c,„ „;,,..:„ . _!:A....:‘,..,.. ,, id, ..n f..,,,., ••,-(:. ;14IYZ ii; •.:.i. gsr : r•,,,.... .-•,,;tj..--a ,,. ,1 1?i ::: ii •• • C i . • -”to y.• 0%..,: •• . n :, - •-G-, . • 1 - s!! : 43 • '-'(.. r5 :411'-\"a. i'4',(1`...•,„0%,.1.e.•.,;c,..'1,.A..ird.,la..1.77.:1 . Cl, • .. • • . ,•".'cl'.,,•-r''744"...1 0.,.T.;.-e••`.".4. -ii.5',,tii.6.** ,- '5;;4•,-•. -- 4['illii"=-• • a_ - t'i,,,,•-;•- .---ci , *- ;AI', 1;.• • . - . • - i,o .,-/ tr° • ',•?;,;,.4k,',19'. znc,1,-,-:f.•,-, ---•E;-, -4).:„ 4 iginc I', 2 , -• . / .1';i•.'‘-': t-," -V:' '<:,t,4,. Nt:. '' " 4/. .-....,.. • ;• 4.. r). ••/...•,t,,,‘ V,0.t C .Cp..5!CO;14...iAlii..41•71.",_ 11..4kt.,:_6;)_114"-L..,„1 1 < .- 0 C / ,/ ....,..1...,.!... ,,..'';• ''':‘ ,..•••••4,c!i.fF,I;4`. -I 5,•51'.. ...S1,,,-411.1i. :.4...1.7,_./L,r-ligl.,11,..tiewil31.4;.i Invp.44 4 41,41_,:: • -, 11_9 .A..'..,:-:://45:$ .:' 4'i..C.Iilietili1111118,31111111111r1:11111flitil, ',;:gli iiii 1.-1'i'S Z ' ' . , . •/ . . -'4`1!". ••••••?-1 g . - ,,,,.pillillipt; .i.lit,-4 i'_- ,.,• • •.,....,÷,,,;• .,...-.,, .,.; ,...„.•.,I.ant nun i ‘,in 1 • , 0 --,,,fm. ,.L...1 .- •' '' ; .• l'. 7 145-itrii t7' SCillilliiii 21111111It VIIIIi1111#1qt11114 „H A r: . . ... • . • • • • f ''`v • ICI..- •ft't..0.cir:01.3"q g2.51i941.i:I=vq:q•zt.T.Iliti10, tiii1;tiSk.,_7.3. ct . 1 • . / '; ". :.'.I' .ciiiilli .1 `.‘;'‘..'1--- •-• - 7 ---------iii--. .4.-:',%"..1.4i- -*VIA- • • ft • • i ,At 1.. •1,,,.. r, ,/ i•a iz s••{7,2.staftr."4,41 ., .1••.-.. .. ...1 cr.:. ,,:. :: _„ . U .. • • . r''' .1::i Cr:r'1.:11i11111116 • *1' ".a•-•a t 0 .. .\;8K AI •t'.11: -;,= - - • . . .t. -* .-- ,..._/.4( c), i • 5' 4'?°'14•5y•- a ' '''\*),'" . --- t,1 ?- I: ' cr) . • - z •.•• •••• : • • •.. •'...kTTi....'••?(Ifir:k.-L:41.,.e.inviultill!liqiiifn114-4 .c,„4..;;;-v,.*.:( o 67...*•'''''"A -?...:.-1.\•-•,,.j-.-..-'1,1c1771:zauunn-n-inr:11 ‘, .i ifi•._.„,:, . : w •l'• •:ill,;,..1-t-iy--4-:,t, § -ele, --e,•• .. 1---itt,. 110.Nviik. 1 M , . .% ;,:'r .: .:0: •:e• c.;'21-•••qi, c . ,. ..„, (pi,. ,e(...5:--, . .-.1..:- igo..,..,4.i. r: , . . . .,• t; 4,.):J1:. ..47.'' ::."11 1 ii-••;-i7•44 ct•-ti-sslo.)--.•,!-;\,(e-',' ...t.i.-•,..ii.- ai..3.e• .,,ri-P.- irgi14 ,r‘7,:..,_ I-1• c • -. • ,' •••• 1 ..;--..‘.i.• .•,,... • ___.:;.-,•-,L,t...,,,,:i ,- ••.,..... • '- ..•;:,-.iv-....:fii-•;•;',.f•-•:z•-• -.4.,-.-•••%'; „,F",-,!•••-•••:i4w‘tirLINtrrg.L4.. < • • --- . ''' :'••''..t4 . .1'1', •1:-,•, •,'\,......41,,i: ttf7:,;;•1Vg•M:---49:4;. .44.4.+14.; ;h:•*2. r.ik.:,!...1......_."'Via: .,,:.•.,,.,1 . .... . •. : . •, • • •••'' • iiV77•ZO,' -0! I, . .....,,.,,..,..t . hi...f..,. . 4,--,.,:lsr`•tr*,'\,•1.„1?...'').:.,Trt *.•*"• • • • i" „••• _AA,':!i U Vi;;;:lii ) lit :- fiqr^eAlleVrc17-,TrYINCeago'rr4fr:',711qt •73.;.! -'4, ' ;63Z.nw. ii,."•n . 0. .1%"' ; Ii....ta, .2.4'... , ,tr..Vr,'' r t.thrl. :!.... fu iiiiiii.liiirtzlnitt!.p.i.mil ulsiiiii!oltrn.a...„:,. .,:r....t., • ......-. .... : ": 1 -.. i• . . ;KA, E,141,1.:1' 1.... ';'xii'Fi'll•ilii)1 7 0'$) YilA'rila.VAiiVtakaItEilil737.7.MtCA-g5;.6 41?;.44r•'.... tzin5.1. •31,, ..?k.Y. li.i i'ir/ r.,• •ItZ.g.'".!r-A-.-, .....i.i.:•,,•:,.'::•;ex,r1;'••••••••.'i..-.F:=.)"•pt.:s-...-,,i-P 0 ire4.1'. .1.:: . :., . .,... , . • ' ;:,. , :• '....4114.0,:c,....-?.1,. t.,11..,..d1,•cqi,. ...cvc., -•0. .;.‘. ...,.. ,..,0„,„af%.1.1,1 0 •••I•iillist•. • . - , • i • ' . • '. ' 'i'.V1/44.. .';'i ;itr;11.2V:e* */ '..j.j •r4Ptl:"'‘.'1".i.::::Z( ''ii'i'..;. -' •i•' i?,SZ7.'4.11•;;t...-i .2x7.•,,, '•4 g-i atm:14-7".. . ••- .: •• • • ,: .4417\k`e -. ..;:•,',!,,, - -•:---- • . i.'•.:iiiiI;illibil '.... '.1 r•l-iA•: 1., •' •• •••r•- -*S.' •- • "r". '*• t'•• ••••••••••• 161 n.2.1uLt•--“'''.L4') 1/4 t•9\,,i,:v. i ;...-....-.1.,„, ,, .,...,•vi.7...4 4,.zaz.. _ i .. , ,,,, • .„.. .r_.,„.•••• .t.f. ..,. 7,,, ,‘,r.-h- .v.g.ir...i.,.,,,:::,;:-,- . - . t-• ',:ilm.1.:".nq-i..:.I.L.f?, " ,- . • •,.1,...) Ai's si:'•0•••••ri;z-l'ic.:!,'..:•.g.;,. -4i:- i 11 i,Y i% •,ii.F.mtli`...' '''...4:tri'.•' . . 1, •-it•••••,•••ain-•-.-qt:::?:.10-, )1.‘N •,t . i . .--Iv.10,g•Aw O•...CD's!:".,••••,),.':urn,,,,,i.-.€4,,. 4 r-r•-•:: .:.1- --; •gt.•.tvf•:•ii:l.ft)-• - - •J.:- .•4 •:, c- -W ' 4•.:,):#.,ig,:•.:' . •:,... ..4.• 1,10.4'” j .>-.i;•• .t., ,•,-- •;,..r.,.cri, grze i,.;:,,,. .0.- w.,;;,,,t,-•-:„:„0:....e:t-i,-,q -1-1,' pri:atit." .i • e..../ .. .q, ,,,,..,;.,,...ci ,,4•r. , •-•,.1,_..., . ..„„ .: . . - ,- : . - • •••• ..,„,-, :.,_, 4,.. 1;7,-,.!,,,.„,...-: cm 1,,,;-,.?-,-, ..c6!,::-...:•;,..s.?„,-w.f., .1,2,-„iircitiLhni.,„„ , =I : (..) ,,,-,-,..„...i.... .. • i„,.. ..;,. . • " .....,., ,,,y . ..;,•0.iii..ii:-. 't"'...V1:...fI, M r(). 1-7.flee>117.1 .:.;;;;.y,*?:rg)..61111m 7, c, ....ci,...:, ' iiir.,... - ..=.! ,,i.,,,,,, 1....,,qi.,-.-ls,...,It. - ,• -.,/0 ). , cv;,,,,, ......,o Is);\.1r4c, ''. 11_51i 1 Iiiiiiliumuili:dininimingiuN sr, ri C7-1 i •. • ,,,(.. . -.4) . .,.,r,:yi ,....,,Fp,, .c. ra,„ I, -. ,,r......:•, c, -$4,•.,.._J,...111 • , 1111,1 I.(4. II,1,...! .1 " . All.,11V-',..}!,,,.. : :.t,•A.;,q, ri rr • ' •-'s is, ii, .zi..6.0.,th 1.•10-0:„,;Jr, , • x,.. .; rig.gm,tit ir.,Alrij ir?!.1j 4. 1 . ' ,..2•11.,_,ti,,,4221,...tiollInalt:J_,Alits.,141,,,,,,, • :-.-.---;:::-....1-,7;--Lmigul -nni.-1,........;11-.D.,..: • -: . - • 1 •. • ...• t ( 1 ( • .- • . . • • - - Off-street parking should be centralized and provide the major access from secondary streets. Parking areas should be screened from buildings and streets with berms and landscaping. Large parking lots should be divided with intermittent landscaped areas. Any parking structure should be limited to a maximum of two levels above ground. o Existing residential areas that are fully developed must remain in an a residential zoning classification. Rezoning should only occur when and if the State is ready to relocate these uses and develop this portion of the office campus plan. Rezoning petitions must be accompanied with a relocation plan. o Fairgrounds expansion areas should not require rezoning for development. o The "C-1" commercial strip as it exists along North Temple Street should remain. Development of the State office complex will require the relocation of two mobile home parks. These parks could be relocated in the residentially zoned land north of the Rose Park Golf Course along Redwood Road and adjacent to Interstate 15. A minimum of 10 acres is required for a mobile home park development. A detailed land use plan for this area should be required to provide additional information as to the feasibility of such a relocation. 2. Residential and Business Land Use Conflict. The present land use in Areas A and B on the land use conflict map is residential. Both areas are zoned B-3 for business use. To preserve needed housing stock, both now and in the future, these residential properties should be rezoned to an appropriate residential zoning classification. Neighborhood businesses are discussed in the neighborhood commercial section of this plan. In Area A, located on the north side of 500 North between Oakley and Colorado Streets, residential properties zoned commercial B-3 consist of seven single family dwellings and two four-plexes. These residential properties should be rezoned to Residential R-1 or a low density residential classification. The existing businesses in this area are situated on local residential streets. Neighborhood commercial uses are not appropriate future land uses. The long range land use should be residential. The existing commercial land should be rezoned to a low density residential classification to support conversion of land uses. Area B, located between 600 North, 700 North, 1200 West and Oakley Streets, consists of both low and high density residential uses, including a condominium project. Those business uses on the 600 North collector street are appropriately located, however, they should not be allowed to intrude into the residential areas through expansion along side streets. To prevent this, those areas in the B-3 zone that contain residential uses should be rezoned to an appropriate residential classification. DRAFT - Page 7 • VI V —i( 2300 NORTH �� I .f. • 0 ....,f .1 i.� O �J . i LAKE CITY _ =v 3 :2 'F4VER TREATMENT • PLANT , s Pi.�.�.�.•.•.•.•At. •��.•.•...•.•.•....*... . .♦♦•♦•1.10..♦.♦.♦•,.•.•.•.•.♦�♦w.-... .••f 4..,4 ,.I...,.,1,.•.•.•.••IV..• 4O.,.4.• � , `1t 4►..••••••..4..•.•...-.•‘ •►..�►.. ...... ITS 1600 NORTH '►'•♦-ir.p••••�•46.46!46.••••••• ,.......• •-•A . ►�>•►.............\ .46:..:.:.•.•.�i•.•.•.•.•.....�.. LAN• D USE CONFLICT AREA i ...... •••• .. ...+ .. •••••• ........ , IE—E' �0^ ROSE PARK GOLF COURSE ,,A • Residential use in NEw PORK ORIYE \ p 13 E ROSEw000 B-3 Zone MORTX � J�� BARK - `�CSUNSEt] —F- \'\ g J ,zr--_ _1 \ State Office Fairground: W W ,,..,, "<:: complex W 'i 1. 1 8� I I I w oa 1 �♦ .1 `,2�NORTH=_Ii__, (�11 ►;;... LidiaI Q (i..E L. • anduse 1100 NORTH w 1f00 HORTM u s j� Y < -V 0[ II II ill_faiii_. JL - 1000 NORTH ^ ^. .05T.... =3 i 970 NORTH �� L I I I �•r.STERL,c i •. • .11. .:---1� TOO NORTH _ • -1.-", C. • [TAI I I 1 ` (('-''77_ O �J W J03 NORTH ; '/ OI I 1I�78 C 600 NORfM ID� `PROSPEpITY� y1. T03 NORTH• !•� ~• �U (JUD n1 RIVERSIDE C^` �� 700 NORTH Ili --�� QPARKif,' bP11 l 6' .-,.11 . U I. xww _ — e0�HO^TX ��� e / _ I hk m W Firiii[g N 500 NORTH _ 03R NORTH ��,n�In —n y0 011111 sjr-s -1—0 L.L.!_..C_ r =_ _ L.�J �. ........ L �00 HORTM �� >;:;i:'.;;"ti.;:;; wwLNUt O n t1 E11 MOHOI !!iii,,,4„.",, : 5 .wr.r. T SI.OHOI L ' •. D:. „,i:.: u.11. E �_i [Q1 ri ::%'•;< 303 NORTH i x•:: .. >;^;.%3EtivAieC.,s:<' . :ya:x<" eiif K Vn.51ATEPAI fClU3�f700 N • " f r3 °a QnI a NORTH i�Y PP LE ^ ' A = - . _.________.. /� 7 -4. s rE, 6 11/ _ I 3. Conflicts in Area north of Rose Park Golf Course. This area lies north of the Rose Park Golf Course between the Jordan River and Interstate 15. Future land use identified in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan depicts a - potential for residential and industrial land uses. The updated Northwest Plan supports industrial, recreational/open space and limited residential as appropriate land uses. Factors contributing to this decision are the proximity of the sewage treatment plant and oil refineries and environmental • concerns, such as, flooding and soils suitability for development. The sewage treatment plant, the existing oil storage tanks, and the nearby freeway make residential land use in this area difficult, but with wise use of large open spaces to buffer potential nuisances housing may be feasible. The rising level of the Great Salt Lake is another factor affecting land uses in this area. In view of present diking efforts to lower the water • table and to hold off potential rising lake level the types of land uses in this area should be commercial and industrial uses. A higher water table will impact design of structures. An increased water table level will eliminate construction of basements. For residential dwellings construction without basements could impact the market for low-medium density housing in this area. More study is needed to guide future development in this area. Creation of a detailed strategic plan is recommended. Planned Unit Developments In the Northwest Community those areas zoned R-2A allow Planned Unit Developments (PUD) through a conditional use process. Conditional uses require Board of Adjustment approval along with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A minimum of 2.5 acres is required before considering a conditional use for planned unit developments. Community Council members have voiced concern about too many apartments being allowed in the community. It is felt that the Northwest Community's single family residential character is intruded upon by excessive apartment complexes. In response to these concerns certain areas were rezoned from residential "R-2A" to residential "R-1". Those areas remaining in the "R-2A" zoning classification should develop under design guidelines that minimize the impact that higher density development has upon the surrounding single family character of the Northwest Community. PUD design guidelines. The 1980 Northwest Community Master Plan recommended R-2A zoning to provide design flexibility in the development of planned unit developments (PUD) . However, not all of the apartment developments constructed have been sensitive to the low density residential character of the community. It appears that the R-2A zone has been used as a maximum density mechanism rather than for design flexibility. As a result higher density uses abutting single family uses have created a negative impact. It should be noted that this impact is a design issue rather than a result of density. • The development of more intensified landscaped buffers and better site design with regard to the surrounding single-family uses is necessary. To • accomplish this performance standards should be applied to PUDs. It is DRAFT - Page 8 • recommended that as policy of this masterplan desig n cy guidelines be considered - in the approval process of PUDs in the R-2A zone. In multiple dwelling developments those buildings adjacent to single family uses should to be limited to two stories in height, thus preventing undesirable impacts upon the adjoining owners. Furthermore, the minimum twelve foot side yard setback is inappropriate for the low density character of the community unless the use of heavily landscaped buffers are applied. Landscaped buffers should meet performance standards that allow smaller side yards as landscaping density increases. PUD buildings proposed within the areas zoned R-2A should be restricted to a two story limit when adjacent to single family uses, unless the building is situated in the interior of the development. Unincorporated Land and Area North of the Airport Unincorporated land addressed in the plan update lies north of present city limits and west of the Jordan River. This area lies within the proposed annexation areas identified by the city's 1979 Master Annexation Policy • Declaration. The majority of the area consists of agricultural and vacant land use. One aspect of the agricultural land uses is the presence of single family homes on one acre lots or larger. Properties within the county are zoned Agricultural A-2. Incorporated land north of the airport consists of mostly vacant land with some agricultural and residential land uses. Road Improvements. Future road improvements will help this area develop. The planned Great Lake (West Davis) Highway and the connection of 2100 North to 2300 North along with completion of Interstate 215 will provide readily available access to major transportation corridors. These circulation improvements along with proximity to the airport will increase the demand for industrial development within the area. Public Utilities. Presently, no sewer or water facilities exist in most of the this area. No facilities are being designed to service the area. Depending upon the rate and type of development, the city's present waste water treatment facility may not be adequate to serve the area. The location of the future west side sewage treatment plant could affect sewer facilities planning for the area. Future development between the present city limits and the existing sewer facility could impact the distribution system for the area. Environmental Issues. The northwest portion of the community contains wetlands associated with the Jordan River and the Great Salt Lake. Significant wetlands should be protected from development and be maintained as open space. A major flood control dike proposed north of the airport should be built with the dual purpose to function for flood control and also as the base for the Great Lake (West Davis) Highway. This combination road/dike system would provide a definitive boundary for urban development expanding toward the Great Salt Lake and adjacent wetlands. • • Environmental constraints in the area such as the high water table, wetlands preservation, soil conditions, and airport noise will have a major influence on future land use. Because of these constraints the preferable DRAFT - Page 9 land use would be agricultural and limited light industrial parks. Development uses in the area will most likely require substantial fill work to protect properties from high water table levels. Wetlands designation is presently established by range of soil classification types. This places most of the properties in the area within a . wetlands designation. Prior to any development in wetlands a 404 Wetlands permit must be obtained from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This requirement also applies to excavation and fill work related to site development. Airport Noise Impacts Land within the vicinity of the International Airport is affected by the general operation of the airport. The major impact on surrounding land uses is noise. To protect the city and surrounding land owners, the city adopted • an airport land use policy plan in 1982. Recommendations in the policy plan, officially titled Land Use Policy Plan-Salt Lake International Airport resulted in the adoption of noise impact overlay zones as part of the city zoning ordinance. These three overlay zones known as Noise Impact "A", "B", and "C" are described below: • Noise Impact Zone "A". Zone "A" permits only industrial and commercial uses. Buildings must have sound proofing as required in the building codes. Noise Impact Zone "B". Zone "B" permits industrial and agricultural uses. Residential uses are allowed in conjunction with agricultural zoning, however, sound proofing construction measures are required. (Zone "B" affects much of the unincorporated area north of the airport discussed above. ) Noise Impact Zone "C". Zone "C" does allow housing, but certain sound proofing measures are required such as air conditioning systems and "thermal pane" windows. Avigation Easement. The airport land use policy plan also requires that developers and land owners in the airport noise influence areas sign and dedicate an avigation agreement as a condition of new development. The purpose of the avigation easement is to preserve the utility of the airport. It grants to the airport or the general public the free and unobstructed use and passage of all types of aircraft in the airspace over the land covered by the easement. It is not unlimited in its allowances, however, noise cannot exceed certain levels. (Refer to avigation easement language in the city ordinance for specifics. ) Land use policy set forth as part of this master plan is discussed below. However, there is a need to develop a detailed land use plan for this area. Issues concerning this area are agricultural preservation, industrial development, urban limit line, wetlands preservation, airport related noise, transportation circulation improvements, provision of water and sewer services, and the level of the Great Salt Lake. DRAFT - Page 10 • • • � \ Farmington lay • Of I CY Wet.rf ewl• 1 i v l41f r ic \. • 2. • ; ar g. I 11.1.1j.1,.1.1.1.1.1.+ + + +klanin� + + + + + ++ 11 '4 + + + + +ij 'Mffl ';'; ll , + 11 + + + +1+ + + + ++ + + + + + +3c I+ + + + +++ + + + IIlflilllififl111 1 1Ifl IIIIIIII1II1I1iII + + + + + I+ + + ++ + + + + + � I I I 111 111 111 t 1 I r I t i l t 1 1 + + T + + d 11 1 Iit I+ + + + i + + + + + 4111111111111111111111111111 t t l r tI lI lI!IIII.I + ++ + + 4 1 /+ + + + + ++ + + + 11111111 1 1 111111111t111111 till 1111111111111►+ + + + + 1 1 11111111111111 1 IIIIIII + + + + + + + ++ I I I f i t t i l 1 1 1 l I i l r t l I + ++ + +, 1111111111111 Ittlll • t+ + + + + + + + + •.Itiltirlilflliltlllllllill Ilit i �ilill`111111114 a + + +1 3 + + + + + + + +I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 111I T�I I I I I I I + + + + + /+ + + + + + + I1 111I111111IIIIII1,1,1,1,111,11111`II IIIIIII Illy, a. + + + 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 I t 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 F llllll� + + + i • 1+ + + + + + + + + 11 1 111 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 I+ + + + + + + + + 11111111111t111111111111111111111111111 11111 tlif• r + + + / 4 + + + + + + + + Ii1111111111111111111111tI111'tllilllllll I III► t t I + + +1 Private Duck Clubs Area 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I r , 1 1 1 1 1 l . + + +1 Illllllllltttlllll Ill 111 • + + + + + + + + a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. T T i l 1 i t III I tills I,t�tll�l 111 I�11111�1 III IL IIIIItJ� + + + +I ii + + + + + + + + t lf� 1 i2It kt,t� + + 4 4 + + + + + + + + + i 1 + OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUO � I 0f+ + + + + + + + + + �0000000000000CNICc 0 O . 11 1 1 1 ) ♦ + + + + + + + + + + + #OOG0o00000000 . OOC I,! ,I. t /+ + + + + + + ++ + + + 00000c00000cooccx• oCc , r. + oo x .asc cibp0000c,00000E ,;', . . . +\`� 0000c + + • + +`S I'1'1 Corporate Boundary GOOOC I +� lllltil� ICGZCCGA4111 - + + * + + +0 4 t I 1 o0000Ci I I _ - taa - �..i - -- • Ifilli OOOOOCi II, • • • + +I+ + + 0 i.°-.. I 11I111 0000GC 00000 ,1 I • • + +1+ + + 4 1111 400000C, I, ,:: : : • + +I+ + + I I t 01 l. .• aos+ + # . geti Ilrl1 i Q= I "4; et +411+1 + +; 1 t i IIt + + + + ; P I I I 4. 44'�4 + + + i .�. • . Rom . Ilrit TI < j.+ i + + + + +1 ` 1 } + i + + + ;>�gl(vy . . . . . . . . . . .l i l l salt Lake City 11 1 . . . tsk • 1 I. O International II ': : C . .+ + + + 4 + +1 I 1 1 iIIIt 00 Airport Ii � .9. + + + +1 + +1 1 IIfi11 •� it . . . .2 . ,. + + + + o� + ♦4 (j + + +{"1i+ + cp �• ti \\ !!' J I • • .Q . 111i 9,1k.17 1.1 • •..4 ' + + + + + + + + , fIilrAn. ,1 I i) Ill . . • v i + + + + + + + + t •\ 1 + + + + + + + +1 1 ` tb /1I1 . . . . + + + + + + + +II ! I 1 .+ k+..1. + + + + +11 (Iiill - r lii , + + +.+ + + +-p,.�j' I + + +-+ + + 1 AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT ZONES MA VERY HIGH NOISE IMPACT . i:kiii HIGH NOISE IMPACT LC:: MODERATE NOISE IMPACT lH � :: HEIGHT RESTRICTION Agricultural land uses once dominant within Salt Lake City now exist in a few limited areas. However limited, there are areas within Salt Lake that should be set aside for the preservation of agricultural land uses. A distinct element of agricultural uses within the Salt Lake area is the development of single family residences on larger parcels of land, usually one acre or larger. The character of future development and the appropriate zoning classification for these areas should be responsive to the preservation of the limited agricultural areas within Salt Lake City. Certain areas within the Northwest Community need to be zoned for agricultural uses with the future land use designated agricultural. The agricultural zoning classification for these areas should not be considered a holding zone for future commercial or industrial land uses. A portion of the area identified in the Northwest Community for agricultural preservation has a land use conflict with the activity of the Salt Lake International Airport. Presently to protect airport operations due to present noise levels areas within Noise Zone "A" have restrictions concerning further residential development. However, one area in particular should allow additional residential development to further the preservation of adjacent and existing agricultural/residential development. The property owners and residents of this area have expressed a strong desire to maintain the agricultural/residential integrity of this area. Industrial and commercial development must be kept from creating a detrimental impact to the preservation of residential uses of the area. With the expansion of the airport toward the west, due to the proposed runway, noise level impacts in the agricultural areas along 2450 West Street should decrease due to less activity on the far eastern runway. The future allowance of agricultural land uses that contain residential uses should be allowed. Avigation easements will be necessary and may need to be strengthened to protect the future operation of the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1980 Master Plan Recommendation The city should continuously monitor development in this area. Developers should be required to design well-planned projects that will be compatible neighbors to the airport and other surrounding land uses. Industrial parks and carefully designed residential developments are potential compatible uses. All uses must be designed to tolerate airport disturbances. Continued agricultural use should also be accommodated. This is one of the few areas of the city where agriculture has prevailed as the dominant land use. These recommendations also apply to areas north and east of the airport that may be annexed in the future. Agricultural zoning should be considered for all areas annexed west of I-215 unless well planned developments compatible with the airport and other neighboring uses are being proposed. DRAFT - Page 11 Land use polices with respect to agricultural/residential land use preservation recommends that the area 1000 feet west of 2240 West Street and north of 2300 North that lies within the Airport A Noise Overlay Zone Should allow as a special exception agricultural/residential land uses. A land use policy for the preservation of this particular agricultural/residential area should be implemented. A policy should be adopted that will resolve the conflict between residential uses and the airport "A" noise zone restrictions. The airport noise overlay zone is part of the city's zoning ordinance. Therefore, the overlay zone is subject to appeal and the granting of variances through the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment. The recommended solution is to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to transitional zoning. The ordinance should allow a special exception for agricultural/residential land uses within certain areas of the Airport Restriction Zone "A". This Special Exception should be for specific uses which must meet the requirements of the Agricultural A-1 Zone and the requirements recommended below: 1. Residential development may occur only as single lot subdivision. 2. Development must meet all of the requirements of the airport's avigation easement. 3. Development must meet sound attenuation requirements established by the airport and the Uniform Building Code. 4. Structures must meet the height restrictions established by the Salt Lake International Airport. 5. Development must clearly meet the intent for the preservation of existing agricultural/residential areas and be adjacent to such land uses. BCUSING Housing is one of the most important elements in a community. It provides shelter, privacy, environmental amenities, and investment opportunity. Construction of new housing should be emphasized, but preservation of the existing housing stock is also of paramount importance. The Northwest Community is mostly developed and a majority of the housing stock consists of single family dwellings. Structural Additions A large percentage of the homes in the Northwest Community are small post World War II vintage dwellings. To accommodate growing families many residents have added-on to enlarge their homes. As the homes in the area turn over to younger couples who will be raising families, those wishing to remain • within the community but needing to enlarge their homes will most likely look DRAFT - Page 12 • at the precedent set by previous expansion projects, namely conversion of carports and garages to living quarters. Such conversions can eliminate required off-street parking. When such conversions take place, the city should ensure that they moot appropriate zoning and building codes. Such conversions can be workable if adequate side yard areas exist which allow for relocation of driveways to appropriately located off-street parking areas. When this situation occurs garage conversions to living quarters will not negatively impact surrounding residential uses through illegal front yard parking or forcing necessary parking to use the public street. The city should undertake an education program to inform the public of { appropriate and legal ways to add-on or expand their homes. Pamphlets, for instance, could be used to outline the necessary permits and procedures for structural additions. Such action should be coordinated along with any increased code enforcement efforts. Jackson Target Area In 1980 the city identified the Jackson Neighborhood as a Community Development Target Area and structural rehabilitation area. This action concentrated the use of Community Development Block Grant funds in the area. Boundaries of the target area are: North Temple to 600 North and I-15 to 1000 West. Concentrating corranunity development grants in specific neighborhoods provides enough funding to make a positive impact. Accomplishments through this program were new housing projects; new streets, sidewalks and utility line replacement; and low cost loans and grants for housing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation loans were used to bring homes up to building code standards. The intent of this program is to provide a signal to the private sector that the city is not going to allow further deterioration of the area to continue. Instead the city policy provides public investment to improve the infrastructure and thereby encourage and support private reinvestment. A number of projects have been undertaken in the Jackson area including a new housing project at 600 North and Interstate 15. (The Grant Street Project) . Also, the Jackson Neighborhood Park was expanded and improved. Many of the neighborhood's 585 residential structures needed repair. During the period since 1980, the city has assisted in rehabilitating 104 homes through loans and grants. The concentration of target area funds is to improve the public infrastructure of the neighborhood. During the time period that a target area is open housing rehabilitation activities are heavily supported. However, after the closure of a target area housing rehab funding still continues but at a less concentrated effort. Alternative residential redevelopment areas. The 1980 Northwest Master Plan identified four residential redevelopment areas in the Jackson neighborhood: Grant Street, 700 West, Hoyt Place and Chicago Street. Grant DRAFT - Page 13 00% iri Street and 700 West sites required land assembly and redevelopment. Hoyt Place and Chicago Streets needed new streets as a means to encourage private development of the vacant interior parcels. The Grant Street site is to be developed as a planned unit development housing project. Chicago Street has been rebuilt. Hoyt Place and 700 West actions have not been implemented. Hoyt Place could be improved through a block redesign project. Potential land assembly to open the interior parcel to 800 West Street should be assessed as part of a block redesign plan. A Hoyt Place block redesign project should be added to the city capital improvement plan. The Jackson target area was closed at the end of the llth CDBG funding year (June 30, 1986) . Continuation of the sidewalk replacement program was extend into the 12th CD funding year to complete target area sidewalk repair • needs. The target area infrastructure needs have been completed. The Jackson Target Area is part of census tract 6. The western portion of this census tract should be closely reviewed with regard to public infrastructure needs. A "needs" analysis should be prepared to determine if the area should be designated a community development target area. Assisted Housing Assisted housing is defined as publicly-subsidized housing. Assisted housing needs for the city are identified in the Housing Element of the city master plan. The Housing Element discusses the need for each community in the city to provide its share of assisted housing opportunities. The Northwest Community's estimated reasonable share of future assisted housing units is 120; fifty elderly units and seventy family units. These housing units would meet needs projected for 1990. However, allocations are not static especially when availability of sites is an important decision factor. The 1980 Northwest Master Plan states that public housing sites should not be located in neighborhoods that are predominantly single-family in character. Also assisted housing projects should require to have approved and compatibly designed buildings. TRANSPORTATION One element important to the success of most land uses is accessibility provided by an adequate transportation system. The Northwest Community is served by a system of local, collector, minor arterial, and major arterial streets. The majority of the streets are local streets basically in a grid pattern functioning as access to individual properties. Collector and minor arterial streets provide circulation within the community. Portions of the community's boundary consists of Interstate highways. • Traffic travels through the community on the Interstates with minimal traffic congestion impact upon the local street circulation system. DRAFT - Page 14 Circ nl ation Improvements Completion of Interstate 215 and the West Davis (Great Salt Lake) Highway will provide new access and impetus for development in the northern portion of the community. The connection of 2100 North to 2300 North Streets between I- 215 and Redwood Road will also improve circulation. Presently a dead-end frontage road exists along Interstate 15 north of 1000 North street. A decision as to the development status of this street should be part of the detailed land use plan called for this area in the update. The development pattern that is finalized for the area north of Rosewood park will have an impact upon the design criteria for this frontage road. The development pattern of the area may result in the necessity to directly connect the frontage road to arterial roadways rather than filter through local streets or closure of the street. Two state roadway improvement projects will have a positive impact on the community's circulation pattern. Relocating North TemDle to connect with I-80 and widening Redwood Road from North Temple to 1000 N. Street, as proposed will aid circulation in the community. The right-of-way for widening Redwood Road has already been acquired. The street is to be widened from 36 feet to 82 feet with construction projected for 1989. However, Redwood Road north of 1000 North Street still requires improvement to service new housing development in this area. The 1980 Master Plan proposed a bikeway system. Expansion of the prccosed system for the northwest will be necessary to link with proposed bike routes of surrounding communities. Official Street Plan The city's major street plan map has designated the anticipated roadways necessary for future development within and adjacent to the city. Through the official street plan the city alerts subdividers when dedication of land for public streets will be necessary. It classifies streets according to the following categories: major arterial, minor arterial, and collector. It should be noted that private land owners will participate with the city in constructing streets in the categories listed above. The street plan map does not identify future local streets since they will be located at the time of land subdivision. DRAFT - Page 15 §,': PARKS (71 The city recognizes the importance of recreation in the lives of its - - - - -residents. As-population increases in the Northwest Community new recreational facilities will be needed along with improvements to existing facilities. In the 1977 Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation Plan, the city identified specific recreational facilities needed in the community. Efforts to meet recreation needs outlined in the 1977 Plan and the 1980 Northwest Community Plan should continue to be carried out by the city and community residents. The city's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies the following projects to help meet recreation needs: 1) renovation of Riverside and Northwest community parks, 2) a new-park west of Redwood Road and 3) improvement to Rosewood Park. Neighborhood Parks Analysis of neighborhood parks with regard to established standards results in the needs priority depicted in Table 2. The neighborhood park deficiency rating provides a rank order for determining placement within the _�'Y: city's capital improvement program. _ J Table 2 Neighborhood Park Deficiency Rating Vacant Percent Census Land Population Below Existing Total Rank Tract Acres(3)* Density(2) Poverty(3) Park(2) Points Order 3.04 406.8 (1)** 22.5 (4) 12.4 (3) No (4) 28 1 1004 1.6 (4) 18.0 (3) 3.5 (1) Yes(3) 27 2 • 1005 4.8 (3) 20.7 (3) 9.7 (2) Yes(0) 21 4 1006 29.6 (2) 20.0 (3) 12.3 (3) Yes(2) 25 3 *Weight of Criteria **Rating-Value The Westpointe development plan includes vacant land between Redwood Road - Interstate 215 and 900 - 1700 North Streets. The Westpointe development company has dedicated property to the city for two neighborhood park sites. The city should develop these two parks when adjacent subdivision development takes place. DRAFT - Page 16 Golf Cour:cc `essay The golf course standard applied in the 1977 Parks master plan is one 18 hole golf course per 25,000 residents. The projected population in 2005 for the Northwest Community is 31,0.00. Community standards will be maintained by • the Rose Park golf course and the State's Jordan River Parkway golf course. However, there is a shortage of golf courses to moot the projected city- wide nccd. To overcome this deficiency a golf course is proposed at a site just south of the International Airport. Another potential golf course site is north of the existing Rose Park course and adjacent to Interstate 15. When renovation of the Rose Park Golf Course is considered active recreational needs and location of such facilities will require analysis due to the population growth associated with the development of Westpointe. Cne alternative to consider is the relocation of the Rosewood Park active recreational facilities to Redwood Road on the present golf course and • relocating portions of the existing golf course along Redwood Road to the area north of Rosewood Park. The site north of the Rose Park Golf Course would provide some benefits in addition to recreation. Natural springs dot the area and create drainage problems. A golf course could control the springs and use them for water hazards on the course. Additionally, placement of dense evergreen vegetation next to the freeway would help alleviate fog problems that occur in the area. Jordan River Parkway The State of Utah created the Jordan River Parkway Authority in 1973 as an alternative to channelization for flood control on the Jordan River. For years the Parkway Authority has coordinated development and acquisition of property along the river. In the early 1940's, the city first endorsed the idea that the river environment should be preserved in a park like setting providing a major natural open space and recreational amenity in the Northwest Ccinnunity. A great deal of work has been done along the river in the Northwest Coiinnunity. The parkway system uses natural channels as much as possible and existing steep banks are cut back and gently sloped to create a safer, wider channel. This recontouring of the river banks creates a modified flood plain that moots the dual purposes of flood control and recreation. For the system to be successful, development can not be allowed to encroach upon the river. As part of the Jordan River Parkway System, the State developed a 10 acre park on Cornell Strcct between the Department of Agriculture and Health buildings in 1985. The park includes a tot lot, picnic shelters, volleyball, softball, and basketball facilities. This park also has pedestrian access through the Jordan River Parkway to the Northwest Multipurpose Center. DRAFT - Page 17 • Wetlands Park The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has chosen to establish a year-round wetlands park on a 30 acre site north of the Department's 56 million gallon per day wastewater treatment facility. Wetlands will be enhanced by using one to five million gallons per day of secondary treated wastewater to provide a water fowl habitat. The project will also create an educational and scientific demonstration facility. The wetlands enhancement proposal has been discussed with representatives from the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Utah Department of Health Bureau of Water Pollution control; and the Salt Lake City-County Department of Health. All these agencies support the proposed project. The project will: - Provide needed wetlands area for bird migration and habitation. Since the Great Salt Lake's recent rise wetlands have been lost consequently, there is a critical need for wetlands for migrating birds and local water fowl. - Provide needed urban wetlands for public enjoyment and education close to the Wasatch Front with easy access from Interstate 15. The department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division indicates that there is a demand for public facilities for wetlands educational programs. - Provide a new use for treated wastewater. Although the wetlands would use a small portion of treated wastewater it would create a scientific pilot area to study other uses of treated wastewater. - Provide a research area for wetlands treatment of stormwater. As a result of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations requiring the treatment of storm water discharges. - Provide recreation. The State Parks Division has indicated that they are interested in expanding the Jordan River Parkway to a wetlands area west of the city's proposed wetlands park. It may be possible to connect the proposed park with the Jordan River Parkway plan in order to provide greater public Use. - Improve the appearance of the city's wastewater treatment plant. The 30 acre site already is classified as wetlands by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. DEVELCEMENT Within the last decade, national attention has focused on commercial revitalization as a means to reverse neighborhood decline. Cycles of neighborhood decline occur in commercial as well as residential areas. Commercial services in the Northwest Community are discussed in this section of the plan. ro A pr - i o Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood commercial areas in the Northwest Community consist of one concentrated business center located at 700 North and Redwood Road and four- corner sites located elsewhere in the community. Stroct corner development is scattered throughout the community. These convenience commercial centers provide easily accessible service to community residents. Services, such as, small retail shops, restaurants, and barber shops make up this category. However, the increasing drawing power of regional shopping centers and easy access to transportation facilities are inducing people to shop outside their neighborhood. Historically these areas have served economic and social functions in support of overall neighborhood activities. The Northwest Community must combat the decline of neighborhood commercial areas to ensure necessary • services. Revitalization Issues. Certain issues need to be addressed in a neighborhood commercial revitalization process. Selection of target areas, establishment of general support for public/private partnerships, encouragement for neighborhood participation, initiation of planning and design, coordination of financing and leveraging, and creation of an ongoing management framework are a few. The city can help a great deal by initiating a neighborhood commercial redevelopment strategy. To be successful, such a strategy must involve both the city and private community interests. Proper and updated site design standards and urban design guidelines are a must in order to ensure commercial activities are of an appropriate character that do not disrupt surrounding residential uses. Urban design guidelines for commercial areas are discussed in the urban design section of this plan. Revitalization efforts of neighborhood business areas must address the following elements: - street and streetscape improvements; - building and facade renovation; - signage and landscaped buffers; - provisions for expansion of existing commercially zoned areas where appropriate. Streetscape elements most in need of improvement are sidewalks, curb cuts, parking strips, landscaped setbacks and general maintenance. Parking strips must be maintained with landscaping. Street tree planting is necessary to soften the harsh environment presented by parking lots associated with commercial uses. Excessive curb cuts add confusion to people using the facilities. Minimizing curb cuts and providing an internal circulation system within the parking lots of adjacent buildings would improve the urban design features of these neighborhood commercial centers. DRAFT - Page 19 4 Often all a building needs is a face lift. Merchants could sponsor an effort to dress up building facades through revolving loan funds and other means. Other ideas should be explored. We must face the fact, however, that not all neighborhood businesses are -going to be successful no matter what measures are taken. Sometimes alternative uses such as housing or office space must be evaluated as replacement land uses. Redevelopment Sites. Five sites for potential neighborhood commercial • revitalization or redevelopment are listed on the following table. Table 3 Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Areas Area Activity 500 N.- 1300 W. No expansion, improve buffers, and long range convert to low density residential use. Rezoning and redevelopment should be supported. 600 N.- 1200 W. Provide buffers and landscaping along rear property lines, plant street trees in the parking strip, screen garbage receptacles, and support renovation and redevelopment. 1000 N. - 1400 W. Extend landscaping in setback areas to include signs and utility poles, remove illegal signage and support facade and design theme renovation. 1000 N. - 900 W. Allow expansion to accommodate revitalization, provide appropriate landscaping, improve parking and ingress/egress traffic movement. Clean up scattered signs, improve signage, extend landscaped area in setbacks to include signage and utility poles, and general clean up of properties. 700 N.- Redwood Provide adequate landscaped buffers along rear property line, provide additional landscaping in the required setbacks, and support facade renovation and a signage program. Improve parking lot and support intensification of commercial uses on this site. DRAFT - Page 20 • ,! i:. Neighborhood Commercial Expansion. The city must carefully assess the impacts before allowing new commercial uses or expansion of existing commercial uses within residential areas. Enough land is already commercially zoned to provide adequate services to the community in the future. However, certain areas of the community lack neighborhood commercial services. For these areas additional commercial zoning maybe required. An analysis of existing neighborhood commercial uses and their respective service areas shows that certain residentially zoned areas within the community do not fall in any neighborhood commercial trade area. These areas are the Westpointe development and the residentially zoned areas north of the Rcse Park golf course. The long range need for additional commercial zoning should be focused in this area. Fully developed areas presently have enough commercial uses and commercial buildings available to provide adequate neighborhood commercial services. Certain areas now zoned for commercial uses consist of residential land uses. In order to discourage small scale strip commercial development these areas should to be rezoned to an appropriate residential zoning classification (see land use conflict section) . To meet commercial land use demand of projected population and employment levels for the year 2005, an additional 25-30 acres of unused land would need to be developed for neighborhood commercial uses. Enough vacant appropriately zoned acreage exists within the community to meet projected demand. However, a concern for future commercial needs is whether this commercial land is appropriately located to service future development patterns and demand. Also. scme future demand requirements may be met through the increased development of certain existing commercial areas, in particular, the commercial complex at 700 North and Redwood Road. Other issues in residential to commercial rezoning requests are the presence of neighborhood demand and support for proposed commercial uses. Also, whether the commercial expansion is merely taking advantage of purchasing lower cost residential property and rezoning to commercial use. The question must be asked, "Is there other appropriately zoned property for development or redevelopment of commercial activity?" These concerns should be part of the decision making process in considering future residential to commercial rezoning requests in the Northwest Community. As stated future additional neighborhood commercial uses are anticipated in the community either through expansion or new development. The following parameters are established to assist the decision making process in the provision of commercial services to future residents. These parameters are should be used as a guideline in considering future requests for zoning changes for commercial uses within the community. The following criteria are for evaluating commercial rezoning requests. - There must be a need for the proposed business project and documented community and neighborhood support. Property owners must address the issue of business need in the whole city perspective and why the proposed site is the best location with regard to the best interest of the community and the city. DRAFT - Page 21 • ( - (7) -- Property must be located on a street that can accommodate the additional traffic. Minimum location criteria would be on a collector street. - The site must be large enough for adequate open space and parking without overcrowding the lot. • - Business projects must be of a density, design and scale that would not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. - No exceptions should be granted to required landscaped setbacks or' landscaped buffers between commercial uses and abutting residential uses. Reduction in parking requirements should not be granted. - Signage should be limited to a pedestrian scale. - Coiiuercial expansion should be new construction only not conversion of residential structures to commercial uses. - Hours of operation and facilities for deliveries should not impact surrounding residents. . - - Rezoning, when appropriate, should be conditional. Conditional rezoning would require that new commercial property develop closer to more restrictive surrounding districts. This transitional action allows some expansion while deterring potential strip development. (However, conditional rezoning is not allowed under State statutes. The city should make a concerted effort to amend State codes to allow for conditional rezoning.) Community Commercial Services In the Northwest Community there is an older industrial area with potential for redevelopment situated between Interstate 215 and Redwood Road south of North Temple Street. The transportation access is excellent. It is anticipated that the future land use in this area will contain some industrial uses and changes toward more commercial oriented land uses. The area of Redwood Road and North Temple Street should also receive future development pressures for office construction related to the implementation of the States' office campus complex. Development of a community level shopping center is another possible land use for this area. Such a center would serve both the Northwest Community and the Westside Community. The desired future land use would see the trucking terminals relocate to the newer industrial areas of the city, along with the elimination of the railroad tracks that cross Redwood Road at South Temple Street. Replacement land use should be similar to commercial uses that have recently developed in this area, particularly uses that support the numerous motel developments. DRAFT - Page 22 Within this area the private sector should assemble the land and redevelop the properties, but the city could provide such economic development incentives as industrial revenue bonds. Possible use of land assembly through the City Redevelopment Agency should be considered in redeveloping this area. The development of the State office complex and the proximity to the Northwest and Westside Communities requires that the area redevelop with land uses that are compatible with to the surrounding residential uses. North Temple - Commercial Strip North Temple Street between Interstate 15 and the International Airport is a commercial strip that borders the southern edge of the Northwest Community. North Temple Street is a gateway into Salt Lake City. The dual function of North Temple as a gateway and commercial strip creates certain conflicts with the urban design elements of this corridor. These two distinct functions need to be unified into a single urban design characteristic that serves both the city and the adjacent couuunities. In this section of the master plan general development guidelines are identified that will guide North Temple's future development, which is a blend of these distinct functions. Because North Temple functions as an arterial strcct, a commercial strip, and "gateway" into the Central Business District, this corridor must not be allowed to deteriorate. Certain factors will impact the future development of North Te:roie Street. Most of the commercial uses along North Temple are tourist related, however, with the completion of Interstate 80 the demand for tourist related commercial uses will likely drop. Expansion of the State fairgrounds and development of the State office complex at Redwood Road and North Temple will bring about additional development pressures along North Temple Strut for related supportive commercial uses. Strip commercial development should not be allowed to expand into the residential areas to the north. Intrusion of commercial uses along side streets would severely effect residential areas and should not be allowed. (Expansion does not refer to increasing the depth of C-1 zoning to accommodate development along North Temple. ) Enforcement of the Commercial "C-1" zoning regulations is required to protect surrounding residential areas along North Temple Street. Strict code enforcement to control signs, land uses and setbacks is needed. Particularly, code enforcement needs to be maintained, with respect to auto rental agency uses converting to illegal used car lots. Presently the North Temple commercial strip is zoned Commercial "C-1". The basic elements determining the urban design character of this zone is a required 15 foot landscaped front yard setback and a height limitation of 2 stories. However, when a "C-1" abuts a zone with a less restrictive height allowance, the "C-1" can take on the height characteristics of the less restrictive zone. In other words, buildings constructed in this situation could far exceed the 2 stories normally allowed. This is disruptive to the • low level character of the North Temple commercial frontage. New development DRAFT - Page 23 along the North Temple stripshould be required to stepback buildingheights �P �� 9 in excess of two stories. Buildings on the north side of North Temple should develop within a solar envelope that will protect residential properties from shadow impacts and provide a smooth transition of scale. Since North Temple is a gateway to the city certain design elements and characteristics need to ------ be provided and maintained that reflect the streets status as a gateway. Urban design guidelines are discussed in the urban design section of this • plan. The Northwest Community Master Plan Update identifies certain objectives designed to guide the development of this area. It recommends that a specific plan be prepared to establish definitive design and development criteria and standards. A specific plan is a plan applicable to small geographical areas with unique characteristics. The specific plan should contain the policies, standards and regulations which provide controls or incentives for the systematic implementation of the plan. The specific plan should address an array of issues, including sign control, building setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, landscape standards, parking and land uses. Identified in the plan would be the applicable zoning codes for the North Temple commercial strip. The planning process of developing a specific plan will allow an opportunity to obtain input from citizens, property owners and businesses. Input from these groups is necessary because of the unique characteristics of the North Temple strip. URBAN DESIQV Urban design control provides a means for fostering environmental quality in a changing urban environment. The urban design element presents recommendations in the form of policies to preserve the urban form and character of the Northwest Community. Many urban design guidelines which are applied city-wide are not addressed in this plan, but will be addressed in the city-wide Urban Design Element. Therefore, the Northwest Community Master Plan and the Urban Design Element must be consulted throughout the design review process of any proposed development. Urban design guidelines for residential areas. The following urban design actions are essential in the Northwest Community: - maintain lawn and trees in the parking strips, - create an active campaign to plant trees on both public and private property, - discourage vehicle parking and storage in front and side yards, which is illegal, DRAFT - Page 24 - keep vacant lots free of litter and woods, - install culverts or fence open ditches • and canals that abut residential lots, and - form special improvement districts among private property owners to bury utility lines underground. Urban design guidelines for commercial areas. Implementation of urban design principles within neighborhood commercial areas and along the North Temple Street commercial strip will guide development towards the desired compatibility standards of the Master Plan. These guidelines are only general standards. The pattern and design of streetscapes should convey a significant message complementing the type and intensity of land development. Through the design a streetscape should unify a district and portray an identity. The strip commercial streetscace acknowledges a less-intense use oriented more for automobiles than pedestrians. Commercial design issues in the Northwest Community are signage, parking lots, landscaped buffers, and the streetscape. These guidelines are only general standards. The following actions should be applied in all commercial areas in the Northwest Community: • - remove excessive curb cuts and curb cuts that do not meet traffic engineering safety design standards. - implement signage guidelines: o signs should be pedestrian oriented in neighborhood commercial areas, o off-premise signs are inappropriate and should be removed, o signs should be flat on buildings and any free standing signs for commercial centers should use a kiosk concept. - provide landscaped buffers betwecn commercial and residential uses. Use of lightproof fencing of compatible materials and colors are encouraged. - parking lots should have delineated appropriate parking layout and traffic flow pattern, ground landscaping and trees should be used to reduce the impact of large areas of asphalt. - Street trees should be placed in the parking strip • to continue the boulevard aspect of the surrounding residential streetscapes. DRAFT - Page 25 • 4 ~ * ' • - Building height limitations should step-back starting with two stories and going higher in locations when a higher base zone height is allowed. ENERGY CCNSERVATICN Strategies for energy conservation involve both conservation within individual structures and the effect of land use patterns on energy efficiency. Structure and Site Design Individuals control energy conservation through design of structures and sites. Development and building codes also come into play. Many energy saving techniques have been published in recent years identifying ways to improve energy efficiency, but they have not been widely applied to existing structures. The perceived cost/benefit of retrofitting for energy conservation limits its application. The city should investigate strategies supporting increased use of energy conservation techniques on a citywide basis. Land Use Patterns Land use patterns have a significant impact on energy consumption. The density and arrangement of land development affect travel time and the amount of energy travel consumes. A strategy to reduce energy consumption involves containment of growth through high density. Development to implement this strategy employment opportunities and commercial facilities should be located close to higher density residential areas. Concentrated urban areas consume less energy, but such concentration imposes other environmental and personal costs. Pollution increases with higher density and there can be a reduction in housing amenities. Land use controls can not easily arrange residential and employment locations to minimize work journeys because workers commute throughout the metropolitan area. However, land use controls may more easily influence non- work journeys, such as, trips for shopping, school, recreational, and social purposes. The following policies would encourage land use linkages that reduce non-work journeys: - Locate facilities attracting non-work journeys at important transportation nodes. - Concentrate high density residential uses adjacent to growth centers. DRAFT - Page 26 J 1 City-Wide Energy Conservation Energy conservation should be addressed comprehensively as a city-wide issue. Increasing energy costs in the future will provide strong pressure for improved local ordinances and energy saving adjustments to development patterns. Energy saving development policies that would benefit residents of the Northwest Conununity are listed below. These policies need to be closely analyzed with respect to their effect on the city as a whole. 1 - Use landscaping to shade buildings, parking lots, streets and other paved areas. - Use windbreaks (trees, hedges, fences and berms) to protect buildings from winter winds. - Provide convenience shopping and service facilities in residential neighborhoods at appropriate locations. - Develop facilities to encourage bicycling and walking. - Provide amenities to encourage use of mass transit. - Increase densities near activity centers. - Use clustering even at low residential densities. - Encourage infill development. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Ear A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a comprehensive multi-year schedule of projects and funding sources for public facility improvements within the city. The CIP is where the relationship between capital needs, community goals and available resources are brought into balance. The Capital Improvements element of this plan depicts the capital needs necessary to achieve the goals and objectives set for the Northwest Community. Future capital improvement programming related to the community should be directed by the goals and priorities of this plan. Proposed capital improvement projects include parks, storm drainage, public buildings, water and sewer facilities, and streets. Because the Northwest Community is mostly developed many of these facilities are in place but need to be upgraded due to age or condition. Capital improvement planning and programming is an ongoing process. City needs and priorities are constantly being reevaluated. Projects and schedules identified in this plan are therefore subject to modification. DRAFT - Page 27 • _ Y .pyi:,•ur.n�..s. iT d k r':tax.E. r.ELiLli%St ..-++t" c'3t i• • J T Proposed Capital Improvement Projects In addition.to listing project needs, a priority level and cost estimate, if available, is provided in the capital improvements list. Cost estimates reflect present values and are not adjusted for inflation. • • DRAFT - Pace 28 • u • .f Irf Streets . Project Project Schedule Cost Estimate Major Streets 700 N. Redwood Rd - 2200 W. 700,000 2200 W. from 700 N.-2100 N. 3,700,000 1700 N. from 2200 W.-Redwood Rd 1,000,000 2300 N. Redwood Rd-I 215 1,000,000 2100 N. 3800 W.-West Davis Highway 1,850,000 Local SID Street Needs Walnut Drive from 1300-1400 W. (street dedication) - • Cornell St. from 500-600 N. - Colorado St.-Ouray Ave. - 1500 W. south of 600 N. - C-ertie Ave. - Hoyt Place Block Redesign (planning) 5,000 Storm Drains • Project Project Schedule Cost Estimate CWA#4 Drainage Ditch 1,200,000 Redwood detention basin Ditch covering 700 N. Misc. pipe improvements Rose Park Drainage 830,000 Parks Project Project Schedule Cost Estimate Rosewood Park 5-10 years 200,000 Riverside Park (parking) 5-10 years 150,000 Riverside Park (irrigation) 5-10 years 150,000 Westpointe Park #1 5-10 years 275,000 Westpointe Park #2 - Northwest Mini-park 1100N-1000W - Public Buildings Project Project Schedule Cost Estimate Fire Station #12 (land & design) 147,280 (construction) 731,940 DRAFT - Page 29 rialp �d•,-. Location•of Fire Hydrant Needs 640 North 1400 West 640 North Colorado Street 640 American Beauty Dr. 1141 Lafayette Dr. 1244 Clark Ave. 830 Picture Dr. 1040 West 600 North 900 West - west side of street 940 Cornell St. from N. Temple to 800 North 1105 West 1000 North • • Note: Individual fire hydrants are not classified as a capital improvement item due to low cost level. Installation of needed fire hydrants should occur when the city Water Department adds to or upgrades the water system in the Northwest Community. IMPLEMEN ATICN STRATEGIES The successful implementation of the Master Plan Update depends on the follow-through efforts by neighborhood groups, city officials, city staff, and private developers. Through a combined effort the Northwest Community Master Plan's goals can be realized. The implementation strategy summary chart outlines actions necessary to carry out the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The chart identifies initiators of certain proposed actions. DRAFT - Page 30 a f r Table 4 Implementation Strategies Summary 0 - Potential initiator (or requires coordination) # - Requires coordination Community Proposed Action Private Council City State State Office Complex # # 0 Rezone residential uses in B-3 areas to appropriate zone . 0 0 # Develop detailed land use plan north of golf course # tt 0 Develop detailed land use plan north of International Airport # 0 Develop bike paths n 0 Acquire & develop park in census tract 4 tt 1 0 Develop neighborhood commercial revitalization strategy # # 0 Develop community level commercial services 0 # Develop specific plan for North Temple commercial strip n tt 0 Develop Hoyt Place block # # 0 redesign Install fire hydrants 0 Develop parks in Westpointe n # 0 Develop wetlands park # 0 0 DRAFT — Page 31 n I I V SALT LAW CITY CORPORATION CRAIG E. PETERSON -..d .._.rJ •.t•...,:.:.,-s w a•,_..,...... DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 7, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-782 submitted by West High School Recommendation: That the City Council hold a non-advertised public hearing on April 3, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-782 submitted by Kristen Clawson for West High School. The petitioners are requesting that 300 North between 200 West and 400 West be given the honorary name of "Panther Way". Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this petition and have recommended approval of the honorary street name. This request was received before the new ordinance on street name changes, therefore, a filing fee was not charged but the request was reviewed under the new criteria outlined in the ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to pay the cost of construction and installation of the sign, and also for any replacement costs due to vandalism or theft. The sign will not by installed until a check in the amount of $110.00 has been received by the Transportation Engineer's Office. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary resolution and is ready for your action. Su mitted by: B. Z terim Directo lf/ r D (1) RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 (Approving the honorary name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West pursuant to Petition No. 400-782-89) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-782- 89 relating to the change of name of 300 North between 200 West and 400 West to "Panther Way" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it appropriate to change the name on an honorary basis without affecting the official name of the street. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt ILake City, Utah, that it does hereby: 1 . Approve the "honorary" name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West subject to payment by petitioner for all costs associated with this change. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: S,; -si CITY RECORDER BRB:ap TAITALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP SA. . „A 'CITY`V�OI\mil ® I0 � PALMER DE PAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 January 9, 1990 Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-782 - West High Honorary Street Name Change Request Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition 400-782 from West High School requesting Salt Lake City to give 300 North Between 200 West and 400 West the honorary name of Panther Way. The recommendation from the City departments is that this should be an "honorary" name for the street which would not effect the official legal designation of the street. Transportation Engineering has identified the following breakdown for the sign installation: Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Cost 2 ea. Name Plate $21.00 $42.00 2 ea. Street Name Signs 17.00 34.00 2 hr. Labor (1 man) 10.50 21.00 Equipment 10.00 Hardware 3.00 Total $110.00 A check for the total amount, payable to Salt Lake City Corporation, must be paid to the Transportation Engineering office before implementation. ON _ r Page 2 Mike Zuhl 5 January 9, 1990 Re: Petition 400-782 - West High Honorary Street Name Change Request It is the planning staff's recommendation that this petition be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and adoption of this street name change by resolution designating Panther Way as an honorary street name and not changing the official street name of 300 North. Additionally, the high school will be required to pay the cost of construction and installation of the sign, and also for any replacement costs due to vandalism or theft. If you have any questions, please call contact Janice Jardine or myself. Sincerely, Allen/C. John on, AICP Planning Dir ctor ACJ:JJ cc: Kirsten Clawson, Petitioner West High Senior Class President r f f RPORATION JOSEPH R. ANDERSON �, N ma) , , wsv_ c ®«�n, PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 507 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7775 January 4 , 1989 Janice Jardine Community Planner Room 406 - Building RE: Petition #400-782 - West High School "Honorary" Street Name Change Dear Janice: The Division of Transportation ' s site review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed "Honorary" street name of 300 North from 200 to 400 West subject to the following: 1) Applicant must comply to all items of the Salt Lake City Policy No. 6 . 03 . 500 for street name change request . 2) All abutting property owners affected by the "Honorary" name change have signed an agreement of approval . 3 ) In compliance with Section VII of the city policy, the cost breakdown for the sign installation changes are as follows : Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Cost 2 ea . name plate $21 . 00 $42 . 00 2 ea . St. name signs 17. 00 34 . 00 2 hr . labor ( I man) 10 . 50 21 . 00 equipment 10 . 00 hardware 3 . 00 TOTAL $110 . 00 A check for the total amount , payable to Salt Lake City Corporation, must be sent before implementation to the following address with approval documentation: Salt Lake City Corporation c/o Kevin Young , Eng . 1 333 South 200 East - Suite 201 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 T . We recommend the City require reimbursement be received within 30 days for replacement of missing or damaged "Honorary" signs. Failure to do so would result in re-application for reinstallation. Sincerel', Scott R. Vaterlaus Traffic Engineer I BDW/lh cc: Barry Walsh jyp-• Ste ie Meyer !/' Kevin Young • file PALMER DEPAULIS SALT' r > CITYCORPORATION' MAYOR MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. "�a` CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City Engineering Division 444 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7871 TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING FROM: HARRY EWING 71 ENGINEERING DATE: JANUARY 8 , 1990 SUBJECT: P.ETITTON 400-782 WEST HIGH SCHOOL REQUESTING AN HONORARY NAME OF PANTHER WAY FOR 300 NORTH BETWEEN 200 WEST AND 400 WEST STREET This department has reviewed this petition and will recommend approval of the honorary name change; however , with a stipulation of strict adherence to the City ' s latest policy regarding street name change . HE: cp cc: Vault 2 REo G441 . v / c p4, LEROY W. HOOTON,JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. SAT i SUPERINTENDENT rOlt IOt�j WATER SUPPLY 8 WATERWORKS s E.TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS WATER RECLAMATION Water Reclamation MAYOR JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. CHIEF FINANCE 8 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING & ZONING FROM: E. T. DOXEY WATER RECLAMATION SUPERINTENDENT DATE: JANUARY 1, 1990 SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 400-782 - WEST HIGH SCHOOL REQUEST FOR AN HONORARY NAME OF PANTHER WAY FOR 300 NORTH BETWEEN 200 WEST AND 400 WEST The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the Petitioner' s request. There are no water or sewer conflicts . If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Ray Eastman at 483-6787. /kg FORMS cc: File DEC 07 1989 . WEST HIGH SCHOOL } a - ' 241 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 \ lil ; ki Telephone 355-5347 1WEST IIWn au uuuIlA.: PANTHERS December 4 , 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis, Here is a copy of a letter sent to your Public Works Director, Joe Anderson. I thought you would like a copy. Thank you for all you have done for West High School. I am excited for such a project to take place. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kirsten Clawson Senior Class President Vi())) 1 qNESTHIGHSCHOOL _ ,. 241 North 300 West If ; ,I I• r Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 � ! 'WEST Telephone 355-5347 PANTHERS December 4, 1989 Mr. Joseph R. Anderson Public Works Director Department of Public Works 451 South State Street Suite 514 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Anderson: West High School, "The School of Scholars and Champions, " kicked off the centennial celebration in September of 1989. Several activities and festivals will be held until the culmination of these events in September of 1990. West High School is the oldest high school established in Utah and has a long line of fine traditions and goals. The Senior class, with support of the Studentbody, Administration, and Alumni Association, would like to present a gift to West High and its Alumni that will last a lifetime. We would like to request that the Salt Lake City Public Works Department, under the direction of Salt Lake City Corporation, to make an additional name to 300 North (in between 200 West and 400 West) to PANTHER WAY. We would like to present this gift to the students, staff, faculty, and alumni during our traditional Pride Week Assembly on Friday, January 12th at 9: 15 a.m. in our Field House. Pride Week will be held January 8th through the 12th. Each day, the students will participate in activities demonstrating their pride towards West High. A It would be an honor and a privilege to us if you and Mayor DePaulis could come to our assembly and present this gift on behalf of Salt Lake City, "The City of Scholars and Champions, " to the studentbody and Alumni of West High School, a national recognized school of excellence. I look forward to hearing from you about this exciting opportunity and if I can be of any help please contact me at my home (355-7036) . Thank you very much. Sincerely, q-\ "O1 Kirsten Clawson Senior Class President cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis Harold Trussel, Principal John Bennion, Superintendent West High Alumni Association, President (73 Golf Reservation Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cam Caldwell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve an amendment to Section 15. 15.035A of the City Code establishing a policy for charging for special groups or tournaments, with a $1 per nine reservation fcc. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A Council staff study of the golf program, conducted in the fall of 1989, generated a recommendation that the City expand its tournament policy to allow more groups to schedule City courses. As part of that study, it was proposed that a surcharge of $1 per nine holes be assessed. It was also proposed that tournaments and groups be required to take carts if they were available. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The letter to Mayor DePaulis to establish the group reservation policy at City golf courses is attached. That letter describes the proposed group reservation policy. Keep features include 1) the $1 per nine hole surcharge; 2) a restriction on tee times until after 11:00 am on weekdays and after 1:00 pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays; 3) a built- in charge for carts. One feature not included in the Council staff study was to open all courses for tournaments after August 31. The $1 per nine hole tournament reservation surcharge should not be a problem. In most cases, there also will be little objection to requiring tournament players to take a cart. The restriction on tee times until 11:00 am on weekdays and after 1:00 pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays will enable pass holders to play in the early morning hours on weekdays. It will also enable non-tournament play in the mornings on weekends when courses are normally busiest. The decision to open all courses for tournaments after August 31 is a good one, because the amount of play decreases sharply after that date. The proposed policy will achieve the goals of generating additional revenue and increasing the amount of play during slow times. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that the City Council approve an ordinance amending Section 15. 16. 035A relating to group reservations at golf courses to establish a reservation fee surcharge and requiring payment seven days in advance. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: Minor objection may be raised by the Senior Citizens Golf Committee who may take the position that the tournament policy will restrict their access to City courses. • Your Salt Lake City Parks&Recreation 196F,West 500 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 Telephone 801 972-7800 March 12 1990 Palmer DePaulis.Mayor ' John Gust. Director of Parks Scott Gardner,Recreation Direc:cr The Honorable Mayor Palmer DePaulis 451 South State Street Rm. 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Changes in the Group Reservation Policy at Municipal Golf Courses. Dear Mayor DePaulis, The Department of Parks and Recreation requests City Council action to approve the proposed amendment to ordinance 15. 16. 035A of the Salt Lake City Code and to approve changes in the City's Group Reservation policy. Recommendation The recommendation of Parks and Recreation is to approve the ordinance as amended and prepared by the City Attorney's office, and to approve the Group Reservation Policy as prepared by Parks and Recreation. Funding No additional funding is required to implement the proposed changes, however a positive revenue impact is anticipated. If the courses are able to book the maximum number of tournaments with the maximum number of players from April 1st to September 30th the increased revenue from the new reservation fee alone would be $51, 280. 00. Since carts are required for tournaments an increase in rental fees will be seen, and the Pro 's anticipate a higher percentage of tournament participants will hit range balls than regular players which will again increase revenues. Background and Discussion The idea of changing the group reservation policy first came up during the study of golf course revenue conducted by Cam Caldwell of the City Council staff. The golf fund will be under pressure this year to make payments on the construction bond and to pay for maintenance on two new courses while not realizing any revenue from those courses. Maximizing revenue is essential for . the golf fund for the next few years. Group tournaments are a way to increase revenue and course use during slow periods. -T There has been considerable pressure from the public to open the courses to more tournament play. Tournaments are an important 6.4 part of golf and this segment of the golfing public should be AP served. The additional cost for tournament play of $1. 00 per person per nine holes is a premium paid for the reservation and tee time. Legislative Documents A copy of the proposed amendment is attached as well as a copy of the entire Group Reservation Policy as proposed. Contact Person The Parks and Recreation representative responsible for briefing the Mayor and City Council is Scott Gardner, Director of Golf, who can be contacted by phone at 972-7800. . Your consideration is appreciated. Would you please schedule us as soon as possible to take these changes to the City Council. We anticipate a large demand for golf this season and we want to be ready to proceed as soon as weather permits. Sincerely, 7 Scott Gardner- Directcr of Golf Group Reservation Pol4cy - Regulations : 1 . Reservations will be taken on the first working day in February at the individual golf courses . Reservations will be taken by phone or in person . 2 . The 18-hole tournament fee will be $21 . 00 per person . ($2 . 00 reservation fee , $12 . 00 green fee , $7 .00 cart) . The 9-hole tournament fee will be $10 . 50 per person . ($1 . 00 reservation fee , $6 .00 green fee , $3 . 50 cart) . 3 . Carts , if available , will be required for each twosome . . No private carts allowed 4 . All fees must be paid one week in advance of reservation . No passes will be accepted in lieu of green fees . No refunds for no shows . No senior or junior discounts .or passes will be accepted . ' 5 . If reservation is cancelled after payment is received , City Parks and Recreation will refund only the -green fees for tee times the city is able to fill with other players . , 6 . Rainouts will be rescheduled or green fees will be refunded . Golf prDs will determine rainouts . 7 . The minimum number of foursomes is five . The maximum number without administration approval is 20 . Larcer groups can only be scheduled with administration approval . 8 . 18-hole golf courses will take 18-hole reservations only. 9- hol_ courses may take 9-hole or 18-hole reservations . Schedule : 1 . kes�rvations will be taken for April through the end of the year . 2 . Tee times will be available after 11 :00 AM on weekdays and a=te:: 1 : 00 PSI on Saturdays , Sundays , and holidays . 3 . No course will schedule more than two tournaments per- week on weekdays . Cours`s can schedule two weekend tournaments per :-.1cnti, one Saturday and one Sunday or on two Sundays . 4 . After August 31st , courses will have open scheduling for tournament play . SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Golf courses--group reservations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15 . 16 .035A OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GOLF COURSES--GROUP RESERVATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 15 . 16 . 035A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf courses--group reservations, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 15.16.035 Golf courses--Group reservations. Reservations for [cxcluaivc] use of a course for group play, tournaments, etc. will be allowed in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Payment [of a nonrefundable reservation fee not to cxcecd fifty dollarc at least seven (7 ) days in advance of : 1 . A per person non-refundable reservation fee as follows : 18 holes $2 . 00 9 holes $1 . 00 2 . All green fees and rentals, with no green fee discount allowed and no season passes accepted. R SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -2-